content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Basic Example}
Let $U$ be a local chart of a real 2-dimensional manifold $X$.
Take a
nondegenerate map $\varphi :U\rightarrow {\Bbb C}^1$ providing $U$ with a
complex structure. For each map $f:U\to \bb C$ which is holoorphic with
respect to the complex structure above we have the map:
$\exp f:U\rightarrow {\Bbb C}^{*}$.
The differential of $\exp f$ is a map
$A:TU\rightarrow T{\Bbb C}^{*}$, where $T{\Bbb C}^{*}=:g({\Bbb C}^*)=\Bbb C$
\negthinspace is the Lie algebra of the group ${\Bbb C}^{*}$.
In the local chart $U\times
{\frak g}({\Bbb C}^{*})$ of rank 2 vector bundle the \negthinspace
$d(\exp f)$ may be written as the connection form $dy_i+\sum%
\limits_{j,k}A_{ij}^ky_jdx_k$ with coefficients \negthinspace $A^1(x_1,x_2)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
u & v \\
-v & u
\end{array}
\right) \ {\rm and}\
A^2(x_1,x_2)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
v & -u \\
u & v
\end{array}
\right) $, where $(x_1,x_2)$ are real and imaginary parts of
complex structure coordinates
induced by $\varphi $, and $(y_1,y_2)$ \negthinspace are coordinates in the
fiber ${\frak g}({\Bbb C}^{*})$. This connection is automaticaly flat, since
the zero-curvature conditions $\frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j}-\frac{%
\partial A_j}{\partial x_i}+[A_i,A_j]$\negthinspace $=0$ in this case are
just the Cauchy-Riemann conditions \negthinspace $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_2}%
=\frac{\partial v}{\partial x_1},\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_1}=-\frac{%
\partial v}{\partial x_2}$. So for a given complex structure we get a family
of flat connections corresponding to holomorphic maps.
Now vice versa, if we have a flat connection $A$
on a trivial real rank 2 vector bundle over a real 2-dimensional manifold $X$,
then, for each local chart $U\times F$ and fixed base point $x'\in X$,
we may integrate A along paths $\gamma$ with $\gamma(0)=x'$, wich gives us a map
$U\to GL(2,{\Bbb R}),\ x\mapsto G_x:=\int\limits_{\gamma(x',x)}e^A$. If we
fix fiber point $y'\in F_{x'}$ then we get a map
\negthinspace $\psi :U\rightarrow F\simeq {\Bbb R}^2,
x\mapsto G_x(y')$. In particular $\psi(x')=y'$.
Now, if we fix a complex structure on $F$ and $A$ is nondegenerate on $U$,
then $\psi $ induces a complex structure on $U$. A change of coordinates on $%
F$ which preserves complex structure may be represented as an action of
the operator \negthinspace $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
-b & a
\end{array}
\right) $. Then a global smooth change of fiber coordinates preserving
complex structure on each \negthinspace $F_x$ is the smooth function $\varphi
:x\mapsto \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a(x) & b(x) \\
-b(x) & a(x)
\end{array}
\right) $,
giving a ''gauge field'' \negthinspace $g(x)=\exp \varphi
:X\rightarrow {\Bbb C}^{*}$. Such a change of fiber coordinates induces the
transform of connection coefficients \negthinspace $g(A)=A+dg\cdot g^{-1}$.
So given a connection \negthinspace $A_0$ we get a map of ''gauge group'' $%
{\cal G}$ to the space ${\cal A}$ of connections, such that \negthinspace $%
{\rm Id}\mapsto A_0$ and ${\cal A}$ gets fibered into orbits of ${\cal G}$-action.
{\it Question:} when a flat connection $A$ may be obtained as the differential of a
globally defined map \negthinspace $X\rightarrow F={\Bbb C}^1$, or what is
the space ${\cal A}^{\prime }/{\cal G}$ of ${\cal G}$-fibers in the flat
connections subspace ${\cal A}^{\prime }\subset {\cal A}$? In particular,
when $X$ is orientable and has a fixed complex structure (Riemann surface),
then it may be repersented by various connections, which, in general, belong to
different ${\cal G}$-fibers. The integration of $A$ with given $v\in x\times
F$ in this case is called analytic continuation.
\section{General construction}
\subsection{Space of Flagged Homotopies}
{\it Step 1}
Take a $1$-dimensional path $\gamma ^1:[0,1]\rightarrow {\Bbb R}^n$. Its
homotopy $\gamma ^2$ with the fixed boundary $\sigma _0=\gamma ^1(0),\sigma
_1=\gamma ^1(1)$ sweeps a $2$-disk $D$. The boundary $\partial D=S^1$ gets a
decomposition into pairs of cells $((\sigma _0,\sigma _1),(\sigma
_0^1,\sigma _1^1))$, where $(\sigma _0,\sigma _1)$ are the boundaries of $\gamma
^1$ (points) and $(\sigma _0^1,\sigma _1^1)$ are the boundaries of the homotopy $%
\gamma ^2$ (semi-circles forming $S^1=\partial D$) (see Fig.1). This
decomposition will be called {\em flagging} of $D$. For each point $p\in D$
we have two numbers $t_1(p),t_2(p)$ - the values at $p$ of parameters of
homotopies $\gamma ^1$ and $\gamma ^2$ correspondingly. Thus we have a
coordinatization of $D$.
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=15cm
Fig.1
\end{center}
\noindent
{\it Inductive step}
Take a $k$-dimensional disk $D^k$ and take its homotopy $\gamma ^{k+1}$ with
the fixed boundary $\partial D^k=S^{k-1}$. It sweeps a $k+1$-disk $D$. If $%
D^k$ is flagged then $\partial D=S^k$ gets flagging with $k$-cells $(\sigma
_0^k,\sigma _1^k)$ being boundaries of $\gamma ^{k+1}$. For each point $p\in
D$ we have the value $t_{k+1}(p)$ of parameter of homotopy $\gamma ^{k+1}$ such
that $p\in \gamma ^{k+1}(t(p))$. If we fix the homotopy on $\sigma _0^k$,
then the corresponding $t^k$-parameter function on $\sigma _0^k$ is extended
via homotopy $\gamma ^{k+1}$ to the $t^k$-coordinatization on $D$. So fixing
a flag of homotopies $(\gamma ^1,\gamma ^2,\ldots ,\gamma ^k)$ on $(\sigma
_0^1,\ldots ,\sigma _0^k)$ correspondingly, where the body $\sigma _0^i$ of
each $\gamma ^i=\gamma ^{i+1}(0)$ is the initial point of the subsequent
flag element $\gamma ^{i+1}$, gives us values $(t^1(p),\ldots ,t^{k+1}(p))$
of the parameters of these homotopies for each $p\in D$ and thus
coordinatization on $D$.
For a manifold $X$ the set of homotopies $\gamma ^k$ with fixed flagged
boundaries will be denoted by $\Gamma ^k(X)$. In particular, $\Gamma ^0(X)=X$%
. For a flagging $\sigma =((\sigma _0,\sigma _1),\ldots ,(\sigma _0^d,\sigma
_1^d))$ the set of elements of $\Gamma ^k(X)$ having this flagging is
denoted by $\Gamma _\sigma ^k(X)$. Elements of $\Gamma _\sigma ^k(X)$ are
subsets of $X$ on one hand and paths in $\Gamma _\sigma ^{k-1}(X)$ on the
other. Then for $\gamma ^k\in \Gamma _\sigma ^k(X),\gamma \in \Gamma _\sigma
^{k+1}(X)$ we may write $\gamma ^k\subset \gamma $ or $\gamma ^k\in \gamma $
correspondingly.
\subsubsection{Composition Law}
Take a pair $\gamma ^{\prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\in \Gamma _\sigma ^k$
such that $\sigma _0^k(\gamma ^{\prime \prime })=\sigma _1^k(\gamma ^{\prime
})$. Then we get an element $\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\circ \gamma ^{\prime
}\in \Gamma _\sigma ^k$. This composition law makes $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$ into
a category called {\em space of flagged homotopies}.
\subsubsection{Flagged Homotopy Groups}
On the space of flagged homotopies set an equivalence relation: $\gamma
^{\prime }\sim \gamma ^{\prime \prime }$ if $\gamma ^{\prime },\gamma
^{\prime \prime }$ belong to the same connected component of $\Gamma _\sigma
^k$, i.e. there is an element $\gamma ^{k+1}\in \Gamma ^{k+1}$ such that $%
(\gamma ^{\prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime })=(\sigma _0^k,\sigma
_1^k)(\gamma )$ (or $\gamma ^{\prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime }$ are
cobordant). Category composition law on $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$ commutes with
this factorisation.
Take coincident highest dimension cells of $\sigma $, $\sigma
_0^{k-1}=\sigma _1^{k-1}$. Then we get a group structure on the
corresponding quotient space $\Pi _k(X,\sigma )$.
\begin{example}
If all boundaries $(\sigma _0^i,\sigma _1^i)$ of $\sigma $ are set (belong)
to a single point $p$, then $\Pi _k(X,p)$ becomes Abelian for $k>1$, and $\Pi
_k(X,p)=\pi _k(X,p)$ is just the usual $k$-th homotopy group of manifold $X
$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Differential Calculus on $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$}
\subsubsection{Tangent to the Space of Flagged Homotopies}
For $\sigma \in \Gamma ^k\subset X$ elements of the tangent space to $%
\Gamma ^k$ at $\sigma $ are restrictions onto $\sigma $ of vector fields on $%
X$ and will be denoted $T_\sigma \Gamma ^k$.
\subsubsection{Integration over $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$}
Take a $1$-form $\varphi $ on $T_\sigma \Gamma ^k$ with values in algebra $%
{\frak g}$. For $\gamma \in \Gamma ^k$ the corresponding homotopy parameter $%
t$ is a function on $|\gamma |\subset X$. Take the vector field $v_t:=\frac{%
\partial \ln x}{\partial t}:=
\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}
\frac{\ln (x_i(t+\Delta t)-x_i(t))}{\Delta t}$.
Then we have a map $\int\exp(\varphi):\Gamma
^{k+1}\rightarrow G,\gamma \mapsto
{\lim\limits_{\bigtriangleup t\rightarrow 0}}
\prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}\exp ((\varphi ,v)\Delta t)$, called {\em %
multiplicative integral}, where $G=\exp {\frak g}$, is the Lie group,
corresponding to Lie algebra of which ${\frak g}$ is the universal
envelopping one. The value $\int\limits_\gamma\exp(\varphi)$ of
the multiplicative integration functional will also be denoted as $\varphi(\gamma)$.
\begin{example}
Take a 1-form $\omega \in \Omega ^1(X)$ with values in algebra ${\frak g}$.
It is also a $1$-form on $T\Gamma ^0$. For a point $p\subset X$ take a path $%
\gamma ([0,1])$ with $\gamma (0)=p$. Take a partition $(t_0,\ldots ,t_N)$ of
the interval $[0,1]$. Then we get a value of $\omega $ on $\gamma $ as: $%
\int\limits_\gamma\exp(\omega):=
{\lim\limits_{\bigtriangleup t\rightarrow 0}}
\prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}\exp ((\omega ,v(t_i))\cdot (t_{i+1}-t_i))\in G$,
where $v(t):=v(x(t))\in T_xX=T_{\gamma (t)}\Gamma ^0$ with the components
$v_k(t):=
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}
\frac{\ln (x_k(t+\Delta
t)-x_k(t))}{\Delta t}$. Notice that the ordering in the ''integral product''
is fixed although the limit does not depend on a choice of parametrisation
of $\gamma $.
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Derivation in $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$}
A ${\frak g}$-valued $1$-form $\varphi $ on $T_\gamma \Gamma ^k$ is an
operator $T_\gamma \Gamma ^k\rightarrow {\frak g}$. For a pair of tangent
vectors $u,v\in T_\gamma \Gamma _\sigma ^k$ (vector fields on $\gamma $) we
can take a closed path $\gamma (u,v)$ in $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$ passing through
points $\gamma ,\gamma +\exp (u),\gamma +\exp (u)+\exp (v),{\rm and}\gamma +\exp
(u)+\exp (v)+\exp (-u)$, where $\gamma +\exp (v)$ is the result of the shift
of $\gamma $ along the integral paths of $v$ in $X$. Then take $\varphi
^{\prime }:=
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln \varphi
(\gamma (u\Delta t^1,v\Delta t^2))}{\Delta t^1\Delta t^2}\in {\frak g}$,
where $\varphi (\gamma )$ is the multiplicative integral of $\varphi $ over $%
\gamma $. This gives us an operator $\wedge ^2T_\gamma \Gamma _\sigma
^k\rightarrow {\frak g}$ called {\em derivative} of $\varphi $.
\begin{example}
For an algebra ${\frak g}$ and $G=\exp {\frak g}$ take a $G$-valued function
$g$ on $\Gamma ^0(X)=X$. Take a path $\gamma ([0,1])\in \Gamma ^1(X)$ with $%
\gamma (0)=p_0$ and $\gamma (1)=p_1$ and lets write $g(t):=g(\gamma (t))$.
For a partition $(t_0,\ldots ,t_N)$ of the interval $[0,1]$ we have $%
g(1)\cdot g(0)^{-1}=\prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}g(t_{i+1})\cdot
g(t_i)^{-1}=\prod \exp (\frac{\ln (g(t_{i+1})\cdot g(t_i)^{-1})}{\Delta t}%
\cdot \Delta t)$. If we define the directional derivative $g_\gamma ^{\prime
}:=
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}$ $\frac{\ln (g(t+\Delta t)\cdot
g(t)^{-1})}{\Delta t}\in {\frak g}$ then $g(1)\cdot g(0)^{-1}=
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\prod \exp (g_\gamma ^{\prime }(t_i)\cdot
(t_{i+1}-t_i))$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Variational Calculus on $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$}
Take a $1$-form $\varphi \in \Omega ^1(\Gamma ^{k-1})$. It gives us a
multiplicative integration functional on $\Gamma ^k$. Take $\gamma \in
\Gamma ^k$, and for $u\in T_\gamma \Gamma _\sigma ^k$, take a variation $%
\stackrel{\sim }{\gamma }:=\gamma +\delta \gamma =\gamma +\exp (u\Delta t)$
of $\gamma $. Define the {\em first variation} of the functional as $(\delta
\varphi ,u):=
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln (\varphi
(\gamma +\exp (u\Delta t))\cdot \varphi (\gamma )^{-1})}{\Delta t}$. It
gives us an operator $T_\gamma \Gamma _\sigma ^k\rightarrow {\frak g}$. So,
taking variational derivative of a $1$-form on $T\Gamma ^{k-1}$ we get a $1$%
-form on $T\Gamma ^k$.
\begin{proposition}
$(\delta \varphi ,u)=
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln
((\varphi ^{\prime }\llcorner u\Delta t+\varphi )(\gamma )\cdot \varphi
(\gamma )^{-1})}{\Delta t}$.
\end{proposition}
Take a partition $(t_0,\ldots ,t_N)$ of the domain of the homotopy $\gamma $ and
the vector field $v=(\frac{\partial x}{\partial t})$. Then we can write
variation of $\varphi $ as an limit of ''integral products''
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta\varphi &=&
\prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}\varphi(\stackrel{\sim }{\gamma(i)}
\stackrel{\sim }\gamma(i+1))\cdot
\prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}\varphi(\gamma (i+1){\gamma(i)})\\
&=&
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}%
\varphi ^{\prime }\llcorner{v(x(i)+\delta
x(i))}(t_{i+1}-t_i)\cdot \prod\limits_{i=0}^{N-1}\varphi ^{\prime
}\llcorner{v(x(i))}(t_i-t_{i+1})\nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we can expand such a product
into series in $u_i:=u(x(i))$ as $\delta \varphi =1+f_1\cdot u\Delta
t+f_2\cdot u^2\Delta t^2+o(u^2)$, where $f_k\cdot u^k$ denotes the sum of terms
of order $k$. In general this is not the expansion of
$\exp (f_1\cdot u\Delta t)$ and since the number of commutations in terms of
order $\Delta t^2$ has order $\frac 1{\Delta t}$ then these terms make an
impact into terms of oreder $\Delta t$. Hence, unlike that in the
commutative case, the difference $\varphi (\gamma ^{\prime \prime })\cdot
\varphi (\gamma ^{\prime })^{-1}$ is not equal to $
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}
\prod\limits_{j=0}^{N-1}\exp ((\delta \varphi ,u)\cdot
\Delta t)$.
\subsubsection{Integrable Forms}
If the variation of the multiplicative integral functional is identically $0$
then cobordant elements of $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$ have the same value of $%
\varphi $, i.e. $\varphi (\gamma )\in G$ is constant on connected components
of $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$. Such forms will be called {\em integrable}. Since
those components correspond to elements of nonabelian homotopy group $\Pi
_k(X,\sigma )$ and the integration functional is a functor to $G$, then we have
\begin{Proposition}\label{prp:ifr}
Each integrable form gives a representation $\Pi _k(X,\sigma )\to G$.
\end{Proposition}
The identity $\delta \varphi (u)\equiv 0$ for all $u$ implies that in the series
expansion $\delta \varphi =1+(f_1\cdot u)\Delta t+(f_2\cdot u^2)\Delta
t^2+\ldots\ $ all the coefficients $f_i=0$. In particular, $f_1\cdot u=%
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln ((\varphi ^{\prime
}\llcorner u\Delta t+\varphi )(\gamma )\cdot \varphi (\gamma )^{-1})}{\Delta
t}\equiv 0$ implies $\varphi ^{\prime }(\gamma )\equiv 0$. Then in order to
decide on integrability of forms we have to compute their derivatives.
The value of the integral of an integrable form in general depends on the flagging $%
\sigma $.
\begin{example}
Take a connection form and an integration path in the form of a torus cut (see
Fig.3). For initial point being $A=\sigma _0=\sigma _1$ and clockwise
direction the value of the integral is
\[
\varphi (\gamma ;A)=aba^{-1}b^{-1}
\]
For flaging set into point $B$ and the same direction the integral is
\[
\varphi (\gamma ;B)=ba^{-1}b^{-1}a
\]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=8cm
Fig.3
\end{center}
\end{example}
\subsection{Integration of ${\frak g}$-valued Forms}
{\it Step 1}
Take a $1$-form $A\in \Omega ^1(X)$ with values in ${\frak g}$ (connection
form). Then it is also a $1$-form on $T\Gamma ^0$ so $A$ gives us a measure
for multiplicative integration.
\noindent
{\it Inductive step}
Suppose we have defined integration of ${\frak g}$-valued exterior $(k-1)$%
-forms on $X$. Take a sequence of forms $(\omega =\omega ^k,\ldots ,\omega
^1)$ where $\omega ^i\in \Omega ^i(X;{\frak g})$. For $\gamma \in \Gamma
^{k-1}$ and $v\in T_\gamma \Gamma _\sigma ^{k-1}$ taking a convolution of $%
\omega $ with $v$ we get a $(k-1)$-form $\omega \llcorner v+\omega ^{k-1}\in
\Omega ^{k-1}(X)$ on $\gamma \subset X$. Note, that $\omega \llcorner
v+\omega ^{k-1}$ in general is not a restriction onto $\gamma $ of any local
$(k-1)$-form on $X$. Then we get a $1$-form $\varphi (\omega )$: $v\mapsto
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln ((\omega \llcorner
v\Delta t+\omega ^{k-1})(\gamma )\cdot \omega ^{k-1}(\gamma )^{-1})}{\Delta t%
}\in {\frak g}$ on $T_\gamma \Gamma _\sigma ^{k-1}$, also denoted by $\omega
$, which is defined by induction. Since computation of $\omega ^{k-1}(\gamma
)$ is in its turn dependent of $\omega ^{k-2}$, then $\varphi $ is actually
the dependent of the total flag of forms $\varphi =\varphi (\omega ^k,\ldots
,\omega ^1)$. For $\gamma ^k\in \Gamma ^k$ take the vector field $v=(\frac{%
\partial x}{\partial t})$ corresponding to the parameter $t^k$ of homotopy.
Then we have a map $\Gamma ^k\rightarrow G,\gamma \mapsto
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}
\prod\limits_{j=0}^{N-1}\exp (\varphi (\omega
^k,\ldots ,\omega ^1),v\cdot \Delta t)$. Thus each element of $\Omega ^k(X;%
{\frak g})$ gives us a measure of integration on $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$. Note,
that in general the value of functional $\omega $ depends on $\gamma $. In
particular, two homotopies with the same body $|\gamma ^{\prime }|=|\gamma
^{\prime \prime }|\subset X$ but still being different paths in $\Gamma
_\sigma ^{k-1}$ may have different values of $\omega $-integral.
For each $(k-2)$-dimensional flag $\sigma $ the above defined integration
gives a functor form $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$ to $G$.
\subsection{Computation of the Exterior Derivative of a ${\frak g}$-valued Form}
We have a formal definition of exterior derivative in terms of forms on
the space $\Gamma^k$ of paths. In this section we will see
\subsubsection{Lattice Approximation of a Homotopy}
Take a flag $\gamma =(\gamma ^1,\gamma ^2,\ldots ,\gamma ^k)$ of homotopies
and for each $\gamma ^i$ take a partition $(t_0^{(i)},\ldots ,t_{N_i}^{(i)})$
of the interval $[0,1]^{(i)}$. Each $t_j^{(i)}$ defines a hypersurface $%
\sigma (t_j^{(i)})$ in $D$, with induced flagging. The set of those
hypersurfaces for $i=0,...,k$ induces a cellular decomposition of $D$. For a
proper fineness of subdivisions those cells become homeomorphic to cubes.
This decomposition will be called {\em lattice approximation} of $D$. For
each cube $c_{n_0,\ldots ,n_k}$ take the set of its edges coming out of the
''lowest'' vertex with coordinates $(t_{n_0}^1,\ldots ,t_{n_k}^{(k)})$. An
edge with endpoint $(t_{n_0}^1,\ldots ,t_{n_i+1}^{(i)},\ldots
,t_{n_k}^{(k)})$ gives us a vector of $T_{(t_{n_0},\ldots ,t_{n_k})}D$ with
coordinates $(0,\ldots ,t_{n_i+1}^{(i)}-t_{n_i}^{(i)},\ldots ,0)$ in the
basis $\{\frac \partial {\partial t^{(0)}},\ldots ,\frac \partial {\partial
t^{(k)}}\}$. Then the frame of edges at the vertex $(n_0,\ldots ,n_k)$ gives an
element of $\wedge ^{k+1}T_{(t_{n_0},\ldots ,t_{n_k}^{(k)})}D$ - the volume
element.
\begin{proposition}
There is a cellular homomorphism $\kappa $ of a $d$-cube onto flagged $d$%
-disk.
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
Let $d=3$. Denote by $v_{ijk},$ $e_{*ij},f_{**i}$ vertices, edges and faces
correspondingly. The homomorphism is:
\begin{center}
$\begin{array}{rl}
v_{000}\longmapsto \sigma _0,& v_{111}\longmapsto\sigma_1\\
e_{*00}\cup e_{10*}\cup e_{1*1}\longmapsto \sigma _0^{\prime },& e_{*11}
\cup e_{01*}\cup e_{0*0}\longmapsto \sigma _1^{\prime } \\
f_{**0}\cup f_{1**}\cup f_{*1*}\longmapsto \sigma _0^{\prime \prime },& f_{**1}
\cup f_{0**}\cup f_{*0*}\longmapsto \sigma _1^{\prime \prime }
\end{array}$
\end{center}
\end{example}
This homomorphism induces a structure of flagged disk on each cubic cell $%
c_{n_0,\ldots ,n_k}$ of decomposition of $D^{k+1}$. The homotopy $\gamma
^{(k)}$ may be partitioned into a sequence of infinitesimal homotopies $%
\delta \gamma $, where each $\delta \gamma =\delta \gamma _{n_0,\ldots ,n_k}$
is a homotopy, sweeping a cubic cell $c_{n_0,\ldots ,n_k}=|\delta \gamma
_{n_0,\ldots ,n_k}|$ and concordant with its flagging structure. This
sequence induces an ordering $\Gamma $ on the set of cells. Given a value $%
\tau \in \Gamma $ we get a homotopy $\gamma _\tau ^{(k)}=\prod\limits_{\tau
^{\prime }<\tau }\delta \gamma _{\tau ^{\prime }}$ as well as the flag $%
(\gamma _\tau ^{(k)},\ldots ,\gamma _\tau ^{(0)})$ of homotopies $\gamma
_\tau ^{(i-1)}=\sigma _1(\gamma _\tau ^{(i)})\cap \sigma
(t_{n_{i-1}}^{(i-1)})$, where $\sigma _1(\gamma )$ denotes the ending border
of homotopy $\gamma $ and $\sigma (t^{(i)})$ denotes the hypersurface with
the given value $t^{(i)}$ of $i$-th coordinate on $D$.
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=15cm
Fig.4
\end{center}
For flagged $(d+1)-$disk take its boundary $\partial D=\sigma _0^{(d)}\cup
\sigma _1^{(d)}$. The cellular homomorphism $\kappa $ of a cube onto $D$
induces a cellular subdivision of each of $\sigma _0^{(d)}$ and $\sigma
_1^{(d)}$ into $d+1$ cubes (see Fig.4). Taking pre-image of the flagging of $%
\sigma _i^{(d)}$ induces a flag of chains of faces in $\kappa ^{-1}(\sigma
_i^{(d)})$.
\begin{proposition}
There is a lattice approximation of the homotopy from the subflag $\sigma _0^{(d-1)}$
to $\sigma _1^{(d-1)}$ which may be represented as a ''connected'' path in
the set of $d-$cells of $\kappa ^{-1}(\sigma _i^{(d)})$.
\end{proposition}
Term ''connected'' here means that each next $d-$cell in the sequence has a
common $(d-1)-$cell with the previous one.
\begin{example}
Let $d=2$ and take homomorphism from the previous example. Then the
pre-image of flagged 2-sphere $\sigma _0^{\prime \prime }$ consists of $3$
faces $f_{**0},f_{1**},f_{*1*}$. $\partial \sigma _0^{\prime \prime }=\sigma
_0^{\prime }\cup \sigma _1^{\prime },\kappa ^{-1}(\sigma _0^{\prime
})=f_{*00}+f_{10*}+f_{1*1},\kappa ^{-1}(\sigma _1^{\prime
})=f_{0*0}+f_{01*}+f_{*11}$. The deformation from $\kappa ^{-1}(\sigma
_0^{\prime })$ to $\kappa ^{-1}(\sigma _1^{\prime })$ is a sequence of
chains: $f_{*00}+f_{10*}+f_{1*1},\ f_{*00}+f_{1*0}+f_{11*},\
f_{0*0}+f*_{10}+f_{11*},\ f_{0*0}+f_{01*}+f_{*11}$. We may say that each
subsequent chain in this sequence is obtained by sweeping across a $2$-face
- the formal ''difference'' between those two chains. For instance $\
f_{*00}+f_{1*0}+f_{11*}=f_{*00}+f_{10*}+f_{1*1}+f_{1**}$.
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Infinitesimal Loops in $\Gamma _\sigma ^k$}
Now take a homotopy of $\sigma _0^{(d-1)}$ to $\sigma _1^{(d-1)}$ across $%
\sigma _0^{(d)}$, and then from $\sigma _1^{(d-1)}$ to $\sigma _0^{(d-1)}$
across $\sigma _1^{(d)}$. We get a loop in the space of flagged $(d-1)$%
-disks which weeps the surface of $(d+1)$-disk $D$.
\begin{example}
For $d=3$ the $4$-disk boundary $\partial D=S^3=\sigma _0^{(3)}\cup \sigma
_1^{(3)}=D_0^3\cup D_1^3$ consists of two $3$-disks glued along a common
sphere $S^2$. In its turn $S^2=$ $\sigma _0^{(2)}\cup \sigma
_1^{(2)}=D_0^2\cup D_1^2$ glued along $S^1$. Then we can continuously drag $%
D_0^2$ to $D_1^2$ through $D_1^3$ with $S^1$ fixed and then move back to $%
D_0^2$ but now through $D_1^3$ thus sweeping the whole $\partial D$.
\end{example}
For a covering $\kappa $ of $D$ by a cube $c$ the lattice approximation of
this loop is an ordered sequence of $d$-faces of the covering cube, denoted
by $\overrightarrow{\partial }c$.
\noindent
{\it Steps 1 and 2}
For $\gamma \in \Gamma _\sigma ^k$ denote $\gamma (i):=\gamma (t_i)$. Then
for $\gamma ^{\prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\in \Gamma _\sigma ^k$ and a
partition $(t_0^k,\ldots ,t_N^k)$ of the domain $[0,1]$ of homotopy we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma ^{\prime \prime } &=&(\gamma ^{\prime }(0)\gamma ^{\prime \prime
}(0)\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(1)\gamma ^{\prime }(1)\gamma ^{\prime
}(0))\cdot (\gamma ^{\prime }(0)\gamma ^{\prime }(1))\cdot (\gamma ^{\prime
}(1)\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(1)\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(2)\gamma ^{\prime
}(2)\gamma ^{\prime }(1))\cdot (\gamma ^{\prime }(1)\gamma ^{\prime
}(2))\cdot \ldots \\
\ &=&\prod\limits_{j=0}^{N-1}(\gamma ^{\prime }(j)\gamma ^{\prime \prime
}(j)\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(j+1)\gamma ^{\prime }(j+1)\gamma ^{\prime
}(j))\cdot (\gamma ^{\prime }(j)\gamma ^{\prime }(j+1))
\end{eqnarray*}
where $(\gamma _1\gamma _2...)$ denotes the path in $\Gamma _{^{(1)}\sigma
}^{k-1}$ through a sequence of points $\{\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\ldots \}$.
Take a flag of homotopies $(\gamma ^{d+1},\gamma ^d,\ldots ,\gamma ^1)$ and
let $\gamma ^{\prime }=\gamma ^{d+1}(i),\gamma ^{\prime \prime }=\gamma
^{d+1}(i+1)$. Then we can write a lattice approximation of the above
decomposition as $\gamma (i+1)=\prod\limits_{j=0}^{N-1}\overrightarrow{%
\partial }([i,j][i+1,j+1])\cdot ([i,j][i,j+1])$, where $([i,j][i+1,j+1])$
denotes a $2$-cube (square) based on verticies $(i,j)$ and $(i+1,j+1)$, and $%
([i,j][i,j+1]):=(\gamma ^{\prime }(j)\gamma ^{\prime }(j+1))$. For a
partition $(t_0^{d-1},\ldots ,t_{N_{d-1}}^{d-1})$ of the domain of $\gamma
^{d-1}$ the $1$-loop $\overrightarrow{\partial }([i,j][i+1,j+1])$ in $\Gamma
_{^{(1)}\sigma }^{d-1}$ may be decomposed into a product: $\overrightarrow{%
\partial }([i,j][i+1,j+1])=\prod\limits_{k=0}^{N_{d-1}-1}\overrightarrow{%
\partial }([i,j,k][i+1,j+1,k+1])\cdot
([i,j,k][i,j+1,k+1])\prod\limits_{k=0}^{N_{d-1}-1}([i,j+1,k+1][i,j,k])$. The
sequence $\overrightarrow{\partial }([i,j,k][i+1,j+1,k+1])$ of cube faces is
a $2$-loop in $\Gamma _{^{(2)}\sigma }^{d-2}$.
\noindent
{\it Inductive step}
A lattice approximation of $k$-loop $\overrightarrow{\partial }%
([i^{d+1},\ldots ,i^{d-k+1}][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots ,i^{d-k+1}+1])$ in $\Gamma
_{^{(k)}\sigma }^{d-k}$ may be decomposed into a product
$\begin{array}{l}
\prod\limits_{i^{d-k}=0}^{N_{d-k}-1}\overrightarrow{\partial }%
([i^{d+1},\ldots ,i^{d-k}][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots ,i^{d-k}+1])\cdot
([i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots ,i^{d-k}][i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots
,i^{d-k}+1])\\
\cdot\prod\limits_{i^{d-k}=0}^{N_{d-k}-1}([i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots
,i^{d-k}+1][i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots ,i^{d-k}])
\end{array}$
which is a product of $(k+1)$-paths in $\Gamma _{^{(k+1)}\sigma }^{d-(k+1)}$%
. The last term of this sequence of decompositions is
$\begin{array}{l}
\prod\limits_{i^1=1}^{N_1-1}\overrightarrow{\partial }([i^{d+1},\ldots
,i^1][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots ,i^1+1])\cdot ([i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots
,i^1][i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots
,i^1+1])\\
\prod\limits_{i^1=1}^{N_1-1}([i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots
,i^1+1][i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots ,i^1])
\end{array}$
\noindent
which is a product of $d$-paths in $\Gamma ^0=X$.
\subsubsection{Variation of ${\frak g}$-valued Forms}
Now having a lattice approximation of the flag of homotopies $(\gamma
^{d+1},\gamma ^d,\ldots ,\gamma ^1)$ we can write $\gamma ^{d+1}(1)\cdot
\gamma ^{d+1}(0)^{-1}$ as a path through $d$-faces of $(d+1)$-cubes of
the lattice.
For a degree $d$ flag of forms
$\omega=(\omega^d,\dots,\omega^1)$ we have the value of
multiplicative integral functional
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\omega (\gamma ^{d+1}(1)\cdot \gamma ^{d+1}(0)^{-1})
=\prod_{i^{d+1}=1}^{N_{d+1}-1}(\prod_{i^d=1}^{N_d-1}\ldots \\
&&\prod_{i^1=1}^{N_1-1}\omega (\overrightarrow{\partial }([i^{d+1},\ldots
,i^1][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots ,i^1+1]))\cdot \omega ([i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots
,i^1][i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots ,i^1+1])\\
&&\omega ([i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots,i^1+1][i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots ,i^1])
\prod_{i^1=1}^{N_1-1}
\omega([i^{d+1},i^d,\ldots ,i^1][i^{d+1},i^d+1,\ldots ,i^1+1])\\
&&\ldots \prod_{i^d=1}^{N_d-1}\omega ([i^{d+1},i^d+1][i^{d+1},i^d]))
\end{eqnarray*}
where the value of $\omega$ on cells of dimension $k<d$ is the value of
the subflag $\omega^{(k)}:=(\omega^k,\dots,\omega^1)$ of corresponding dimension,
which is defined by induction.
The integral has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item
if the highest degree form $\omega^d=0$ then $\int\exp\omega=1=\exp 0\in\exp g$
\item
for a composition of integration paths $\gamma=\gamma'\circ\gamma''$ the value
of integral is $\int_\gamma\exp\omega=\int_{\gamma'}\exp\omega\cdot\int_{\gamma''}\exp\omega$
({\bf multiplicativity})
\item
if $\omega^d=d\omega^{(d-1)}$ then
$\int_\gamma\exp\omega=\int_{\gamma(1)}\exp\omega^{(d-1)}\cdot(\int_{\gamma(0)}\exp\omega^{(d-1)})^{-1}=
\int_{d\gamma}\exp\omega^{(d-1)}$
({\bf Stokes formula})
\end{itemize}
If $\delta _X\omega :=\omega (\overrightarrow{\partial }([i^{d+1},\ldots
,i^1][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots ,i^1+1]))\equiv 0$ then this product contracts to $1$%
, then $\omega (\gamma ^{d+1}(1))\equiv \omega (\gamma ^{d+1}(0))$ (i.e. $%
\omega $ is integrable) and since for integrable $\omega $ this identity
does not depend on the choice of $\gamma ^{d+1}$ then the condition $\delta
_X\omega \equiv 0$ is also nesessary and $\delta _X\omega $ is called $X$-%
{\em variation} of $\omega $. Each cube $([i^{d+1},\ldots
,i^1][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots ,i^1+1])$ gives us a frame of tangent vectors $%
(v_{t_1}\Delta t_1,\ldots ,v_{t_{d+1}}\Delta t_{d+1})$ such that $%
x(i^{d+1},\ldots ,i^1)+\exp (v_{t_k}\Delta t_k)=x(i^{d+1},\ldots ,i^k,\ldots
,i^1)$. Then we have an expansion of $\delta \omega $ into series of $%
(v_{t_i})$ and the integrability $\delta \omega \equiv 0$ is equivalent to
vanishing of coefficients of all terms of this expansion. In particular, the
first (homogenious) degree terms give a map $v_{t_1},\ldots
,v_{t_{d+1}}\mapsto
{\lim\limits_{\Delta t\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln
\omega (\overrightarrow{\partial }([i^{d+1},\ldots ,i^1][i^{d+1}+1,\ldots
,i^1+1]))}{\Delta t_1\ldots \Delta t_{d+1}}$ which is a ${\frak g}$-valued $%
(d+1)$-form $d\omega \in \Omega ^{d+1}(X;{\frak g})$ called {\em (first)
exterior derivative} of $\omega $. Coefficients of monomials of degree $k$
will be called {\em exterior derivatives of order} $k$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prp:dfie}
A derivative of a form is integrable form.
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
$k=1$, $\omega =A$ is a connection form of trivial ${\frak g}$-bundle. Then
the $1$-loop is a square spanned by line elements $u,v$. The corresponding
''Riemann product'' approximation to the value of Wilson loop $A(\gamma )$
is $e^{A_u(0,0)\cdot u}\cdot e^{A_v(u,0)\cdot v}\cdot e^{-A_u(u,v)\cdot
u}\cdot e^{-A_v(0,v)\cdot v}$, where $A_u$ is the component of the
connection form in $u$ direction. Then the first derivative
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&d\omega :=
{\lim\limits_{u,v\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln A(\gamma )}{u\cdot v}%
=
{\lim\limits_{u,v\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln (e^{A_u(0,0)\cdot u}\cdot
e^{A_v(u,0)\cdot v}\cdot e^{-A_u(u,v)\cdot u}\cdot e^{-A_v(0,v)\cdot v})}
{u\cdot v}\\
&&\ =
{\lim\limits_{u,v\rightarrow 0}}\frac{1}{u\cdot v}\ln ((1+A_uu+\frac{(A_uu)^2}{2})(1+(A_v+%
\frac{\partial A_v}{\partial u}u)v+\frac{(A_vv)^2}{2})\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \cdot(1-(A_u+\frac{\partial A_u}{%
\partial u}u-\frac{\partial A_u}{\partial v}v)u+\frac{(A_uu)^2}{2})(1-(A_v-\frac{%
\partial A_v}{\partial u}u)v+\frac{(A_vv)^2}{2}))\\
&&\ =
{\lim\limits_{u,v\rightarrow 0}}\frac{\ln (1+(\frac{\partial A_u}{%
\partial v}-\frac{\partial A_v}{\partial u}+[A_u,A_v])u\cdot v)}{u\cdot v}=%
\frac{\partial A_u}{\partial v}-\frac{\partial A_v}{\partial u}+[A_u,A_v]
\end{eqnarray*}
which is the curvature form of $A$. The derivatives of higher order are
dependents of the first one, so the integrability of $1$-form is equivalent
to its being flat.
\end{example}
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=12cm
Fig.5
\end{center}
\begin{example}
$k=2$, $(\omega ^2,\omega ^1)=(\omega ,A)$ is the $2$-flag of forms. The
lattice approximation of an infinitesimal $2$-loop is a cube spanned by
line elements $u,v,w$.
This loop consists of 6 moves, each sweepping a cube face (see Fig.5).
The corresponding ''Riemann product'' approximation to the integral $%
\delta \omega $ over the surface of this cube is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\omega(\overrightarrow{\partial }([0,0,0][u,v,w]))=\\
&&\omega([0,0,0][u,v,0])\cdot A([0][u])\cdot
\omega([u,0,0][u,v,w])\cdot A([u][0])\cdot\omega([0,0,0][u,0,w])\cdot A([0][w])\\
&&\cdot \omega([0,0,w][u,v,w])\cdot A([w][0])\cdot \omega([0,0,0][0,v,w])\cdot
A([0][v])\cdot\omega([0,v,0][u,v,w])\cdot A([v][0])
\end{eqnarray*}
where each term of
the product corresponds to moving across one face of the cube in the lattice
approximation of the loop $2$-homotopy. Now, in order to find the exterior
derivatives of $\omega $ take expansions:
$\begin{array}{l}
\begin{array}{rl}
A([u][0]):=A([u,0,0][0,0,0])=& 1-\sum_i A_iu_i-\sum_{ij}\frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j}u_ju_i+\frac{(\sum_iA_iu_i)^2}2+O_3(u)\\
\omega([0,0,w][u,v,w])=&
\end{array}\\
\ \ 1+\sum_{ij}\omega_{ij}u_iv_j
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ijk}\frac{\partial\omega_{ij}}{\partial x_k}u_iv_jw_k
+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{ijkl}\frac{\partial^2\omega}{\partial w_k\partial w_l}u_iv_jw_kw_l
+\frac{(\sum_{ij}\omega_{ij}u_iv_j)^2}2+O_5(u,v,w)
\end{array}$\\
and so on. Then we have expansion into $u,v,w$-series of variation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\delta \omega =1+\sum_{ijk}u_iv_jw_k(\frac{\partial \omega _{ij}}{\partial x_k}+\frac{%
\partial \omega _{ki}}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\partial \omega _{jk}}{\partial x_i}%
-([\omega _{ij},A_k]+[\omega _{ki},A_j]+[\omega _{jk},A_i])) \\
&&\ \ +\sum_{ijkl}u_iu_jv_kw_l(
\frac \partial {\partial x_i}(\frac{\partial \omega _{jk}}{\partial x_l}+\frac{\partial \omega _{lj}}{\partial x_k}+\frac{\partial \omega_{kl}}{\partial x_j})
-[\omega _{kl},\frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x_j}]
+\frac{1}{2}[A_i,\frac{\partial\omega_{kl}}{\partial x_j}]\\
&&\ \ +[\omega_{il},\omega_{jk}]+\frac{\omega_{kl}A_iA_j-2A_i\omega _{kl}A_j+A_iA_j\omega_{kl}}2) \\
&&\ \ +\sum_{ijkl}u_iv_jv_kw_l(\dots)+\sum_{ijkl}u_iv_jw_kw_l(\dots)\\
&&\ \ +O_5(u,v,w)
\end{eqnarray*}
If we take $\omega =F(A)$ to be the curvature form of $A$, then the vanishing
of the coefficient at $uvw$ becomes the Bianchi identity. Note, that
vanishing of coefficients of terms of degree 4 does not follow from
vanishing of that for $(uvw)$-term, but is satisfied for curvature $F(A)$, so
these are higher analogues of Bianchi identity.
In commutative case the coefficients of degree 4 reduce to
$\frac \partial {\partial x_i}(\frac{\partial \omega _{jk}}{\partial x_l}+\frac{\partial \omega _{lj}}{\partial x_k}+\frac{\partial \omega_{kl}}{\partial x_j})$,
so their vanishing follows from vanishing of coefficients of degree 3.
This is why the integrability of usual differential forms may be expressed as
$d\omega=0$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Nonabelian Cohomology}
\begin{proposition}\label{prp:epr}
For integrable local section $\omega\in\Omega^{d+1}(U;{\frak g})$ of the
sheaf of $(d+1)$-forms
there is a primitive flag $\omega^{(d)}=(\omega^d,\dots,\omega^0)$
of sections $\omega^k\in\Omega^k(U;{\frak g})$
such that $d\omega^{(d)}=\omega^{d+1}$.
\end{proposition}
Take a local primitive $\omega_U^d\in \Omega ^d(U;{\frak g})$ of global
integrable $\omega \in \Omega ^{d+1}(X;{\frak g})$. For a path $s$, with $%
s(0)\in U$ take a sequence of open disks $\{U_i\}$ covering $s$. Then we
have a sequence of concordant local primitives $\omega _i^d\in \Omega ^d(U_i;%
{\frak g})$ of $\omega $, called {\em (analitic) continuation} of $\omega
_U^d$, which are concordant on intersections: $\omega _i^d=\omega _{i+1}^d$
on $U_i\cap U_{i+1}$. This gives a functor from $\Gamma ^1(X)$ to the
category of local sections of $\Omega ^d(X;{\frak g})$, called {\em complete
}$d$-{\em form} (or ''multivalued form''). The space of complete $d$-forms
is denoted by $\overline{\Omega ^d(X;{\frak g})}$. If $s$ is a loop then
we get another section $\omega _{U+s}^d\in \Omega ^d(U_i;{\frak g})$ on $U$,
which is the result of continuation of $\omega _U^d$ along $s$. Since $%
d\omega _{U+s}^d=d\omega _U^d$ then $\delta (\omega _{U+s}^d-\omega
_U^d)\equiv 0$, and according to Proposition ~\ref{prp:epr} $\omega _{U+s}^d-\omega
_U^d=d\omega _U^{d-1}(s)$ for some $\omega _U^{d-1}\in \Omega ^{d-1}(X;%
{\frak g})$. Then for each integrable $(d+1)$-form we have a multi-valued
(complete) primitive $d$-form. The analytic continuation along a closed loop
of the operation of taking local primitive in general sets us onto another branch
of the multivalued primitive. Vise versa the derivative of a complete $d$%
-form is an integrable univalued $(d+1)$-form, called {\em closed}. The derivatives of
single-valued forms (global sections of $\Omega ^d(X;{\frak g})$) will be
called {\em exact}. According to Proposition ~\ref{prp:ifr} we have a map
$\overline{\Omega ^d(X;{\frak g})}\to Hom(\Pi_{d+1}(X),G)$.
{\it Question} If $\omega^i\mapsto\omega^i+\delta\omega^i$ then
what is the rule of changing highest degree form $\omega^d$ in order
for the integral to transform as
$\int_\gamma\exp{\bar\omega}\mapsto
\delta(\int_{\gamma^i}\exp{\bar\omega}^i)\cdot
\int_\gamma\exp{\bar\omega}\cdot
(\delta(\int_{\gamma^i}\exp{\bar\omega}^i))^{-1}$, where $\gamma^i$ is the
$0$-th border of the dimension $i$ subflag of the flagged integration
cycle $\gamma$.
This transform gives us an action of the space $\Omega^i$ of lower degree
form on the space $\Omega^d$ of highest order form, called {\em gauge action}.
\begin{Definition}\rm
The space of orbits of gauge action is called the {\em space of cohomologies}
with coefficients in ${\frak g}$, denoted $H^{d+1|k}(X;{\frak g})$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{example}
Take $X=S^1$,${\frak g}={\Bbb R}$, $d=0$. Then a complete $0$-form is a
multi-valued function $f$ with $d(f_{U+s}-f_U)=0$, and hence the
''discrepancy'' $\Delta :=f_{U+s}-f_U$ is constant. Adding a global section
to a comlete $0$-form preserves $\Delta $. And vise versa the difference of
two complete $0$-forms with the same discrepancy is a single-valued
function. So the space of gauge orbits of complete $0$-forms is parametrized
by values of $\Delta $, and then $H^{1|0}(S^1,{\Bbb R})={\Bbb R}^1$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
In the framework of Section 1 take $X={\bb R}^2-\{0\}$.
For a flat $g({\Bbb C}^*)$-valued connection form (or a locally holomorphic
function on $X$) we get the value of monodromy
integral $\int_\gamma e^{A}\in {\Bbb C}^*$. Because of commutativity of algebra
$g({\Bbb C}^*)$ the gauge action reduces to $A\mapsto A+df$, where $f$
is a globally defined smooth $g({\Bbb C}^*)$-valued function. This action
preserves the monodromy, but in general moves $A$ to a different complex structure
class. Restricting this action to some fixed comlex structure we get the space
of gauge orbits
${\cal A'}/{\cal G}=H^{1|0}({\bb R^2}-\{0\},g({\Bbb C}^*))
=\{z^\alpha|\alpha\in{\bb C}\}/\{z^n|n\in\bb Z\}={\bb C}/{\bb Z}$.
\end{example}
\section{Applications}
\subsection{De Rham theory}
Here $G={\Bbb R}_{+}^{*}$, ${\frak g=}{\Bbb R}^1$. Since $G$ is commutative
we can write all formulas in additive notations taking the logarithm of
corresponding multiplicative ones. Then in $\delta \omega $ the first
derivative is the usual exterior derivative $d\omega $ of a form and
vanishing of $d\omega $ implies vanishing of all higher derivatives. Thus
integrability is equivalent to $d\omega =0$. Since the derivative of a form
is integrable this implies the identity $d^2\omega \equiv 0$. The space of
closed $(d+1)$-forms is in 1-1 coorrespondence with complete $d$-forms
(Poicare Lemma). Then the space $H^{d+1|d}(X):=\overline{\Omega ^d(X;{\Bbb R}%
)}/\Omega ^d(X;{\Bbb R})$ of orbits of the action of $\Omega ^d(X;{\Bbb R})$
on complete $d$-forms corresponds to the De Rham cohomology space $H_{DR}^d(X;%
{\Bbb R})$. Because of commutativity the gauge action is a morphism of affine
spaces. Then the identity $d^2\omega \equiv 0$ implies that the action of $%
\Omega ^k(X;{\Bbb R})$ on $\overline{\Omega ^d(X;{\Bbb R})}\subset
\Omega ^{d+1}(X;{\Bbb R})$ is trivial for $k<d$, so $H^{d+1|k}(X)=\overline{%
\Omega ^d(X;{\Bbb R})}$.
\subsection{Gauge theory}
Here $d=0$. The space of global $0$-forms is the space of $G$-valued
functions. It has a group structure called gauge group. Its action on the
space $\Omega ^1(X;{\frak g})$ of connections is given by the formula $%
g:A\mapsto gAg^{-1}+g^{-1}dg$. The space $\overline{\Omega ^0(X;{\frak g})}$
is in 1-1 correspondence with the space of flat connections. Since $%
d(g_{U+s}-g_U)=0$ then the discrepancy $\Delta (s):=g_{U+s}-g_U$ is
constant on $X$ similar to commutative case. A representative of
a cohomology class of $g\in
\overline{\Omega ^0(X;{\frak g})}$ (or of a flat connection) is given by the
set of values $\Delta (s)$ on loops $s\in \Gamma _x^1$, where $x=s(0)$, or,
since $\Delta (s)$ depends only on homotopy class of $s$, by the
representation $\pi _1(X)\rightarrow G$. Since the gauge group acts on
$\Delta(s)$ by conjugation then $H^{1|0}(X)={\rm Hom}(\pi_1(X),G)/G$ is the space
of conjugacy classes of representations $\{\pi_1(X)\to G\}$. The consequence $ddA\equiv 0$ of
Proposition ~\ref{prp:dfie} is known as Bianchi identity. Note that here the action of the gauge
group does not commute with the affine space structure. In particular the action
of $\Omega ^0(X;{\frak g})$ on the space $d\Omega ^1(X;{\frak g})$ of
curvature forms is not trivial and given by $g:F\mapsto gFg^{-1}$. Then the
space of orbits $H^{2|0}(X;{\frak g}):=\overline{\Omega ^1(X;{\frak g})}%
/\Omega ^0(X;{\frak g})\neq \overline{\Omega ^1(X;{\frak g})}$ unlike that
in the commutative case.
\flushleft
\vspace{0.2 cm}
Author address:\\
College of Mathematics,\\
Independent University of Moscow
\end{document}
|
\section{\bf Introduction}
Integrable models, since its inception, occupy a distinguised position because
of their striking predictability and the existence of a special class of extended
solutions, called solitons. Solitons are characterised by non-dispersive
localised wave pulses which produce as a result of the competetion between
linear dispersion and nonlinearity. Moreover, solitons retain thier shapes
even after collisions among themselves and consequently exhibit particle like
behaviour. Integrable models as well as solitons have applications in such
diverse areas of physics as high energy physics, condensed matter physics, plasma
physics, nonlinear optics and nuclear physics.
At present, a handful of nonlinear dynamical equations exist exhibiting soliton
solutions. Historically, KdV equation \cite {1} is the most important one. It
describes
the dynamics of waves moving in shallow water. KdV and KP hierarchies also play
an important role in describing non-critical strings \cite {2} through the
construction of $\tau$ functions. In KdV or KP hierarchy approach, evaluation of
partition function and all correlation functions may be made directly through
a set of integrable differential equations, bypassing the complicated
technicalities involved in other approaches. Sine-Gordon equation \cite {3} is
another
welknown example of integrable equation, which first arose as a master equation
for pseudo-spherical
surfaces. Besides, it describes the propagation of magnetic flux in a Joseption
junction transmission line, the propagation of dislocations in a crystal lattice
and many other physical problems. Nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation and its
higher order generalizations [4,5] have also
many applications in plasma physics and in nonlinear optics. In particular recently, a lot of
excitement is veered around the soliton solutions of a higher order
generalization of nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation, because of its potential
application in high speed fibre communication systems. The key observation is
that the dynamics of the
higher order nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation (HNLS) \cite {6} not only takes
care of
dispersion loss, but also takes care of the propagation loss as the optical
pulse propagates along the fibre. This is due to the fact that stimulated Raman
effect \cite {6a}, which compensates the propagation loss, already exists withing
the spectrum of HNLS equation. As a consequence, a very short pulse can be
propagetd over a long distance without distortion.
Thus, it is optical solitons, which
are responsible behind the successful propagation of optical pulses through
the fibre over a long distance. Therefore, the importance of the study of
integrable models and to find their soliton solutions is unquestionable.
There are several methods exist to obtain soliton solutions of a nonlinear
evolution equation, like Hirota bilinear method \cite {7}, Painleve analysis
\cite {8}, B{\" a}cklund transformation \cite {9} and inverse scattering
transform (IST) \cite {10}. IST method, however,
is the most elegant tool, which eventually proves the complete integrability of
the evolution equation. IST method, on the other hand, is the most complicated
one and is intimately connected with the existence of an auxiliary linear
problem, known as Lax equations. Most of the known integrable evolution
equations are, in fact, associated with $2\times 2$ and $3\times 3$ dimensional
Lax operators. But
there are some evolution equations whose associated linear equations, in general,
cannot be cast in terms of $2\times 2$ or $3\times 3$ Lax operators. One such
example is higher order nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation (HNLS) \cite {6}:
\begin{equation}
i\partial_t q + {\beta }_1 \partial_{xx} q + {\beta }_2 \vert q\vert^2 q
i\epsilon [\beta_3 \partial_{xxx}q + \beta_4 \partial_x(\vert q\vert^2)q
+ \beta_5 \vert q\vert^2\partial_x q] = 0
\label{1.1}
\end{equation}
where, $q$ is a complex field and $\beta_i\quad i=1,2\cdots,5$ are the constant
coefficients. Notice that in absense of last three terms, (\ref {1.1}) reduces
to nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation. It is observed recently, for arbitrary
values of the coefficients, (\ref {1.1}) is associated with $n\times n$ Lax
operators \cite {11}. Interestingly, the parameters, $\beta$ are related to the
dimension of the Lax operators. Unfortunately, IST method is not well understood
for arbitrary dimensional Lax oparators. Nonetheless, IST methods
developed in the context of $2\times 2$ \cite {10} and
$3\times 3$ \cite {12,12a} matrix Lax operators cannot be generalized straight
forwardly to handle more
general cases. Thus, in order to obtain soliton solutions of (\ref {1.1}) by
IST method, a generalized IST method, associated with $n$ dimensional Lax
operator, is to be formulated. In this paper, we will, therefore, develop a
generalized IST method, which ultimately leads to solving a set of coupled
Gelfand Levitan Marchenko equations \cite {12b} for obtaining soliton solutions.
We will use the generalized IST method to obtain soliton solutions for an
evolution equation, whose dynamical field is
an $(n-1)$ component vector, $\vec q$. $\vec q$, in fact, is a vector
generalization of the field $q$ given in (\ref {1.1}).
The evolution equation may, therefore, be called vector higher
order nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation (VHNLS) and will be described
in the next section. We will also show that under suitable reduction
VHNLS equation reduces to (\ref {1.1}).
The rigidity in the structures of the solitons reveals that the system has a
huge underlying symmetry. This symmetry is, in general, manifested by the
existence of an infinite number of conserved quantities. Existence of infinite
number of conserved quantities
is a key criterion for a field theoretical model to be called integrable in
Liouville sense \cite {13}. Construction of Lax pair of a dynamical system
although itself is a good hint for integrability, many integrable models may not
satisfy Liouville integrability criterion. In this paper we will obtain Riccati
equations associated with an
$n$ dimensional Lax oparator and indentify the generating function of the
conserved charges. Consequently, we will find conserved charges explicitly
in terms of the field variables and their derivatives.
Another interesting aspect, we will address, is to establish a connection
between nonlinear field theories and spin systems. In this context, it is
welknown that
nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation is gauge related to Landau Lifshitz equation
\cite {14}. Recently Sasa Satsuma equation \cite {14a}, a particaluar version of HNLS
equation is shown to be gauge related to a generalized Landau Lifshitz equation,
where the spin field is associated with $SU(3)$ group \cite {15,16}. It is thus
expected that a spin system may also exist corresponding to a vector
generalisation of HNLS equation. We will
establish a connection between the VHNLS equation, proposed by us and a
generalized Landau Lifshitz equation and obtain a Lax pair for the spin system.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In section 2, the VHNLS equation
is introduced and a Lax pair for the nonlinear equation is
constructed. We also show a reduction procedure under which VHNLS equation
reduces to a two parameter family of HNLS equation. In section 3, we show the
existence of infinite number of conserved quantities, by solving a set of
coupled
Riccati equations. We develop the inverse scattering method for an $n$
dimensional Lax operators in section 4 and obtain $n$ Gelfand Levitan Marchenko
equations. Section 5 deals with the solutions ofGelfand Levitan Marchenko equations
and cosequently find $N$ soliton solutions. We show in section 6 the gauge
equivalence of VHNLS equation and the generalised Ladau Lifsitz equation and
obtain a Lax pair for the generalized Landau Lifshitz equation in terms of the
spin field. Section 7 is the concluding one.
\section{\bf Evolution Equation and Lax Pair}
We propose a vector nonlinear evolution equation of the form
\begin{equation}
\vec{q}_t + \epsilon \vec{q}_{xxx} + 3\epsilon (\vec{q^*}\cdot\vec{q}_x) \vec{q}
+ 3\epsilon \vert \vec{q}\vert^2 \vec{q}_x = 0
\label{2.1}
\end{equation}
where, the dynamical field variable, $\vec{q} = (q_1,q_2,\cdots ,q_{n-1})$, is
an $(n-1)$-tuple vector. The equation (\ref {2.1}) is an example of vector
higher order nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation (VHNLS). The vector field
$\vec q$ may be interpreted as an $(n-1)$ interacting optical modes describing
the dynamics of a charge field with $(n-1)$ colours. In fact, we will show
under suitable reduction, (\ref {2.1}) yields to the HNLS equation \cite {11}.
In order to obtain Lax pair for (\ref {2.1}), we first introduce the $n\times n$
matrix linear eigenvalue problem as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_x \Psi &=& {\bf U}(x,t,\lambda)\Psi \\
\label{2.2a}
\partial_t \Psi &=& {\bf V}(x,t,\lambda)\Psi
\label{2.2b}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{2.2}
\end{subequations}
where, ${\bf \Psi }(x,t)$ is an $n$-tuple vector auxilliary field, $\lambda $
is the spectral parameter and the Lax
operators ${\bf U}(x,t)$ and ${\bf V}(x,t)$ are $n\times n$ matrices. Let us
now assume an explicit form of the Lax pair, ${\bf U}(x,t)$ and
${\bf V}(x,t)$, associated with the VHNLS equation, as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf U} &=& -i \lambda {\bf \Sigma} + {\bf A} \\
{\bf V} &=& - \epsilon {\bf A}_{xx} + \epsilon ({\bf A}_x{\bf A}
-{\bf A}{\bf A}_x) + 2\epsilon {\bf A}^3 \\ \nonumber
& & -2i\epsilon \lambda {\bf \Sigma} ({\bf A}^2 -{\bf A}_x)
+ 4\epsilon {\lambda}^2{\bf A}
-4i\epsilon {\lambda}^3{\bf \Sigma},
\end{eqnarray}
\label{2.3}
\end{subequations}
In the equation (\ref {2.3})
${\bf \Sigma }$ is a c-no. diagonal matrix and the matrix ${\bf A}(x,t)$
consists of dynamical fields, $\vec{q}(x,t)$ and $\vec{q^*}(x,t)$ only. It is
interesting to note that the evolution equation for the matrix ${\bf A}(x,t)$
immediately follows from the compatibility condition, namely
\[
{\bf U}_t(x,t) - {\bf V}_x(x,t) + [{\bf U}(x,t) , {\bf V}(x,t)] = 0
\]
provided ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf \Sigma}$ satisfy the conditions that
\begin{equation}
{\bf \Sigma}^2 = {\bf 1}, \quad\quad
{\bf \Sigma}{\bf A} + {\bf A}{\bf \Sigma} = 0
\label{2.4}
\end{equation}
and as a consequence, the nonlinear evolution equation for ${\bf A}(x,t)$
becomes
\begin{equation}
{\bf A}_t + \epsilon {\bf A}_{xxx} - 3\epsilon ({\bf A}^2
{\bf A}_x + {\bf A}_x {\bf A}^2) = 0
\label{2.5}
\end{equation}
It is now clear that various representations of the matrix ${\bf A }$
in terms of the fields $\vec{q}$ and $\vec{q^*}$ yield to different nonlinear
evolution equations.
To associate (\ref {2.5}) with the VHNLS equation (\ref {2.1}), let us consider
the explicit expressions of ${\bf \Sigma }$ and ${\bf A}(x,t)$ of the form
satisfying the properties (\ref {2.4}) as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf \Sigma} &=& \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} e_{ii} - e_{nn} \\
\label{2.6a}
{\bf A}(x,t) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} q_i(x,t) e_{in}
- \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} q_i^*(x,t) e_{ni}
\label{2.6b}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{2.6}
\end{subequations}
where, $e_{ij}$ is an $n\times n$ matrix whose only $(ij)$th element is unity,
the rest elements being zero and $q_i(x,t)$ is the $i$th. component of the
dynamical field $\vec q$. Substituting (\ref {2.6}) in (\ref {2.5}), the
evolution equation becomes
\begin{equation}
q_{it} + \epsilon q_{ixxx} + 3\epsilon (\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} q_j^*.q_{jx}) q_i
+ 3\epsilon (\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} q_j^*q_j) q_{ix} = 0
\label{2.7}
\end{equation}
which is nothing but VHNLS equation (\ref {2.1}), written in the component form.
Now in order
to obtain HNLS equation (\ref {1.1}) let us consider the following reduction. Notice that
all the dynamical fields $q_i$ in (\ref {2.7}) are independent. However, instead
of $(n-1)$ independent dynamical fields, if we restrict ourselves to only one
dynamical field $q$ and its complex conjugate $q^*$ in (\ref {2.7}), then all
the $q_i$s are not independent. $q_i$s, in this case, may be chosen as either
$q$ or $q^*$.
If we, for example, choose $m$ number of $q_i$ as $q$ and the rest $(n-m-1)$
numbers as $q^*$, (\ref {2.7}) reduces to HNLS equation
\begin{equation}
q_t + \epsilon q_{xxx} + 6m\epsilon\vert q\vert^2 q_x
+ 3(n-m-1)\epsilon (\vert q\vert^2)_x q = 0.
\label{2.8}
\end{equation}
The equation (\ref {2.8}), to be precise, is a gauge equivalent version of HNLS
equation. Soliton solutions of (\ref {2.8}) and those of HNLS equation are, in
fact, related
through a U(1) gauge tranformation \cite {11}. Two well known euqations
immediately
follow from (\ref {2.8}). If we choose $m=n-1$, (\ref {2.8}) gives rise to
Hirota equation \cite {17}
\begin{equation}
q_t + \epsilon q_{xxx} + 6\epsilon\vert q\vert^2 q_x = 0
\label{2.9}
\end{equation}
after rescalling of $q$ and $q^*$ as $q=(n-1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}q$ and
$q^*=(n-1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}q^*$ respectively. On the other hand, if we choose
$m=(n-1)/2$,
which is only possible for odd dimensional Lax pair, (\ref {2.8}) reduces to
Sasa Satsuma euqation \cite {14a,16,18},
\begin{equation}
q_t + \epsilon q_{xxx} + 6\epsilon\vert q\vert^2 q_x
+ 3\epsilon (\vert q\vert^2)_x q = 0,
\label{2.10}
\end{equation}
once again with appropriate scalling of the fields $q$ and $q^*$ respectively as
$q=(\frac{n-1}{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}q$ and $q^*=(\frac{n-1}{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}q^*$.
\vspace{.5 cm}
\section {\bf Riccati Equation and Conserved Charges}
In order to obtain Riccati equation, we first write the Lax equation
(\ref {2.2}a,\ref {2.3}a,\ref {2.6}) in the
component form. For the first $(n-1)$ components of ${\bf \Psi}$, (\ref {2.2}a)
can be written in the form,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Psi_{1x} &=& -i\lambda \Psi_1 + q_1 \Psi_n\\
\Psi_{2x} &=& -i\lambda \Psi_2+ q_2 \Psi_n\\
& &\vdots\\
\Psi_{n-1x} &=& -i\lambda \Psi_{n-1} + q_{n-1} \Psi_n\\
\end{eqnarray*}
{\it i.e.}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{ix} = -i\lambda \Psi_i + q_i \Psi_n
\label{3.1}
\end{equation}
where, $i = 1,2,\cdots , n-1 $ and $\Psi_i$ denotes the $i$th. component of
${\bf \Psi}$. But for the $n$th. component of ${\bf \Psi}$, the Lax equation
(\ref {2.2}a) has a different form as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi_{nx} &=& i\lambda \Psi_n - q_1^* \Psi_1
- q_2^* \Psi_2 \cdots - q_{n-1}^* \Psi_{n-1}\nonumber \\
&=& i\lambda\Psi_n - \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_j^* \Psi_j
\label{3.2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Following now a similar procedure as in \cite {16} we write,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_i = \frac{\Psi_i}{\Psi_n},
\label{3.3}
\end{equation}
$i = 1,2,\cdots, n-1$, which are related to the conserved charges
$\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)$ in the following way,
\begin{eqnarray}
\ln \alpha_{nn}(\lambda) &=&
\ln \Psi_n -i\lambda x\vert_{x\rightarrow \infty}\nonumber \\
&=& -\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx
(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}q_i^*\Gamma_i)
\label{3.4}
\end{eqnarray}
We will see in section 5 that $\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)$ is, indeed, $(nn)$th
element of the scattering data matrix and more so it does not evolve with
time. By using (\ref{3.1},b) and (\ref{3.3}), we may obtain a first order
differential equation for each $\Gamma_i$,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{ix} + 2i\lambda\Gamma_i - \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_j^*\Gamma_j\Gamma_i
- q_i = 0\\
\label{3.5}
\end{equation}
The set of $(n-1)$ coupled nonlinear differential equations for $\Gamma_i$ in
(\ref {3.5}) are called
Riccati equations. It is obvious from (\ref {3.4}) that the solutions of Riccati
equations eventually determine the conserved quantities. Now in order to solve
(\ref{3.5}), we assume a series solution of $\Gamma_i$ as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_i(x,\lambda) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}C^i_n(x)\lambda^{-n}
\label{3.6}
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref{3.6}) into (\ref{3.5}), the following recursion relations may
be obtained.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
C_0^i = 0 ;\quad \quad \quad C^i_1 = \frac{q_i}{2i}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
2iC_{k+2}^i + (C^i_{k+1})_x
- \sum_{m=0}^{k-1}C^i_{k-1+m}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_j^*C^j_m =0\\
\label{3.7}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
with $ k= 0,1,2,.......... $. The infinite number of Hamiltonians (conserved
quantities) may explicitly be determined in terms of the dynamical field
variables $q_i$ and their derivatives by expanding $\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)$
in the form,
\begin{equation}
ln\alpha_{nn}(\lambda) = (n-1)\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^l}{(2i)^{2l +1}}
H_l\lambda^{-l}
\label{3.8}
\end{equation}
and thus comparing (\ref {3.8}) with (\ref {3.4}) and (\ref {3.6}), ${H_l}$
becomes
\begin{equation}
H_l = \frac{(2i)^{2l+1}}{(-1)^l(n-1)}\int dx[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q^*_jC^j_l)]
\label{3.9}
\end{equation}
The explicit expresseions of the first few low order Hamiltonians are given
below.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_1 &=& \frac{1}{n-1}\int dx [\sum^{n-1}_{j=1}q_j^*q_j] \\
\label{3.10a}
H_2 &=& \frac{1}{2(n-1)}\int dx \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}[q_j^*q_{jx}
- q^*_{jx}q_j]\\
\label{3.10b}
H_3 &=& \frac{1}{n-1}\int dx [(\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_j^*q_j)^2 - \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
q_{jx}^*q_{jx}]\\
\label{3.10c}
H_4 &=& \frac{1}{2(n-1)}\int~dx\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}[q_j^*q_{jxxx}-q^*_{jxxx}+
3(\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\vert q_k\vert)^2(q_j^*q_{jx}-q^*_{jx}q_j)]\nonumber\\
&~&\\
\label{3.10d}
H_5 &=& \frac{1}{n-1}\int dx[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_{jxx}^*q_{jxx}
+ 2(\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q^*_jq_j)^3 - (\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\vert q_j\vert^2)_x)^2
\nonumber \\
&-& 4\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\vert q_j\vert^2\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_{jx}^*q_{jx}
- 2\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}q_j^*q_{jx}\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}q^*_{kx}q_k]
\label{3.10e}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{3.10}
\end{subequations}
We verify directly by using equations of motions that $H_1$, $H_2$, $H_3$,
$H_4$ and $H_5$ are, indeed, constants of motions.
Let us now specialize to HNLS equation. If we assume that $m$ number of $q_i$s
are chosen as $q$ and the rest $n-m-1$ as $q^*$, the Hamiltonians in
(\ref {3.10}) reduce to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_1 &=& \int dx \vert q \vert^2\\
\label{3.11a}
H_2 &=& (2m -n+1)\int dx (q_xq^* - qq^*_x)\\
\label{3.11b}
H_3 &=& \int dx ((n-1)\vert q \vert^4 - q_x q^*_x)\\
\label{3.11c}
H_4&=&(2m-n+1)\int~dx [3(n-1)\vert q\vert^2 (q_xq^*-qq^*_x)
+\frac{1}{2}(q_{xxx}q^*-qq^*_{xxx})]\nonumber \\
&~&\\
\label{3.11d}
H_5&=&\int~dx [q_{xx}q^*_{xx}+2(n-1)^2 \vert q \vert^6
+[(2m-n-1)^2 -4(n-1)]\vert q \vert^2 q_x q^*_x\nonumber \\
&-&[(n-1) + \frac{2m(n-l-1)}{(n-1)}]((\vert q \vert^2)_x)^2]\\ \nonumber
&~&
\label{3.11e}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{3.11}
\end{subequations}
Notice that $H_1$ in (\ref {3.11}a) has a universal form, which implies that all
solitons have the same energy irrespective of their shapes. However, the
momentum, $H_2$ crucially depends on the numbers of $q$, chosen in a given
representation of the matrix ${\bf A}$ (\ref {2.6}). For example, $H_2$ becomes
zero for Sasa Satsuma case, {\it i.e.} for $m=(n-1)/2$. In fact, all
conserved quantities having even indices
become trivial for Sasa Satsuma case. $H_3$ in (\ref {3.11}c) also has a
somewhat universal form, depending only on the dimensions of the Lax pairs. But
the higher order conserved quantities starting from $H_5$ do not possess such
universal forms. Their explicit forms depend both on the dimensionality of the
matrix Lax pair and also on the representations of the matrix ${\bf A}$.
\section{\bf Generalized Gelfand Levitan Marchenko Equations}
We now generalize IST method suitable for studying $n$ dsmensional Lax
operators. The first
step in this direction is to obtain a set of generalized Gelfand Levitan
Marchenko equations. This generalisation is a nontrivial one and crucially
depends on the properties of scattering data matrix. However, we will see that
for three dimenisonal Lax oparators generalized Gelafand Levitan Marchenko
equations will reduce to Sasa Satsuma case \cite {14a} as is expected. We broadly follow
the
treatment of Manakov, developed in the context of $3\times 3$ Lax operator \cite {12a} and
for that assume Jost functions, for real $\lambda$, satisfy the boundary
conditions,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{(i)} = e_i e^{-i\lambda x}
\label{IV1a}
\end{equation}
with $ i=1,2.......n-1$, but the $n$th. one satisfies a different boundary
condition like
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{(n)} = e_n e^{i\lambda x}
\label{IV1b}
\end{equation}
\label{IV1}
\end{subequations}
as $x\rightarrow -\infty$. Similarly, as $x\rightarrow \infty$, other set of
Jost functions satify the boundary conditions
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(i)} = e_i e^{-i\lambda x}
\label{IV2a}
\end{equation}
for $ i= 1,.......n-1$ and for the $n$th. one,
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(n)} = e_n e^{i\lambda x}.
\label{IV2b}
\end{equation}
\label{IV2}
\end{subequations}
In the equations (\ref {IV1}) and (\ref {IV2}) $e_i$s are the basis vectors for
an n-dimensional vector space. It follows from (\ref {2.6}b) that
${\bf A}^{\dagger}=-{\bf A}$ for real valued $\lambda$ and thus we have
\begin{equation}
\partial_x({{\bf \Psi}^{(1)}}^{\dagger}{\bf \Psi}^{(2)})= 0
\label{IV3}
\end{equation}
for any pair of solutions of equation (\ref {2.1}a), ${\bf \Psi}^{(1)}$ and
${\bf \Psi}^{(2)}$, having the same eigenvalue. It is straightforward to show from
(\ref{IV1}) and (\ref{IV2}) that
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{(i)\dagger}\Phi^{(j)} = \Psi^{(i)\dagger}\Psi^{(j)}=\delta_{ij}
\label{IV4}
\end{equation}
for $i,j =1,2,.........n$.
Since the set of Jost functions ${\bf \Psi_i}$ are linearly independent and
the maximum number of independent Jost functions is $n$, we may
express the set of Jost functions $\Phi_i$ as a linear combination of
$\Psi_i$ as
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{(i)}(x,\lambda) =
\sum_{j=1}^n \alpha_{ij}(\lambda)\Psi^{(j)}(x,\lambda)
\label{IV5}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{ij}(\lambda)$ is the $(ij)$th element of scattering data matrix,
which can be expressed by using (\ref{IV4}) and (\ref {IV5}) in the form
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{ij}(\lambda)= \Psi^{(j)\dagger}(x,\lambda)\Phi^{(i)}(x,\lambda)
\label{IV6}
\end{equation}
The orthogonality property of the scattering data matrix elements for real
eigenvaule $\lambda$, subsequently follows from (\ref{IV1}), (\ref{IV2}) and
(\ref{IV6}) and thus we obtain
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}\alpha_{ik}(\lambda)\alpha_{jk}(\lambda) =\delta_{ij}
\label{IV7}
\end{equation}
which finally gives
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(i)}(x,\lambda) =
\sum_{j=1}^n \alpha^*_{ji}(\lambda)\Phi^{(j)}(x,\lambda)
\label{IV8}
\end{equation}
It is further interesting to see, by exploiting the properties of $[\alpha_{ij}]$
and $[\alpha^*_{ij}]$ matrices, that we can write the element $\alpha^*_{ij}$ as
the cofactor of the elements of the matrix $[\alpha_{ij}]$. In particular,
$\alpha^*_{ni}$ element can be written as
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{ni}^* = (-1)^{n+i}det[\tilde{\alpha}_{ni}]
\label{IV9}
\end{equation}
where $[\tilde{\alpha}_{ni}]$ is a $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix, constructed from
the $n\times n$ scattering matrix, $[\alpha_{ij}]$ with nth row and ith column
being omitted, {\it i.e.} $det[\tilde{\alpha}_{ni}]$ is the minor of
$\alpha_{ni}$ element of scattering matrix, $[\alpha_{ij}]$.
Now by using (\ref{IV5}) and (\ref{IV9}), we obtain the following useful
relations among the Jost functions $\Phi^{(i)}$ and $\Psi^{(i)}$. The first
$n-1$ Jost functions in (\ref {IV5}) satisfy
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\alpha^*_{nn}(\lambda)}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(Adj [\tilde{\alpha}_{nn}])_
{kj}\Phi^{(j)}e^{i\lambda x} = \Psi^{(k)}e^{i\lambda x} -
\frac{\alpha^*_{nk}}{\alpha^*_{nn}}\Psi^{(n)}e^{i\lambda x}
\label{IV10a}
\end{equation}
with $k=1,........n-1$, but the $n$th. Jost function,$\Phi^{(n)}$ obey the
relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\alpha_{nn}} \Phi^{(n)}e^{-i\lambda x} =
\Psi^{(n)}e^{-i\lambda x} + \frac{1}{\alpha_{nn}} \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
\alpha_{nj}\Psi^{(j)}e^{-i \lambda x}
\label{IV10b}
\end{equation}
\label{IV10}
\end{subequations}
Notice that in deriving (\ref{IV10}), we have used the following properties of
the scattering data matrix.
\[
\alpha^*_{nk}\delta_{ij} = \sum_{l=1}^{n-1}[\tilde{\alpha_{nk}}]_{il}
(Adj [\tilde{\alpha}_{nk}])_{lj}
\]
It is important to mention that analyticity properties of the Jost functions
and the elements of scattering matrix may be obtained from (\ref{IV10}).
We are now going to derive the Gelfend, Levitan and Marchencho equation for an
$n$ dimensional Lax pair. Let us consider an integral representation of the Jost
function $\Psi^{(i)}$ for $(i=1,2,.....,n)$. For the first $n-1$ Jost functions
we may choose the following integral representations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(j)}(x,\lambda) =e_j e^{-i\lambda x} +
\int_x^{\infty}dy {\bf K}^{(j)}(x,y)e^{-i\lambda y}
\label{IV11a}
\end{equation}
with $j=1,2,.....n-1$, while the $n$th Jost function may be written as
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(n)}(x,\lambda) =e_n e^{i\lambda x} +
\int_x^{\infty}dy {\bf K}^{(n)}(x,y)e^{i\lambda y}.
\label{IV11b}
\end{equation}
\label{IV11}
\end{subequations}
where, $e_i,\quad i=1,2,\cdots,n$ are basis vectors for an $n$ dimensional
vector space and the kernels ${\bf K}^{(j)}$ and
${\bf K}^{(n)}$ are $n$ dimensional column vectors, which may be written
explicitly in the component form as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
{\bf K}^{(j)}(x,y)=\sum_{m=1}^n K_m^{(j)}(x,y)e_m
\label{IV12a}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf K}^{(n)}(x,y)=\sum_{m=1}^n K_m^{(n)}(x,y)e_m
\label{IV12b}
\end{equation}
\label{IV12}
\end{subequations} \newpage
Substituting (\ref{IV11}) in (\ref{IV10b}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\alpha_{nn}}\Phi^{(n)} &=& e_n e^{i\lambda x} +\int_x^{\infty}
dy {\bf K}^{(n)}(x,y)e^{i\lambda y} + \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
\frac{\alpha_{nj}}{\alpha_{nn}}e_j e^{-i \lambda x} \nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\frac{\alpha_{nj}}{\alpha_{nn}}\int_x^{\infty}
dy {\bf K}^{(j)}(x,y)e^{-i\lambda y}
\label{IV13}
\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying now both sides of (34) by $\frac{1}{2\pi}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\lambda e^{-i\lambda z}$, with an assumption $z>x$
and using the analyticity property of the Jost function, it follows that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
&~&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\lambda \frac{\Phi^{(n)}}
{\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)}
e^{-i\lambda z} = {\bf K}^{(n)}(x,z) + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac
{d\lambda}{2\pi}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\frac{\alpha_{nj}(\lambda)}
{\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)}e_j e^{-i\lambda(x+z)} \nonumber \\
&+&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\lambda}{2\pi}\int_{x}^{\infty}dy
\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
\frac{\alpha_{nj}(\lambda)}{\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)}{\bf K}^{(j)}(x,y)
e^{-i\lambda(y+z)} \\ \nonumber
&~&
\label{IV14a}
\end{eqnarray}
The L.H.S. of (\ref{IV14}a) can be simplified further by taking into account
that $\frac{1}{\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)}$ is analytic in the lower half plane
except at the points, say $\lambda_j^*$ with $Im \lambda_j^*>0$ and
$j=1,2........N$, where $\frac{1}{\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)}$ has $N$ simple poles.
Moreover, we assume that at the simple poles $\lambda_j^*$, $\Phi^{(n)}$ to be
of
the form
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{(n)}(x,\lambda_j^*)=\sum_{p=1}^{n-1}C^{(j)}_{np}\Psi^{(p)}
(x,\lambda_j^*)
\label{IV14b}
\end{equation}
With these assumptions, L.H.S. of (\ref{IV14}a) becomes
\begin{equation}
-i\sum_{j=1}^N\frac{e^{-i\lambda_j^*z}}{\alpha^{\prime}_{nn}(\lambda^*_j)}
\sum_{p=1}^{n-1}C_{np}^{(j)}\Psi^{(p)}(x,\lambda_j^*)
\label{IV14c}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{nn}^{\prime}$ denotes derivative with respect to $\lambda $.
By Substituting the integral representations of $\Psi^{(p)}(x,\lambda_j^*)$
from (\ref {IV11a}), (\ref {IV14c}), {\it i.e.} the L.H.S. of (\ref {IV14}a)
finally reduces to
\begin{equation}
-i\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{e^{-i\lambda_j^*z}}{\alpha_{nn}^{\prime}(\lambda_j^*)}
\sum_{p=1}^{n-1}C_{np}^{(j)} [e_p e^{-i\lambda_j^* x} +\int_x^{\infty}dy
{\bf K}^{(p)}(x,y)e^{-i\lambda_j^* y}]
\label{IV14d}
\end{equation}
\label{IV14}
\end{subequations}
Let us now introduce a funtion $F_p(x+y)$ as
\begin{equation}
F_p(x+y)=i\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{C_{np}^{(j)}e^{-i\lambda^*_j(x+y)}}
{\alpha_{nn}^{\prime}(\lambda^*_j)} +
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\lambda}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_{np}(\lambda)}
{\alpha_{nn}(\lambda)}e^{-i\lambda(x+y)}
\label{IV15}
\end{equation}
In terms of the function, $F_p(x+y)$ in (\ref {IV15}), (\ref{IV14}a) and
(\ref{IV14d}) together may be written in a compact form as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
{\bf K}^{(n)}(x,z) + \sum_{p=1}^{n-1}e_pF_p(x+z) + \sum_{p=1}^{n-1}
\int_x^{\infty}{\bf K}^{(p)}(x,y)F_p(z+y) =0
\label{IV16a}
\end{equation}
The inetgral equation (\ref {IV16a}) is one of the desired Gelfand Levitan
Marchenko
equations for the kernel ${\bf K}^{(n)}$. Other integral equations for the
kernels ${\bf K}^{(p)}$ for $p=1,2,\cdots, n-1$ may be obtained from
(\ref{IV10a}) and (\ref{IV11}) in a similar way like that of (\ref {IV16a}).
The integral equations for the kernels ${\bf K}^{(p)}$ thus turn out to be of
the form
\begin{equation}
{\bf K}^{(p)}(x,z) - e_n F_p^*(x+z) - \int _x^{\infty}dy
{\bf K}^{(n)}(x,z)F_p^*(z+y) =0
\label{IV16b}
\end{equation}
\label{IV16}
\end{subequations}
provided $z>x$. In deriving (\ref {IV16b}) we have used the following identity
\[
C_{np}^* = \alpha_{np}^*(\lambda_j)=
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}[{\tilde \alpha_{np}}(\lambda_j)]_{ki}
(Adj[{\tilde \alpha_{np}}(\lambda_j)])_{il}
\delta_{kl}.
\]
The set of coupled equations (\ref {IV16}) may be called as generalized Gelfand
Levitan Marchenko equations. Substituting now (\ref {IV12b}) and (\ref{IV16b})
in (\ref{IV16a}), to a first approximation, we find the Gelfand Levitan
Marchenko equation for the $p$th. component of ${\bf K}^{(n)}$:
\begin{equation}
K^{(n)}_p(x,z) +F_p(x+z) +\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \int_x^{\infty}ds K^{(n)}_p(x,s)
\int_x^{\infty}dyF_m(y+z)F^*_m(y+s) =0
\label{IV17}
\end{equation}
which will be used later to find the soliton solutions for VHNLS equataion.
\section{\bf N Soliton Solutions}
To obtain soliton solutions, let us associate dynamical fields $q_i(x,t)$ with
the kernels, $K^{(n)}_i$ in (\ref {IV17}).
Substituting (\ref{IV11b}) into Lax equation (\ref{2.1}a) we find
\begin{equation}
q_i(x)= -2K^{(n)}_i (x,x)
\label{V1}
\end{equation}
and consequently, it is evident that the solution of (\ref {IV17}) gives rise to
soliton solutions in terms of scattering data elements. But before going to
solve (\ref {IV17}), we
first compute time evolution of scattering data element. Notice that as
$\vert x \vert \rightarrow \infty$, the Lax equation (\ref {2.2b},\ref {2.3}b)
leads to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} =-4i\epsilon \lambda^3\Sigma
\label{V2}
\end{equation}
which, in turn, determines time evolution of the scattering data elements.
For example, scattering data elements, $\alpha_{nj}(\lambda,t)$ for $j=1,2,
\cdots, n-1$ evolve with time as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{nj}(\lambda,t) = \alpha_{nj}(\lambda,0)e^{-8i\epsilon \lambda^3t}
\label{V3a}
\end{equation}
while the element $\alpha_{nn}(\lambda,t)$ is time invariant:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{nn}(\lambda,t) = \alpha_{nn}(\lambda,0),
\label{V3b}
\end{equation}
\label{V3}
\end{subequations}
which eventually justifies our conjecture in section 3 that $\alpha_{nn}$,
indeed, can be associated with the conserved quantities. From (\ref {IV8}) and
(\ref {IV14b}) it follows that the coefficients $C^{(j)}_{np}$ also satisfy the
similar time dependence as $\alpha_{nj}$ in (\ref {V3a}) and thus
\begin{equation}
C^{(j)}_{np}(\lambda,t) = C_{np}^{(j)}(\lambda,0)e^{-8i\epsilon
\lambda^3 t}
\label{V4}
\end{equation}
If we now restrict ourselves to soliton sector, $\alpha_{np}(\lambda)$ becomes
trivial and the function $F_p(x+y)$, in this case, reduces to
\[
F_p(x+y)=i\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{C_{np}^{(j)}e^{-i\lambda^*_j(x+y)}}
{\alpha_{nn}^{\prime}(\lambda^*_j)}.
\]
Time dependence of the function $F_p(x+y)$ may be obtained immediately from
(\ref {V4}) as
\begin{equation}
F_p(x+y)=i\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{C_{np}^{(j)}(\lambda,0)e^{-8i\epsilon \lambda^{*3}_jt}
e^{-i\lambda^*_j(x+y)}}{\alpha_{nn}^{\prime}(\lambda^*_j)}.
\label{V6}
\end{equation}
To solve the integral equation (\ref {IV17}) for the soliton solutions, the
kernels $K^{(n)}_p(x+y)$ are assumed to be of the form
\begin{equation}
K_p^{(n)}(x+y) = \sum_{j=1}^{N}\omega_{pj}(x,t)e^{-i\lambda^*_j y}
\label{V7}
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref {V6}) and (\ref {V7}) in (\ref {IV17}), we obtain a set of
$n-1$ algebraic equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{(n)}_p(x,x)&+&F_p(x+x)-\sum_{j,k,l=1}^{N}\sum_{r=1}^{n-1}\frac{\omega_{pl}
e^{-i\lambda_j^*x}}{(\lambda_k-\lambda_j^*)(\lambda_k-\lambda_l^*)}\cdot
\nonumber\\
&~&\frac{C^{(j)}_{nr}(0)C^{*(k)}_{nr}(0)}{\alpha^{\prime}_{nn}(\lambda_j^*)
\alpha^{*\prime}_{nn}(\lambda_k)}
e^{i(2\lambda_k-\lambda_j^*-\lambda_l^*)x+8i\epsilon (\lambda_k^3-\lambda_j^{*3})t}=0
\label{V8}
\end{eqnarray}
Solving (\ref {V8}) for $K_p(x,x)$ and subsequently using (\ref {V1}), the $N$
soliton solutions for each dynamical field $q_i(x,t)$ may be expressed as
\begin{equation}
q_i(x,t) = -2\sum^{N}_{j=1}({\bf B}{\bf C}^{-1})_{ij}e^{-i\lambda_j^*x}
\label{V9}
\end{equation}
where, ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf C}$ are respectively $(n-1)\times N$ and $N\times N$
matrices whose explicit forms are given by
\[
({\bf B})_{ij} = i C^{(j)}_{ni}(0)e^{-8i\epsilon\lambda_j^{*3}t -
i \lambda_j^{*}x}
\]
\[
({\bf C})_{ij} = \sum_{p=1}^{n-1}\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{C^{(j)}_{np}(0)
C^{(k)}_{np}(0)e^{-i(\lambda_i^*+\lambda_j^*-2\lambda_k )x
+ 8i\epsilon(\lambda_k^3-\lambda_j^{*3})t}}{\alpha^{\prime}_{nn}(\lambda_j^*)
\alpha^{*\prime}_{nn}(\lambda_k)(\lambda_k-\lambda_j^*)(\lambda_k-\lambda_i^*)}
-\delta_{ij}
\]
Let us now consider an explicit form of one soliton. One soliton solution,
which follow from (\ref {V9}), may be written in the following form
\begin{equation}
q_i(x,t) = \frac{2F_i(x+x)}{1 + \sum_{p=1}^{n-1}
\vert F_p(x+x) \vert^2 \frac{1}{(\lambda_1 -\lambda_1^*)^2}}
\label{V10}
\end{equation}
where
\[
F_i(x+y) = i\frac{C_{ni}^{(1)}(\lambda;0)}
{\alpha_{nn}^{\prime}(\lambda^*_1)}e^{-8i\epsilon \lambda^{*3}_{1}t
- i \lambda^*_1(x+y)}.
\]
$q_i(x,t)$ in (\ref {V10}) may be expressed in a more conventional way, by
choosing the position of the pole at $\lambda_1=\frac{1}{2}(-\xi+i\eta)$ and
by introducing $e^{\gamma_i+i\delta_i}=\frac{C_{ni}^{(1)}(\lambda,0)}
{2\eta \alpha_{nn}^{\prime}(\lambda^*_1)}$ and thus
\begin{equation}
q_i(x,t) = 4i\eta \frac{e^{\gamma_i-\eta x+\epsilon\eta(\eta^2-3\xi^2)t
+i(\delta_i+\xi x+\epsilon\xi^3t-3\epsilon\xi^2\eta t)}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{n-1}
e^{2\gamma_p}e^{-2\eta x+2\epsilon(\eta^3-3\eta\xi^2)t}}
\label{V11}
\end{equation}
which can further be simplified as
\begin{equation}
q_i(x,t) = \frac{2i\eta e^{\gamma_i-\Gamma_n + iQ_i}}{coshP}
\label{V11a}
\end{equation}
by introducing
\begin{eqnarray*}
e^{2\Gamma_n} &=& \sum_{p=1}^{n-1}e^{2\gamma_p}\\
P(x,t) &=& \eta x-\epsilon \eta(\eta^2-3\xi^2)t-\Gamma_n\\
Q_i(x,t)&=&\xi x+\epsilon \xi(\xi^2-3\xi\eta)t+\delta_i\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Once again, if we specialize to HNLS equation, each independent field $q_i(x,t)$,
depending on the models, reduces either to $q$ or to $q^*$ and as a consequence
$q_i$ in (\ref {V11}) yields to
\begin{equation}
q(x,t) = \frac{2i\eta e^{i{\tilde B}}}{\sqrt{(n-1)} cosh{\tilde A}}
\label{V12}
\end{equation}
where, ${\tilde A}= \eta x-\epsilon\eta(\eta^2-3\xi^2)t-\gamma
-\frac{1}{2}ln(n-1)$ and ${\tilde B}=\xi x+\epsilon\xi(\xi^2-3\xi\eta)t+\delta$.
It is interesting to note that we have obtained precisely the same expression
for one soliton in \cite {11}.
\vspace{.5 cm}
\section{\bf Generalized Landau Lifshitz type equation as the Gauge
equivalence system}
We now show an interesting connection between the VHNLS equation
and the generalized Landau Lifshitz type equation by exploiting the gauge
equivalence of the Lax pairs of these two dynamical systems. The procedure is
similar to that between the nonlinear Schr{\" o}dinger equation and the standard
Landau Lifshitz equation \cite {14}.
Under a local gauge transformation, the Jost function, ${\bf \Psi}(x,t,\lambda)$
changes to
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\bf \Psi}} = g^{-1}(x,t){\bf \Psi}(x,t,\lambda)
\label{III1}
\end{equation}
where $g(x,t) = {\bf \Psi}(x,t,\lambda)\vert_{\lambda =0}$. We claim that
$g(x,t)$ is an element of $SU(n)$ group. As a consequence of the gauge
transformation (\ref {III1}), the Lax equations (\ref {2.2},\ref{2.3}) become
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{{\bf \Psi_x}} &=& \tilde{{\bf U}}(x,t,\lambda)\tilde{{\bf \Psi}}\\
\tilde{{\bf \Psi_t}} &=& \tilde{{\bf V}}(x,t,\lambda)\tilde{{\bf \Psi}}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{III2}
\end{subequations}
where $\tilde{U}$ and $\tilde{V}$are the new gauge transformed
Lax pair, given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{{\bf U}}(x,t,\lambda) &=& g^{-1}({\bf U}-{\bf U}_0)g\\
\tilde{{\bf V}}(x,t,\lambda) &=& g^{-1}({\bf V}-{\bf V}_0)g
\end{eqnarray}
\label{III3}
\end{subequations}
with ${\bf U}_0 ={\bf U}\vert_{\lambda=0}=g_x(x,t)g^{-1}(x,t)$ and
${\bf V}_0 ={\bf V}\vert_{\lambda=0}=g_t(x,t)g^{-1}(x,t)$. This leads to
\begin{equation}
{\bf A}=g_x(x,t)g^{-1}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Since ${\bf A}$ belongs to $su(n)$ algebra, $g(x,t)$ obviously belongs to
$SU(n)$ group, which justifies our claim.
We may now identify the spin field of the Landau Lifshitz type equation as
\begin{equation}
S =g^{-1}(x,t){\bf \Sigma}g(x,t), \quad\quad\quad S^2 =1
\label{III4}
\end{equation}
With this identification, the gauge transformed Lax pair (\ref{III1})
may be expressed in terms of the spin field $S$ (\ref{III4}) and its
derivatives only, yielding
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{{\bf U}} &=&-i\lambda S\\
\tilde{{\bf V}} &=& -4i\epsilon \lambda^3S + 2\epsilon\lambda^2SS_x
+i\epsilon\lambda(S_{xx} + \frac{3}{2}SS_x^2)
\end{eqnarray}
\label{III5}
\end{subequations}
In deriving (\ref {III5}) we have used the following important identities
\begin{eqnarray*}
SS_x &=& 2g^{-1}{\bf A}g\\
SS_x^2 &=& -4g^{-1}{\bf \Sigma}{\bf A}^2g \\
S_{xx} &+& SS_x^2 = 2 g^{-1}{\bf \Sigma}{\bf A}_xg
\end{eqnarray*}
The zero curvature condition of (\ref {III5}), namely
\[
\tilde{{\bf U}}_t - \tilde{{\bf V}}_x + [\tilde{{\bf U}}, \tilde{{\bf V}}]=0
\]
ultimately leads to the generalized Landau Lifshitz type equation
\begin{equation}
S_t+\epsilon S_{xxx}+\frac{3}{2}\epsilon (S_x^3+SS_{xx}S_x+SS_xS_{xx}) = 0
\label{III6}
\end{equation}
with$S\in SU(n)/(U(n-1))^n$.
\vspace{.5 cm}
\section{\bf Conclusion}
We have formulated a generalized IST method for an $n$ dimensional Lax oparator.
Subsequently, the generalized IST method is used to obtain $N$ soliton solutions
for a multi-component generalization of HNLS equation, proposed by us. We have,
although, obtained soliton solutions for VHNLS equation,
IST method developed here is quite general and
is applicable for obtaining soliton solutions for all integrable nonlinear
equations.
The $sech$ structure of one soliton solution of
VHNLS equation is quite interesting, particularly in the context of nonlinear optics, since it can easily be produced from the
output of a mode locked laser.
We have shown the integrability of VHNLS equation also in the Liouville sense.
This has been acheived first by finding a set of coupled Riccati equations and
subsequently by identifying the generating function
for the conserved charges. It is found that the last diagonal element of
the scattering data matrix may be identified as the generating function of the
conserved charges. This is also confirmed from the time evolution of scattering
data matrix elements. We have also established an intriguing
relationship between
the VHNLS equation and a generalized Landau Lifshitz equation, where the spin
field $S\in SU(n)/(U(n-1))^n$. Moreover, we have obtained a Lax pair for the
spin system implying direct integrability of the generalised Landau Lifsitz
equation.
\vspace{1.0 cm}
S.N. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India for financial support and for
the award of Junior Research Fellowship.
Electronic address : <EMAIL>, $^{\dag}[email protected]
|
\section{Introduction}
The two most powerful FR~II radio sources in the nearby Universe -- Cyg~A
and 3C295 -- are each located at the centre of a dense, moderately rich
cluster of galaxies. While such an environment is exceptional for a
low-redshift FR~II galaxy, it appears to be common around powerful radio
objects at earlier epochs. Above a redshift of 0.5, radio-loud objects (both
the quasars and radio galaxies) are inferred to lie in clusters of galaxies
of moderate optical richness. The evidence for such an environment includes
optical and near-IR galaxy counts (Yee \& Green 1987; Yates et al 1989; Hill
\& Lilly 1991; Ellingson et al 1991; Dickinson 1997), high gas pressures
within a radius of 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ (Crawford \& Fabian 1989; Forbes et al 1990; Bremer
et al 1992; Durret et al 1994), cD-type host galaxy profiles (Best et al
1998), a gravitational arc (Deltorn et al 1997), and
lensing shear of surrounding field galaxies (Bower \& Smail
1997). The properties of the radio source itself also imply the presence of
a confining medium: a large-scale working surface on which the jets form the
radio lobes; a steep radio spectrum; and a high minimum pressure in regions
of relaxed radio structure (Bremer et al 1992). A Faraday depolarization
asymmetry (Garrington \& Conway 1991), the distortion and compression of
high-redshift radio source morphologies (Hintzen et al 1983; Barthel \& Miley
1988) and sources with very high Faraday rotation measures (Carilli et al
1994; Carilli et al 1997) all corroborate the inference of a dense, clumpy
medium surrounding the radio source. Thus it appears that the deepest
potential wells we can readily pinpoint at $z\ge1$ are those around powerful
radio sources.
The cluster distribution at high redshift can provide a stringent
cosmological test (see e.g. Donahue et al 1998), and can also be
compared to the X-ray luminosity function of clusters at low redshift
(eg Ebeling et al 1997). Whilst it may result in a sample of clusters
biased to only those that can host an active nucleus, using radio
sources to identify the location of deep potential wells is a
promising way of finding clusters out to and beyond a redshift
$z\sim1$ (Crawford 1997). Current X-ray surveys of clusters detected
from the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (eg Ebeling et al 1998) do not reach
sufficiently faint flux levels, and studies of deep serendipitous
X-ray pointings (e.g. Rosati et al 1998) cover only a small fraction
of the sky. The first step, however, is simply to confirm that
powerful radio quasars beyond a redshift of a half really do lie at
the centre of clusters of galaxies.
The clearest way to determine directly the presence of a cluster of
galaxies is to detect thermal X-ray emission from its hot intracluster
medium. A certain degree of success has been achieved in detecting and
spatially resolving the X-ray emission around distant ($0.5<z<2$)
radio galaxies using ROSAT (Crawford \& Fabian 1993; Worrall et al.\
1994; Crawford \& Fabian 1995a, 1996a,b;
Crawford 1997; Dickinson 1997; Hardcastle, Lawrence \& Worrall 1998;
Carilli et al 1998). Any X-rays emitted by the central bright nucleus
of radio galaxies are assumed to be absorbed along the line of sight,
as observed for the powerful low-redshift radio galaxy Cygnus-A (Ueno
et al 1994). The inferred bolometric luminosity of the X-ray sources
associated with the radio galaxies is $\sim0.7-18\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$},
easily compatible with that expected from moderately rich clusters of
galaxies around the radio sources. There could also be a contribution
to the extended X-ray emission from inverse Compton scattering of the
hidden quasar radiation (eg Brunetti, Setti \& Comastri 1997).
In the case of radio quasars, however, the X-ray detection of the spatially
extended environment is complicated by the presence of bright
spatially-unresolved X-ray emission from the active nucleus. The ROSAT PSPC
did not combine the necessary sensitivity with a sufficiently good
point-response function, needed to both detect and resolve any cluster
emission around quasars. Upper limits of $1.6-3.5\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$} (in
the 0.1-2.4{\rm\thinspace keV}\ rest-frame band) to X-ray emission from the environment of
three radio-loud quasars have been derived from ROSAT HRI data (Hall et al
1995, 1997) assuming the cluster emission profile is modelled by a King law.
We have also obtained ROSAT HRI data to spatially resolve and detect
the extended emission from the intracluster medium around each of a
small sample of intermediate-redshift radio-loud quasars. The
detection of such a component is, however, complicated by the wobble
of the spacecraft during the observation. This occurs on a $\sim402$~s
period, and when the attitude of the spacecraft is not well
reconstructed, leads to smearing of the point-spread function (PSF). The bright emission from
the quasar nucleus can then contaminate the outer regions where we
hope to detect emission from any surrounding cluster, and this has so
far hindered our progress in interpreting the data. In this paper, however,
we present an analysis of our ROSAT HRI data taken of
seven intermediate-redshift (0.1$<z<$0.8) radio-loud quasars, which employs a
new correction for the spacecraft wobble derived by Harris et al.
(1998).
A contemporaneous and independent analysis of an overlapping dataset
using this technique has been carried out by Hardcastle \&
Worrall (1999), who obtain similar results.
\section{Observations and analysis}
We use the ROSAT data of intermediate-redshift, radio-loud quasars for
which there is prior evidence from other wavebands for a cluster
environment (see notes on individual quasars for details). We
preferentially selected quasars of only moderate X-ray luminosity in
order to minimise the contrast between the nuclear emission and any
cluster emission. These targets were supplemented by data available
from the ROSAT public archive on 3C273 and 3C215. We also include the
observations of H1821+643 to form a comparison to the results of Hall
etal (1997). The observations used, and details of the quasars are
listed in Table~\ref{tab:obslog}.
\onecolumn
\begin{table}
\caption{Target sample and results \label{tab:obslog}}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
& & & & & & & \\
& & & & & & & \\
Quasar& RA & DEC & Redshift & N$_H$ & ROR & Exposure & Roll angle \\
& (J2000) & (J2000) & $z$ & ($10^{20}$\hbox{$\cm^{-2}\,$}) & & (sec) & interval \\
3C48 & 01 37 41.3 & 33 09 35 & 0.367 & 4.54 & 800634n00 & 37362 & 1-60000 \\% Bremer
3C215 & 09 06 31.9 & 16 46 13 & 0.412 & 3.65 & 800753a01 & 39173 & 27000-58000 \\% Hall
& & & & & 800753n00 & 17231 & 14000-22000 \\
& & & & & 800718n00 & 16148 & 1-50000 \\
3C254 & 11 14 38.5 & 40 37 20 & 0.734 & 1.90 & 800721n00 & 29162 & 29000-49000 \\
3C273 & 12 29 06.7 & 02 03 09 & 0.158 & 1.79 & 701576n00 & 68154 & 1-32000 \\
3C275.1& 12 43 57.7 & 16 22 53 & 0.555 & 1.99 & 800719n00 & 25396 & 9000-32000 \\% Bremer
3C281 & 13 07 53.9 & 06 42 13 & 0.602 & 2.21 & 800635a01 & 20299 & 12000-24000 \\% Bremer
& & & & & 800635n00 & 18220 & 1-14000 \\
3C334 & 16 20 21.5 & 17 36 29 & 0.555 & 4.24 & 800720n00 & 28183 & 17000-42000 \\% Bremer
H1821+643 & 18 21 57.3 & 64 20 36 & 0.297 & 4.04 & 800754n00 & 29427 & 23000-31000 \\%Hall\\%RQQ/galaxy
& & & & & & & \\
\end{tabular}
\\
Notes:\\
Further possible observations of 3C215 (800718a01), 3C194 (800803n00) and 3C280 (800802n00) all had too few
photons in the source for a satisfactory wobble correction. \\
The hydrogen column density along the line of sight to
each quasar (N$_H$) is calculated from the data of Stark et al (1992). \\
ROR in column 6 is the ROSAT observation request sequence number. \\
The roll angle interval tabulated in the final column is given in sequence
numbers taken from the attitude file, which contains the attitude
information of the telescope (such that roll angle x1 at time y1 gives
sequence number 1). The time interval of the spacecraft clock is 1{\rm\thinspace s}.
Sequence numbers from 1 to 34000 thus mean that the data is extracted from
between the time y1 and the time y34000 (34000{\rm\thinspace s}). \\
\end{table}
\twocolumn
\subsection{Wobble-correction technique}
The spatial analysis of ROSAT HRI observations is often complicated by
smearing of the image on the order of 10 arcsec (Morse 1994). This
degradation of the instrinsic resolution of the HRI instrument (5
arcsec) can be induced by errors in the aspect solution associated
with the wobble of the ROSAT spacecraft, or with the reacquisition of
the guide stars. To counteract this effect, we use the
wobble-correction technique of Harris et al (1998) which minimizes the spatial smearing of the
sources.
The technique is based on the simple assumption that in the case of a
stable roll angle (i.e. the same guide star configuration) the aspect
error is repeated through each cycle of the wobble. We thus select
data only from the longest constant roll angle interval of an
observation and folded these data over the ROSAT 402~s wobble
phase. This phase was grouped into a number of intervals (5, 10 or
20) in order to calculate phase-resolved sub-images. The centroid of
each of the sub-images was calculated by fitting a 2d-gaussian to the
brightest source near the field center. The wobble-corrected HRI
events list is reconstructed by adding the sub-images which have been
shifted to the centroid position of the uncorrected HRI image. If a
sub-image contains too few photons with which to determine the
centroid, then the position of the sub-image is not changed. This
makes sure that source extension cannot be produced by a failure of
the centroid determination in one or more sub-images.
For X-ray sources with countrates $\sim$0.1\hbox{$\ct\s^{-1}\,$} the method can
reduce the full width half maximum by about 30 per cent (cf. Harris et al.
1998). The efficacy of this technique has been tested on HRI observations of
low-luminosity X-ray AGN, some of which show no sign of extended X-ray
emission once corrected for wobble (Lehmann et al. 1999). We cannot apply
the wobble-correction technique to all possible data on suitable targets in
the literature, as it can only be applied to observations that have
a sufficient number of photons within a constant spacecraft roll angle (cf.
Table~\ref{tab:obslog}).
\subsection{Radial profile analysis}
Our aim is to search for spatially extended X-ray emission originating
in any intracluster medium around the quasars.
We have derived a background-subtracted radial profile from the un-corrected
and wobble-corrected HRI data of the X-ray source associated with each quasar.
First we determined the centroid position of the X-ray source by fitting a
2D Gaussian. Then we calculated the counts per arcsec$^2$ within the rings around
the centroid
position from 0 arcsec to 2.5 arcsec in steps of 0.5 arcsec, from
2.5 arcsec to 15 arcsec in steps of 2.5 arcsec, from 15 arcsec to 100 arcsec
in steps of
12.5 arcsec and from 100 arcsec to 1000 arcsec in steps of 100 arcsec. The
background value was calculated as the median from the 6 rings between
300 arcsec and 900 arcsec. Finally we subtracted the background value from
each ring.
First, however, we need to accurately model the HRI PSF which
will allow us to remove the contaminating spill-over of light from the
bright quasar nucleus. The standard HRI PSF of David et al (1995) does not
provide a good fit to the radial profile of observed point sources
(see Fig~\ref{fig:emppsf}).
This deviation is particularly acute where the PSF shows a sharp drop
at radii between 10 and 30 arcsec, where we expect the contrast
between the nuclear source and any extended cluster emission to begin
to show. Instead we have determined a good analytical characterization
to an empirical PSF derived from observations of 21 ROSAT Bright
survey stars, each of which has undergone the same wobble correction
procedure as the quasar data. Our best fit is the sum of two
Gaussians and a power-law component (Fig~\ref{fig:emppsf}). Assuming
that this PSF forms a good model for the spillover of quasar nuclear
light, we fix the relative normalizations and widths of the three
components and leave only the overall normalization $n$ of this profile as
the only free variable in the function:
$$ I(r) = n \{ e^{-0.5(r/4.5001)^2} + 4.376 e^{-0.5(r/2.8644)^2} + 0.9346 r^{-1.6569} \}$$
\begin{figure}
\psfig{figure=emppsf.ps,width=0.45\textwidth,angle=270}
\caption{ \label{fig:emppsf}
The best-fit analytic model (dashed line) to the empirically-derived HRI PSF (circle
markers), shown with an arbitrary flux scaling. The solid line shows
the standard HRI PSF of David et al (1995) for comparison. }
\end{figure}
We follow the same procedure for the profile fitting of each quasar.
First we fit the profile by the empirically-derived HRI PSF alone,
allowing its normalization to vary freely. We then fit this PSF (with
normalization still free to vary) in combination with each of two
models chosen to represent any extended emission. The first model is a
broken power-law, with slope $r^{-1}$ for radii $r<R$ and $r^{-2.1}$
for $r\ge R$, where the break $R$ and the absolute normalization of
the extended component are free to vary. This is an approximation to
the X-ray surface brightness profile of the gas in a typical cluster
of galaxies containing a cooling flow, and $R$ then corresponds to the
cooling radius (eg Crawford \& Fabian 1995b). The second model employed is a projected King law,
with index fixed at -1.5, and the core radius $R$ and normalization
left as free parameters. Given the errors inherent in whether such
simple models truly characterize the extended emission, we do not
convolve the extended emission models with the PSF. The relative
normalization between the PSF and extended components are not always
very well determined, so we also derive what should be regarded as a
lower limit to the presence of any extended component by assuming the
nuclear emission accounts for all the light in the X-ray core. We fit
the PSF to the quasar radial profile within the inner 1--5 arcsec and
then subtract this model and fit the residuals by each of the cluster
models. We execute these 5 model fits to the profiles out to a radius
of 50 arcsec (11 data points), yielding 10, 8, and 9 degrees of
freedom for the psf only, psf+extended component models, and the fit
of the extended component model to the residual after subtraction of
the normalised HRI PSF. We then repeat the fits to the profile out to
a radius of 100 arcsec (15 data points), yielding 14, 12 and 13
degrees of freedom to the fits as above. The fitting analysis is
carried out first for each quasar image in the absence of any wobble
correction, and then for the images corrected using different phase
intervals.
The detailed results are summarized in Table~2, where the
reduced-$\chi^2$ is given for each fit. We tabulate the best-fit
parameters of the profile fits out to a radius of 50 arcsec and then 100
arcsec in turn: $R$ (in arcsec) representing either the break in the
broken power-law model, or the core radius in the King law model; the
integrated luminosity from the extended component as a percentage of
the total luminosity of the X-ray source; the X-ray luminosities (in
the observed 0.1-2{\rm\thinspace keV}\ energy band) of the quasar component
($L_X^{QSO}$) and that of the cluster component ($L_X^{cl}$) assuming
a power-law of photon index 2 and thermal bremsstrahlung emission at a
temperature of $kT=4{\rm\thinspace keV}$ respectively. (At the redshift of our quasars
this observed band carries about half of the bolometric luminosity for
the thermal spectrum.) The errors are derived from propagating the
$\Delta\chi^2=1$ confidence limits of the fit parameters. Errors are
not shown when the fit was insufficiently robust to extract errors on
all parameters of interest. Table~2, however, demonstrates the full
range of values obtained from the ten model fits employed for each of
the phase intervals and allows one to assess the variation of each
parameter from the systematic uncertainties of PSF normalization and
extended component model employed. A comparison of some of the better
fits to the radial profile of each quasar (those shown in bold font in
Table~2) are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:profs}. These plots clearly
show that there are significant differences between the PSF-only fit
to the profile, and the fits that include a model for extended
emission. In all this analysis we necessarily assume that any extended
component is both centred on the quasar (in no case do we see any
evidence for a secondary off-centre peak), and derive its properties
such as scale and luminosity assuming that it is at the redshift of
the quasar.
The present data cannot rule out a contribution to the extended
component of X-ray emission from the active nuclei of close companion
galaxies to each of the quasars. Such emission would, of course,
provide further support for a clustered environment.
The probability of getting an unassociated X-ray source within
an aperture of 1 square arcminute centred on a quasar is less than
$10^{-3}$, at the flux level of the extended emission. Thus there is
little chance of the extended emission component being due to
contamination by fore- or back-ground sources.
\section{Results for individual quasars}
\subsection{3C48}
Given its proximity to a very luminous source of photoionizaton, the
low ionization state observed in the spatially extended oxygen line
emission around this 3C48 led Fabian et al (1987) to deduce a high
density environment around this quasar. The inferred gas pressure of
3-8$\times10^5$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}\ within 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ of the quasar core is consistent
with confinement of the extended emission-line region by an
intracluster medium There is, however, no strong evidence for a rich
cluster of galaxies from optical images (Yee, Green \& Stockman 1986; Yates
etal 1989).
The fit to the radial profile is substantially improved by the
addition of an extended component, the best fits being obtained in all
cases when this is represented by a King law.
The extended component requires a very consistent value
for the core radius $R$ of around 5-6 arcsec in all fits (1 arcsec
corresponds to 6.2{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the quasar\footnote{We
assume a value for the Hubble constant of
$H_0=50$\hbox{$\kmps\Mpc^{-1}$}\ and a cosmological deceleration parameter of
$q_0=0.5$ throughout this paper.}), and accounts
for 10-16 per cent of the total X-ray source. The full variation of
its luminosity is $5-10\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}, with most of the
values derived being to the lower end of this range.
\subsection{3C215}
This quasar lies in a densely clustered environment (Ellingson et al.\
1991; Hintzen 1984), and the radio source has a very complex structure
suggestive of deflection and distortion of the radio jet to the
south-east by some external medium. The two sides of the radio source
show asymmetric Faraday depolarization, which can be interpreted as
due to differing lines of sight through a depolarizing cluster medium
(Garrington, Conway \& Leahy 1991). Crawford \& Fabian (1989) inferred
a high gas pressure of over $3\times10^{5}$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}\ from the ionization
state of the extended line emission within 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ of the quasar
nucleus.
We have extracted radial profiles from three observations of 3C215.
Smearing of the image seems to have badly affected observation number
800753n00, as $R$ decreases substantially after correction of the
image. In all cases, the reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit improves from the
addition of an extended component to the HRI PSF model, although there
is little preference shown between the King and broken power-law
models. In the fits allowing free
normalization of the PSF component the $R$ derived is in the range 4-9
arcsec (where 1 arcsec corresponds to 6.5{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the
quasar), with the broken power-law model always yielding the larger
values of $R$. The luminosity of the extended component ranges over
1.6-6.3$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}, and account for 11-40 per cent of the
total X-ray emission from this source; the higher values are derived
from the King law models.
\subsection{3C254}
3C254 is a quasar with a very asymmetric radio source, and was
discovered by us (Forbes et al 1990) to lie in a spectacular
emission-line region extending out to radii of 80{\rm\thinspace kpc}. The optical
nebula is again at low ionization, with an
inferred pressure of $>10^6$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}\
within 30kpc (Forbes et al 1990;
Crawford \& Vanderriest 1997). The kinematics and distribution of the
line-emitting gas in combination with the radio morphology strongly
suggest that the radio plasma to the east of the quasar is interacting
with a dense clumpy environment (Bremer 1997; Crawford \& Vanderriest
1997). The radio source itself also shows asymmetric depolarization
(Liu \& Pooley 1991).
Optical continuum images show an overdensity of faint objects
around the quasar consistent with a location in a compact cluster or
group (Bremer 1997). The HRI image of 3C254 shows a detached secondary
source of X-ray emission approximately 35 arcsec east of the quasar,
but at a very low fraction of the total quasar luminosity. There is no
optical counterpart to this source on the Space Telescope Science
Institute Digitized Sky Survey.
The fitting of the profile is improved by the addition of an extended
component to the HRI PSF model, although it cannot discriminate
between a King or broken power-law model. The extended emission
contains 12-19 per cent of the total X-ray luminosity of the source.
The characteristic scale length $R$ of the extended emission component
varies over 9-15 arcsec (1 arcsec corresponds to 8.1{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the
redshift of the quasar), with a luminosity of
5-9$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}.
\subsection{3C273}
3C273 is famous for its jet, which can be seen in the outermost
contours of our corrected images. The jet is known to emit X-rays at
around 16 arcsec (nearer the core than the radio and optical features
of the jet), but the emission from the jet contributes less than 0.5
per cent of the total X-ray luminosity of the source associated with
the quasar (Harris \& Stern 1987). From optical images, 3C273 may be a
member of a poor cluster of galaxies (Stockton 1980).
All the wobble-corrected profiles of 3C273 require the addition of an
extended component (preferably a King law). Each of the models for the
extended emission yields slightly (and consistently) different
results: the broken power-law fits tend to have $R$ of 8.7 arcsec
(where 1 arcsec corresponds to 3.6{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the quasar)
and contain 5 per cent of the total X-ray luminosity, at
7$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}. The King law fits show a greater variation on
the parameters, but have $R$ of only $\sim$4 arcsec, and $\sim11$ per
cent of the total luminosity at 1.3-2.0$\times10^{45}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}. The
extended emission we find in the environs of this quasar is
sufficiently luminous that it cannot easily be ascribed to the jet.
\begin{figure*}
\vbox{
\hbox{
\psfig{figure=3c48prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
\psfig{figure=3c215prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
}\hbox{
\psfig{figure=3c254prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
\psfig{figure=3c273prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
}\hbox{
\psfig{figure=3c275.1prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
\psfig{figure=3c281prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
}}
\caption{ \label{fig:profs}
The radial profile of the X-ray emission from each of the quasars out
to 50 arcsec, with the exception of 3C275.1 where the profile
is shown out to 100 arcsec. The phase interval used for this radial
profile is shown in brackets after the quasar name in
each plot.
The data are shown as solid
circle markers, with the best fit of the empirical HRI PSF on its own plotted as
a dashed line.
The best-fit models of the PSF+King law and the PSF+broken power-law
model (upper solid and dotted lines respectively) are plotted, as well
as just the
extended component to each of these fits (the lower solid and dotted
lines respectively). The fits shown in these plots are marked by bold
font in Table~2.}
\end{figure*}
\twocolumn
\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{figure=3c334prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
\psfig{figure=1821prof.ps,width=0.4\textwidth,angle=270}
\caption{ }
\end{figure}
\subsection {3C275.1} 3C275.1 was the first quasar discovered from optical
galaxy counts to be located at the centre of a rich cluster of
galaxies (Hintzen et al 1981; Hintzen 1984; Ellingson et al 1991). The
radio source is only slightly bent, but the two sides display an
asymmetry in the Faraday depolarization (Garrington et al 1991). The
quasar is embedded in a host galaxy with a continuum spatial profile
and absolute magnitude typical of a bright cluster cD; this is in turn
surrounded by a large (100{\rm\thinspace kpc}) optical emission-line nebula (Hintzen
\& Romanishin 1986; Hintzen \& Stocke 1986). Crawford \& Fabian (1989)
deduce a pressure within this gas of $>3\times10^5$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}\ at radii
of $<$20{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ and thus also the presence of an intracluster medium
(Crawford \& Fabian 1989).
The fit to the X-ray radial profile improves slightly with the
addition of an extended component to the HRI PSF. The models all imply
a surprisingly broad core, so much so that fitting a second component
to data only within a 50 arcsec radius is not robust. The King and
broken power-law models yield very similar results, with $R\sim$36
arcsec (where 1 arcsec corresponds to 7.4{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the
quasar), and 24 per cent of the total X-ray luminosity of the source
at $L_X\sim3\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}.
\subsection{3C281}
3C281 is known to lie in a rich cluster (Yee \& Green 1987) and
Bremer et al.\ (1992) infer a pressure exceeding 2$\times10^6$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}\
in the extended emission-line gas within a radius of 20kpc.
After the wobble-correction has been applied, the X-ray source
associated with the quasar shows a distinct elongation to either side of
the core along a position angle of 45$^\circ$ west of north. The
direction of this elongation is, however, at odds with that of the
radio source which has an axis 10$^\circ$ east of north.
The profiles extracted from both observations of 3C281 both show an
improved fit from the addition of an extended component (preferably a
King law). The fractional luminosity of this component is high,
ranging over 42-67 per cent at 1.1-1.7$\times10^{45}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$} (the
higher values obtained with the King model fits). The characteristic
radius of this component is 5-6 arcsec (where 1 arcsec corresponds to
7.6{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the quasar).
\subsection{3C334}
This quasar lies in a clustered environment (Hintzen 1984) and has a
pressure within the extended emission-line region of over
$6\times10^5$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}\ at 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ from the quasar core (Crawford
\& Fabian (1989). The quasar again shows a depolarization asymmetry
(Garrington et al 1991), and
narrow-band imaging by Hes (1995) suggests that the [OII] line
emission is extended along the same position angle of
$\sim150$$^\circ$ as the strong radio jet to the south-east of the
quasar core.
The fits to the wobble-corrected profiles show an improvement
to the fit with the addition of an extended component, preferably a
King model. The lengthscale $R$ of this component lies in the range 5-10
arcsec (where 1 arcsec corresponds to 7.4{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the
quasar), and contains 8-22 per cent of the total X-ray luminosity at
3-8$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}.
\subsection{H1821+643 }
H1821+643 is radio-quiet quasar which is luminous in the infrared. The
X-ray emission was found to have a significant extended component by
Hall et al (1997). It is included here as a comparison object.
The fits improve dramatically with the inclusion of an extended
component. With the 50 arcsec apertures, the King model is often
preferred, whereas the 100 arcsec apertures show a marked improvement
for the broken power-law model. The characteristic radius of this
extended component, $R$, shows a wide range of 29-81 arcsec (where 1
arcsec corresponds to 5.5{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ at the redshift of the quasar), but
clear separation according to both extended model and outer profile
radius employed. The extended component contains from 10--19 per cent
of the X-ray luminosity, at 8--20$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}.
\section{Summary of results}
We tabulate average properties of the extended emission component from
the profile fits to each quasar in Table~\ref{tab:averages}, where
these averages are derived only from the fits where the normalizations
of the PSF and model for the extended emission are both allowed to
vary (labelled as PSF+broken power-law and PSF+King law in Table~2).
The values are averaged from the fits only to the wobble-corrected
images (and from each phase interval employed). As is clear from both
Tables~2 and \ref{tab:averages}, where the scatter in properties is
sufficiently low for comparison to be made (3C48, 3C215, 3C273 and
3C281), systematic differences can be seen between parameters derived
using the King and broken power-law fits. The King law always gives a
higher X-ray luminosity (and thus higher overall percentage of the
total luminosity), but a smaller characteristic radius $R$ than the
broken power-law model.
The average bolometric luminosities (from the profile fit out to 100
arcsec) span the range of 6-43$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}, with values of 13
and 18$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$} typical for the broken power-law and King
models respectively. The King models give values of $R$ in the range
33-38{\rm\thinspace kpc}, with the exception of 14{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ for the fits to 3C273; for
the broken power-law model the values are 31-49{\rm\thinspace kpc}. The three
quasars, 3C334, 3C254 and 3C275.1, for which we do not differentiate
between parameters derived from each model have an average $R$ of 49,
94 and 270 {\rm\thinspace kpc}, respectively.
Where a preference between the two models for the extended emission can be
seen, it is nearly always for the King law over the broken power-law model (in
3C48, 3C273, 3C281 and 3C334). An exception is the 100 arcsec profile fits
to 1821+643, which prefers the broken power-law fits.
The continuing increase in luminosity of the extended X-ray emission between
the 50 and 100 arcsec profile fits also shows that this component is truly
extended over cluster-wide scales of $\sim400-800${\rm\thinspace kpc}\ radius.
We note that the discrepancy between the observed, corrected profile
and the PSF is least for 3C273 and 3C48, which are the nearest 3CR
quasars in our sample. If there are systematic errors associated with
the wobble correction that we are unaware of, then these objects will
be the most seriously affected. It is important that the extended
emission from these objects be confirmed with {\em Chandra}.
\addtocounter{table}{+1}
\onecolumn
\begin{table}
\caption{Average properties of the extended component
\label{tab:averages}}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
& & & & & & \\
Quasar & R (kpc) & \% & $L_{bol}$ ($10^{43}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}) & R (kpc) & \% & $L_{bol}$ ($10^{43}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}) \\
outer radius (arcsec) & (50) & (50) & (50) & (100) & (100) & (100)\\
& & & & & & \\
3C48 (King) & 33$\pm$4 & 13$\pm$1 & 154$\pm$13 & 35$\pm$2 & 15$\pm$2 & 180$\pm$20 \\
\ \ $''$ \ \ \ (BPL) & 39$\pm$1 & 11$\pm$1 & 119$\pm$7 & 39$\pm$1 & 11$\pm$1 & 128$\pm$9 \\
3C215 (King) & 32$\pm$1 & 26$\pm$3 & 85$\pm$11 & 33$\pm$1 & 26$\pm$4 & 89$\pm$13 \\
\ \ $''$ \ \ \ \ \ (BPL) & 49$\pm$3 & 17$\pm$3 & 57$\pm$9 & 49$\pm$3 & 19$\pm$3 & 68$\pm$11 \\
3C254 & 86$\pm$10 & 16$\pm$2 & 121$\pm$9 & 94$\pm$11 & 17$\pm$1 & 141$\pm$4 \\
3C273 (King) & 15$\pm$1 & 10$\pm$1 & 353$\pm$22 & 14$\pm$1 & 12$\pm$1 & 426$\pm$17 \\
\ \ $''$ \ \ \ \ \ (BPL) & 31$\pm$2 & 5$\pm$1 & 173$\pm$2 & 31$\pm$2 & 5$\pm$1 & 166$\pm2$\\
3C275.1 & (341) & (17) & (40) & 270$\pm$7 & 24$\pm$1 & 62$\pm$4 \\
3C281 (King) & 39$\pm$1 & 62$\pm$6 & 256$\pm$3 & 38$\pm$1 & 64$\pm$4 & 276$\pm$3 \\
\ \ $''$ \ \ \ \ \ (BPL) & 50$\pm$2 & 45$\pm$3 & 189$\pm$8 & 48$\pm$5 & 47$\pm$4 & 213$\pm$2 \\
3C334 & 50$\pm$10 & 16$\pm$3 & 106$\pm$18 & 49$\pm$9 & 17$\pm$3 & 117$\pm$18 \\
H1821+643 (King) & 175$\pm$12 & 11$\pm$1 & 218$\pm$11 & 267$\pm$18 & 18$\pm$1 & 380$\pm$9 \\
\ \ $''$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (BPL) & 196$\pm$6 & 13$\pm$1 & 254$\pm$11 & 389$\pm$56 & 20$\pm$1 & 431$\pm$11 \\
\end{tabular}
\\
Notes:\\
These values are averaged only from the results to the fits to
the wobble-corrected images (and each phase
interval employed), and from the PSF+broken power-law and PSF+King law
models. Where the two models give consistently different answers, we
deduce an average for each (eg 3C48); where there is a similar range or
too few fits available to reliably discriminate for such differences
(eg 3C275.1) we obtain an average value from both models
together. \\
The errors given are the
variation in this average value and not a significance of the detection. \\
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Derived cooling flow parameters
\label{tab:cf}}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
& & & & & \\
Quasar & $L_{\rm CF}$ & \hbox{$\dot M$} & $r_{\rm CF}$ & $P$(30{\rm\thinspace kpc}) & $n(R)$ \\
& ($10^{43}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}) & (\hbox{$\Msun\yr^{-1}\,$}) & ({\rm\thinspace kpc}) & ($10^6${\rm\thinspace yr}) & ($10^{-2}$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\,$}) \\
3C48 & 36 & 330 & 155 & 3.5 & 3.4 \\
3C215 & 18 & 160 & 120 & 2.2 & 1.7 \\
3C254 & 45 & 410 & 165 & 2.7 & 1.2 \\
3C273 & 59 & 510 & 175 & 5.1 & 6.2 \\
3C275.1& 30 & 100 & 110 & 1.4 & 0.2 \\
3C281 & 58 & 510 & 180 & 4.0 & 3.0 \\
3C334 & 33 & 290 & 150 & 3.1 & 2.3 \\
\end{tabular}
\\
Notes:\\
$L_{CF}$ is the X-ray luminosity of the extended component within
the break radius $R$, and is assumed to be due to a cooling flow in the
cluster. \\
\hbox{$\dot M$} is the derived mass cooling rate within radius $R$. \\
$t_{\Lambda}(R)$ is the cooling time at radius $R$.\\
$P$ is the gas pressure at a radius of 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ from the centre of the
cluster.\\
$n(R)$ is the electron density at radius $R$. \\
\end{table}
\twocolumn
\section{Discussion}
We plot the average bolometric luminosity of the extended cluster
component (from Table~\ref{tab:averages}) against quasar redshift in
Figure~\ref{fig:lxz}. For comparison we plot the bolometric luminosity
of the X-ray source associated with the distant radio galaxies
3C277.2, 3C294, 3C324, 3C356, 3C368 (from Crawford \& Fabian 1996b)
and 1138-262 (Carilli et al 1998), and the clusters surrounding the
two nearby FR~II radio galaxies Cygnus~A (Ueno et al 1994) and 3C295
(Henry \& Henriksen 1986). The observed countrates of the distant
radio galaxies have been converted to luminosities assuming the same
4{\rm\thinspace keV}\ thermal bremsstrahlung model used to obtain luminosities for
the quasar extended emission.
The luminosities we have derived for the environment of our quasars
are brighter than the upper limits of 1.6 -- 3.5$\times10^{44}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$}
(rest-frame 0.1-2.4{\rm\thinspace keV}) to any cluster emission surrounding three
radio-loud quasars in Hall et al (1995, 1997). We note, however, that
those upper limits have been obtained from images {\em not} corrected
for satellite wobble. They also assume therefore that the quasar light
follows the standard HRI PSF derived by David et al (1995) and
accounts for all the light in the innermost bin. Our quasar host
clusters are consistent with the luminosity of
3.7$\times10^{45}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$} detected by Hall et al (1997) for the
environment of the radio-intermediate quasar H1821+643 at a redshift
$z$=0.297.
The inferred bolometric luminosities of the extended components we
have found here are completely reasonable for moderately rich clusters
of galaxies at low redshift. They are comparable to the luminosities
of the clusters associated with the powerful radio galaxies Cygnus A
and 3C295. They are however (Fig.~1) more luminous than the extended
X-ray emission detected around more distant 3CR radio galaxies above
redshift one. Whether this indicates evolution, a problem for radio
galaxy/quasar unification, or is a result of small number statistics
must await the compilation of a complete sample, which are study is
not.
All extended models have a central cooling time considerably shorter
than a Hubble time. We therefore explore the properties of the implied
cooling flows occurring around these quasars by deriving some
approximate parameters from the broken power-law fits to the profiles.
We attribute all the X-ray luminosity of the extended component within
radius $R$ to thermal bremsstrahlung from gas with electron density
$n$ (where $n\propto r^{-1}$) at a temperature of 4{\rm\thinspace keV}. The cooling
time of the gas at $R$ (except in the case of 3C275.1) is then between
about 1--3 billion yr. We then estimate the cooling flow radius
$r_{\rm CF}$ at which the cooling time is $10^{10}$~yr and obtain a
rough indication of the mass deposition rate within that radius from
the ratio of the mass of gas within $r_{\rm CF}$ to $10^{10}$~yr. The
derived values are shown in Table~\ref{tab:cf}. Note they are of
course subject to not only the appropriateness of the fixed slopes
chosen for our original broken power-law model, but also to the true
gravitational potential of any cluster, and the amount of
gravitational work done on the cooling gas. The values should be
regarded as uncertain by a least a factor of 2. They may be
underestimated by a factor of at least 2 if the gas temperatures are
significantly higher than the 4~keV assumed and there is internal
absorption such as is common in low redshift cooling flows.
Note that the radius of the surface brightness break which we infer is
in the range 40--90~kpc, and is similar to the break radius in the
profile of the cluster around IRAS~09104 ($\sim60$~kpc, Crawford \&
Fabian 1995b). This is likely to be the radius of the core of the
gravitational potential of the cluster; the $r^{-1}$ profile then
occurs within there since that gas is cooling at approximately
constant pressure. Such small gravitational core radii are
characteristic of relaxed lensing cluster cores such as are associated
with massive cooling flows (Allen 1998). The large break radii found
for 3C275.1 and H1821+643 do not agree with this picture and require
more detailed images.
We can also use our cooling flow parameters to derive a gas pressure
$P$ at a radius of 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ (see Table \ref{tab:cf}) for comparison to
the pressures derived from the completely independent method using the
ionization state of the extended optical emission lines (Crawford \&
Fabian 1989; Bremer et al 1992; Crawford \& Vanderreist 1997). The
pressures derived from the optical nebulosities mostly underestimate
those derived from the X-ray profile fits (Figure~\ref{fig:pvsp}) by a
factor of up to 10. Given that the gas pressures are mostly derived
from the optical nebulosity using a conservative underestimate to the
crucial but unknown UV and soft X-ray band of the ionizing nuclear
spectrum, this discrepancy is not surprising. Support for this
interpretation of the disparity in derived pressures is found in
Crawford et al (1991) where a better knowledge of the ionizing
continuum of the nucleus of 3C263 was found to increase the
optically-derived pressure by up to an order of magnitude. In
addition, we note that 3C254, the quasar with the best agreement
between the two pressure values is the only one where UV HST data has
been used to constrain the shape of the ionizing continuum (Crawford
\& Vanderriest 1997).
We note that the derived cluster luminosity for 3C273 is high and
implies the presence of a rich cluster which is not seen at other
wavelengths. At its relatively low redshift of $z=0.16$, such a
cluster should be obvious in the optical band. As mentioned already,
it has the profile most susceptible to systematic errors, and the
absence of an optical cluster may argue for the existence of such
errors. If the PSF is then uncertain by a relative amount equal to the
observed 3C273 profile and our empirical PSF, then it will not change
greatly our results on the other quasars except perhaps for 3C48.
Inverse-Compton scattering of quasar radiation could still contribute
to our extended component of X-ray emission. If a significant process,
the X-ray source would appear asymmetric and lop-sided, as (back) scattering
by the electrons in the more distant radio lobe should be stronger
than in the nearer lobe. The quality of our current data is
insufficient to show
any significant asymmetry, and so we are unable to assess the
contribution from this process. Observations of these sources with
{\em Chandra} and {\em XMM} should clarify its relative importance to
the total emission.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{figure=lxz.ps,width=0.45\textwidth,angle=270}
\caption{ \label{fig:lxz}
The average bolometric luminosities (as given in
Table~\ref{tab:averages}) for the extended component of emission (solid
circle markers; values extracted from the 100 arcsec profile fits) plotted
against the redshift of the quasar. Separate averages obtained
for the same quasar assuming
the King or broken power-law models are plotted as two points at the
same redshift joined by a straight line (where the King law gives the upper
end of the range). The luminosities of the host
clusters of the nearby FR~II radio galaxies Cygnus~A and 3C295 are
plotted as open circles.
The
luminosities of the X-ray source associated with the distant radio
galaxies 3C277.2, 3C294,
3C324, 3C356, 3C368 and 1138-262 are also plotted (triangle markers), where
the observed countrates have been converted to X-ray luminosities assuming the
same 4{\rm\thinspace keV}\ thermal bremsstrahlung model used for the quasar extended
emission. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{figure=pvsp.ps,width=0.45\textwidth,angle=270}
\caption{ \label{fig:pvsp}
Comparison of the gas pressure at a projected distance of 30{\rm\thinspace kpc}\ from the quasar
derived from the ionization state of the extended emission-line gas, and
from the broken power-law fits to the X-ray radial profiles. Pressures are
expressed in units of $10^5$\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}, and the solid line indicates the locus
of equal pressures. }
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
The seven powerful radio-loud quasars studied here appear to be
surrounded by luminous extended X-ray emission. The spatial properties
of the emission are consistent with an origin in thermal emission from
an intracluster medium. The radiative cooling time of the gas within
$\sim 50$~kpc of the quasars is only a few billion years or less,
indicating the presence of strong cooling flows of hundreds of
$\hbox{$\Msun\yr^{-1}\,$}$. The high pressure of that gas is sufficient to support the
extended optical nebulosities seen around many of these quasars and
may play a r\^ole in shaping the properties of the radio sources, such
as structure, depolarization and possibly even fuelling and evolution
(Fabian \& Crawford 1990). Such a r\^ole is not clear from a comparison of
radio properties with the neighbouring optical galaxy density (Rector
et al 1995).
A small number of luminous clusters without central AGN have so far
been found beyond redshift 0.5, and the discovery of a cluster at
$z\sim0.8$ with luminosity $10^{45}$\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}\,$} (Donahue et al 1998)
provides strong evidence for a low density universe. We have shown
that the study of the environment of powerful radio-loud quasars is a
promising way of extending the discovery of similarly luminous
clusters both in numbers and to higher redshifts.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank Steve Allen for advice on the profiles of massive cooling
flows. CSC and ACF thank the Royal Society for financial support. This
work has been supported in part by the DLR (format DARA GmbH) under
grant 50~OR~9403~5 (GH and IL). This research has made use of the
NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) and the Leicester Database and
Archive Service (LEDAS).
|
\section{Introduction}
The investigation of heavy quarks production in high energy hadron
collisions provides a method for studying the internal structure of
hadrons. Some problems are the same in hadroproduction and
photo-/electroproduction processes. So, the review of the situation of
the heavy quark hadroproduction can be useful for the interpretation of
HERA data.
In this talk we present a short review of heavy quark hadroproduction.
The theoretical predictions are usually obtained in the NLO parton model
\cite{1}. The assumptions which are used for simplifications of the
computations are considered in Sect. 2. In the case of one-particle
distributions even LO ($\sim \alpha_s^2$) parton model with collinear
approximation is enough for the data description, NLO contributions
($\sim \alpha_s^3$) only change the normalizations. On the other hand,
in the case of two-particle distributions, see Sect. 3, the collinear
approximation has failed, and it is necessary to account for the
transverse momenta of the incident partons. The possibility to include
the transverse momenta of the incident partons in the framework of
semihard theory \cite{GLR}, where the virtualities and polarizations of
the gluons are taken into account, is considered in Sect. 4. In Ref.
\cite{3} we presented the results for main and simplest subprocess,
$gg \rightarrow \overline{Q} Q \; (\sim \alpha_{s}^{2})$ for
hadroproduction, and
$\gamma g \rightarrow \overline{Q} Q \; (\sim \alpha_{s})$ for photo-
and electroproduction.
\section{Conventional NLO parton model}
The conventional NLO parton model expression for the heavy quark
hadroproduction cross sections has the factorization form \cite{CSS}:
\begin{equation}
\sigma (a b \rightarrow Q\overline{Q}) =
\sum_{ij} \int dx_i dx_j G_{a/i}(x_i,\mu_F) G_{b/j}(x_j,\mu_F)
\hat{\sigma} (i j \rightarrow Q \overline{Q}) \;,
\label{pm}
\end{equation}
where $G_{a/i}(x_i,\mu_F)$ and $G_{b/j}(x_j,\mu_F)$ are the structure
functions of partons $i$ and $j$ in the colliding hadrons $a$ and $b$,
$\mu_F$ is the factorization scale (i.e. virtualities of incident
partons) and $\hat{\sigma} (i j \rightarrow Q \overline{Q})$ is
the cross section of the subprocess which is calculated in
perturbative QCD. The last cross section can be written as a sum of
LO and NLO contributions, $\hat{\sigma} (i j \rightarrow Q\overline{Q})
= \alpha_s^2(\mu_R) \sigma^{(o)}_{ij} + \alpha_s^3(\mu_R)
\sigma^{(1)}_{ij}$, where $\mu_R$ is the renormalization scale, and
$\sigma^{(o)}_{ij}$ as well as $\sigma^{(1)}_{ij}$ depend practically
only on one variable $\rho = \frac{4m_Q^2}{\hat{s}}$ ,
$\hat{s} = x_i x_j s_{ab}$.
The expression (1) corresponds to the process shown schematically in
Fig. 1 with
\begin{equation}
q_{1T} = q_{2T} =0 \;.
\end{equation}
The main contribution to the cross section at small $x$ is
known to come from gluon-gluon fusion, $i = j = g$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\psfig{file=tal1a.eps,width=0.35\textwidth}} \\
Fig. 1. Heavy quark production in parton model.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The principal uncertainties of any numerical QCD calculation of heavy
flavour production are connected with the unknown values of the
parameters: both scales, $\mu_F$ and $\mu_R$\footnote{These
uncertainties should disappear when one sums up all the high order
contributions. Sometimes people say that strong scale dependence of the
calculated results in LO or NLO means the large contribution of high
order diagrams and weak dependence means their small contribution. Of
course, it is not true. Strong scale dependence of NLO results means
only strong scale dependence of high order contributions but at some
fixed scale value the last ones can be numerically small. Weak scale
dependence of NLO results means weak scale dependence of high order
terms but they can be numerically large.}, and the exact value of heavy
quark mass, $m_Q$. The values of both scales should be of the order of
hardness of the considered process, however nobody can say what is
better to use for scales, $m_Q$, $m_T = \sqrt{m_Q^2 + p_T^2}$ or
$\hat{s}$. The phenomenological parton densities are sometimes (at very
small $x$) in contradiction \cite{ASS} with the general properties of
perturbative QCD. However it is just the region that dominates in the
heavy quark production at high energies\footnote{In the case of charm
production, $m_c$ = 1.4GeV, at LHC, $\sqrt{s}$ = 14 TeV, the product
$x_1x_2$ of two gluons (both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are the integral variable)
is equal to $4\cdot 10^{-8}$.}. Another problem of parton model is the
collinear approximation. The transverse momenta of the incident partons,
$q_{iT}$ and $q_{jT}$ are assumed to be zero, and their virtualities are
accounted for only via structure functions; the cross sections
$\sigma^{(o)}_{ij}$ and $\sigma^{(1)}_{ij}$ are assumed to be
independent on these virtualities.
The NLO parton model calculations of the total cross sections of
$c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ production, as functions of the beam
energy, for $\pi^- N$ and $p-N$ collisions can be found in \cite{FMNR}.
These results depend strongly (on the level of several times) on the
numerical values of quark masses as well as on the both scales, $\mu_F$
and $\mu_R$. Some experimental data are in contradiction with each
other, however generally they are in agreement with NLO parton model
predictions.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\psfig{file=tal3.eps,width=0.50\textwidth}} \\
Fig. 2. $p_T$-distributions for $p\bar{p} \rightarrow b + X$ at
$\sqrt{s}$ = 1.8 TeV, for different values of rapidity.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The NLO contributions to one-particle distributions lead only to
renormalization of LO results, practically without correction of the
shapes of a distributions \cite{NDE1,MNR}. It means that instead of
more complicate calculation of $p_T$, or rapidity distributions, in NLO,
it is enough to calculate them in LO, and multiply after by K-factor
\begin{equation}
K = \frac{LO + NLO}{LO} \;,
\end{equation}
which can be taken, say, from the results for total production cross
sections. The comparison of LO + NLO calculations with LO multiplied by
K-factor is presented in Fig. 2 taken from Ref. \cite{NDE1}.
The values of K-factors and their energy and scale dependences for
several sets of structure functions were calculated in Refs.
\cite{SCG,LSCSh}.
The experimental data for $x_F$-distributions of D-mesons produced in
$\pi N$ interactions \cite{Adam,Alv} are in agreement with the parton
model distributions for bare quarks, as one can see in Fig. 3 taken from
\cite{FMNR}. It means that the fragmentation processes are not important
here, or they are compensated by, say, recombination processes. The
shape of $x_F$-distributions does not depend practically on the mass of
$c$-quark.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=f5a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}
\hspace{0.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=f5b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}}
Fig. 3. Experimental $x_F$ distributions for $D$ mesons, compared to the
NLO parton model prediction for charm quarks.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The data on one-particle $p_T$-distributions,including the hadronic
colliders data for the case of beauty production, also can be described
by the NLO parton model, see \cite{FMNR}.
\section{Azimuthal correlations and failure of the collinear
approximation}
The azimuthal angle $\phi$ is defined as an opening angle between two
produced heavy quarks, projected onto a plane perpendicular to the beam.
In the LO parton model this angle between them is exactly $180^o$. In
the case of NLO parton model a distribution over $\phi$ angle appears
\cite{MNR}.
The investigation of such distributions is very important. In
one-partricle distributions, the sum of LO and NLO contributions of the
parton model practically coinsides with the LO contribution multiplied
by $K$-factor. So we can not control the magnitudes of LO and NLO
contributions separately. In the case of azimuthal correlations all
difference from the trivial $\delta(\phi - \pi)$ distribution comes from
NLO contribution.
The experimental data on azimuthal correlations are claimed (see
\cite{BEAT} and Refs. therein) to be in disagreement with the NLO
predictions, for the cases of charm pair hadro- and photoproduction at
fixed target energies. The level of disagreements can be seen in Fig. 4
(solid histograms) taken from Ref. \cite{FMNR}. These data can be
described \cite{FMNR}, assuming the comparatively large intrinsic
transverse momenta of incoming partons ($k_T$ kick). For each event, in
the longitudinal centre-of-mass frame of the heavy quark pair, the
$Q\overline{Q}$ system is boosted to rest. Then a second transverse
boost is performed, which gives the pair a transverse momentum equal to
$\vec{p}_T(Q\overline{Q}) + \vec{k}_T(1) + \vec{k}_T(2)$;
$\vec{k}_T(1)$ and $\vec{k}_T(2)$ are the transverse momenta of the
incoming partons, which are chosen randomly, with their moduli
distributed according to
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dk_T^2}=\frac{1}{\langle k_T^2 \rangle}
\exp(-k_T^2/\langle k_T^2 \rangle).
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=f7a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}
\hspace{0.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=f7b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}}
Fig. 4. Azimuthal correlation for charm production in $\pi N$
collisions: NLO parton model and $k_T$ kick calculations versus the WA75
and WA92 data.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The dashed and dotted histograms in Fig. 4 correspond to the NLO
parton model prediction, supplemented with the $k_T$ kick, with
$\langle k_T^2\rangle=0.5$ GeV$^2$ and $\langle k_T^2\rangle=1$ GeV$^2$,
respectively. We see that with $\langle k_T^2 \rangle= 1$ GeV$^2$ it
is possible \cite{FMNR} to describe the data.
However the large intrinsic transverse momentum significantly changes
one-particle $p_T$-distri\-butions of heavy flavour hadrons, which were
in good agreement with the data. The solid curves in Fig. 5 taken from
\cite{FMNR} represent the NLO parton model predictions for charm quarks
$p_T$-distributions which are in agreement with the data. The effect of
the $k_T$ kick results in a hardening of the $p_T^2$ spectrum. On the
other hand, by combining the $k_T$ kick with $\langle k_T^2 \rangle =1$
GeV$^2$ and the Peterson fragmentation \cite{Pet}, the theoretical
predictions slightly undershoot the data (dot-dashed curves).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=f4a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}
\hspace{0.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=f4b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}}
Fig. 5. Charm $p_T^2$ distribution measured by WA92 and E769, compared
to the NLO parton model predictions, with and without the
non-perturbative effects.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The $k_T$ kick can only very weakly change the $x_F$-distributions of
produced $c$-quarks, Fig. 3, and after accounting the fragmentation
these distributions can become too soft.
Let us consider why the conventional NLO parton model with collinear
approximation works reasonably for one-particle diustributions, and, at
the same time, it is in disagreement with the data on azimuthal
correlations.
The contribution of the processes of Fig. 1, which governs the heavy
quark production can be written\footnote{We omit for simplicity all
factors which are non-essential here.} as a convolution of initial
transverse momenta distributions, $I(q_{1T})$ and $I(q_{2T})$, with
squared modulo of perturbative QCD matrix element,
$\vert M(q_{1T}, q_{2T}, p_{1T}, p_{2T})\vert ^2$ :
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{QCD}(Q\overline{Q}) \propto
\int d^2 q_{1T} d^2 q_{2T} I(q_{1T}) I(q_{2T}) \vert M(q_{1T},
q_{2T}, p_{1T}, p_{2T}) \vert ^2 \;.
\end{equation}
Now there are two possibilities: \\
i) the essential values of initial transverse momenta are much
smaller than the transverse momenta of produced heavy quarks,
$q_{iT} \ll p_{iT}$, and \\
ii) all transverse momenta are of the same order,
$q_{iT} \sim p_{iT}$.
In LO for the first case (i) we can wait that one-dimentional $p_T$
distributions should be more broad than the distributions on the
transverse momenta of the quark pair, because in LO
$q_{1T} + q_{2T} = p_{1T} + p_{2T}$. NLO gives here a correction,
numerically not very large, see Fig. 2. In this case one can replace
both the initial distributions $I(q_{iT})$ by $\delta$-functions,
$\delta(q_{iT})$. This reduces the expression (5) to the very
simplified one :
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{coll.}(Q\overline{Q}) \propto \vert
M(0, 0, p_{1T}, p_{2T}) \vert ^2 \;,
\end{equation}
in total agreement with Weizsaecker-Williams approximation in QED.
In the second case (ii) the distributions on the transverse momenta of
the quark pair should be the same, or even more broad than the
one-particle $p_T$-distributions, and namely this situation is realised
\cite{FMNR}. In this case we can not wait a priory that the
Weizsaecker-Williams approximation will give good results, however it
works quite reasonably in the case of one-particle distributions. In the
case of distribution on the transverse momentum of the heavy-quark pair,
$p_T^2(Q\overline{Q})$ we measure (only approximately in NLO) the
distribution over the sum of transverse momenta of incident gluons. In
this case it seems to be senseless to replace the distributions
$I(q_{1T})$ and $I(q_{2T})$ by $\delta$-functions, and to expect a
reasonable agreement with the data. The same can be said about the
azimuthal correlations.
The $k_t$ kick \cite{FMNR} effectively accounts for the transverse
momenta of incident partons. It uses the expression which can be written
symbollically as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{kick}(Q\overline{Q}) \propto I(q_{1T}) I(q_{2T}) \otimes
\vert M(0, 0, p_{1T}, p_{2T}) \vert ^2 \;,
\end{equation}
and the main difference from the general QCD expression Eq. (5) is that
due to absence of $q_{iT}$ in the matrix element the values of
$\langle k_T^2\rangle$ in Eq. (4) should be different for different
processes and kinematical regions. The reason is that in Eq. (5) the
values $I(q_{iT})$ decrease at large $q^2_{iT}$ as a weak power (see
next Sect.), i.e. comparatively slowly, and more important is the
$q^2_{iT}$ dependence of the matrix element. In the last one the
corrections of the order of $q^2_{iT}/\mu^2$, where $\mu^2$ is the QCD
scale, are small enough when $q^2_{iT}/\mu^2 << 1$ and they start to
suppress a matrix element value when $q^2_{iT}/\mu^2 \sim 1$.
\section{Heavy quark production in semihard approximation}
Let us consider another approach, when the transverse momenta of
incident gluons in the small-$x$ region appear from the diffusion of
transverse momenta in the gluon evolution\footnote{The similar approach
based on $k_T$-factorization formulae can be found, for example, in
Refs. \cite{CCH,CE,MW}.}. This diffusion is described by the
function $\varphi(x,q^2)$ determined \cite{GLR} as
\begin{equation}
\label{xg}
\varphi (x,q^2) = 4\sqrt{2}\,\pi^3 \frac{d\,[xG(x,q^2)]}{d q^2} \;,
\end{equation}
where $G(x,q^2)$ is usual gluon structure function.
In principle the function $\varphi(x,q^2)$ which determine the
probability to find gluon with fixed value of transverse momentum,
$q_T$, depends on three variables, $x$, $q_T$ and gluon virtuality
$q^2$. However at small $x$ in LLA $q_T^2 \approx - q^2$, and it leads
to comparatively weak dependence of $\varphi(x,q^2)$ on $q_T^2$
(strongly different from exponential dependence in Eq. (4)) due to weak
$q^2$-dependences of phenomenological structure functions.
The exact expression for gluon $q_T$-distributions can be obtained, as a
solution of the nonlinear evolution equation. The calculations
\cite{Blu} result in difference from our $\varphi(x,q^2)$ function only
about 10-15\%.
The matrix element $M_{QQ}$ accounting for the gluon virtualities and
polarizations is much more complicate than the parton model one. That
is why we consider only LO contribution of the subprocess
$gg \to Q\bar{Q}$. The differential cross section of heavy quarks
hadroproduction has the form
$$ \frac{d\sigma_{pp}}{dy^*_1 dy^*_2 d^2 p_{1T}d^2
p_{2T}}\,=\,\frac{1}{(2\pi)^8}
\frac{1}{(s)^2}\int\,d^2 q_{1T} d^2 q_{2T} \delta (q_{1T} +
q_{2T} - p_{1T} - p_{2T}) $$
\begin{equation}
\label{spp}
\times\,\,\frac{\alpha_s(q^2_1)}{q_1^2} \frac{\alpha_s (q^2_2)}{q^2_2}
\varphi(q^2_1,y)\varphi (q^2_2, x)\vert M_{QQ}\vert^2.
\end{equation}
Here $s = 2p_a p_b\,\,$ and $y^*_{1,2}$ are the quarks' rapidities in
the hadron-hadron c.m.s. frame.
Eq. (9) enables to calculate straightforwardly all distributions
concerning heavy flavour one-particle, or pair production. However there
exists a problem coming from infrared region. Gluon structure
function in Eq. (8) is not determined at small virtualities, so
the function $\varphi (x,q^2_2)$ is unknown at
the small values of $q^2_2$ and $q^2_1$. To solve this problem we will
use the direct consequence of Eq. (8) \cite{Kwi}
\begin{equation}
xG(x,q^2) = xG(x,Q_0^2) + \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}\,\pi^3}
\int_{Q_0^2}^{q^2} dq_1^2 \varphi (x,q_1^2) \;,
\end{equation}
and rewrite \cite{3} the integrals in the Eq. (9) as
the sum of four contributions. The first one is determined by the
product of two gluon distributions, $G(x,Q_0^2)$ and $G(y,Q_0^2)$,
and it is the same as the conventional LO parton model expression. Next
three terms contain the corrections to the parton model. If the initial
energy is not high enough, the first term dominates. In the case of very
high energy the first term can be considered as a small corrections, and
our results are differ from the conventional ones. In the cases when the
collinear approximation is available, our results only slightly differ
from the parton model.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\psfig{file=tal6.eps,width=0.50\textwidth}} \\
Fig. 6. Cross section of beauty production in CDF.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is illustrated in Fig. 6 taken from \cite{3}, where we compare our
calculations of $b$-quark $p_T$-distributions with the experimental
results of CDF collaboration and with two variants of parton model
calculations. The distributions over the azimuthal angle $\phi$ can be
found in \cite{SS}.
The essential values of $q_{1T}$ and $q_{2T}$ in our calculations
increase with increase the value of $p_T^{min}$ of detected
$b$-quark. In the language of $k_T$ kick it means that the values of
$\langle k_T^2\rangle$ will be also increased.
\section{Conclusion}
The experimental results on total cross sections for charm and beauty
production are in agreement with the conventional parton model
predictions, using reasonable values of QCD scales and quark masses. The
data on $x_F$ and $p_T$ distributions are also in reasonable agreement
with parton model without any fragmentation functions\footnote{The $p_T$
distributions of charm photoproduction measured by E691 Coll.
\cite{E691a} are more hard than the NLO parton model predictions
\cite{FMNR,Man97}, that can be considered \cite{Man97} as an argument
for including a non-perturbative fragmentation function. However, the
$p_T$ slope of the calculated spectrum depends strongly on the charm
quark mass, and the measured charm production cross section has very
strange energy dependence \cite{E691a}.}.
Moreover, the shapes of one-particle LO and NLO distributions
practically coinside. It means that instead of calculation the NLO
contributions, it is enough to calculate only LO contributions, and
rescale them using K-factor taken, say, from the calculated ratio of
total cross sections.
In the case of distribution over the total transverse momentum of the
produced quark pair, or azimuthal correlations, the conventional NLO
parton model with collinear approximation can not describe the data.
The $k_T$ kick \cite{FMNR} allows one to describe these data, however
the problems with one-particle $p_T$-distributions appear, which can be
solved by introducing the fragmentation function. The last way should
produce the problems in description of $x_F$-spectra. Moreover, it
seems that the $\langle k_T^2\rangle$ values should depend on the
process and the kinematical regions.
Another possibility to solve the problems of initial transverse
momenta is to use semihard theory, accounting for the virtual nature
of the interacting gluons, as well as their transverse motion and
different polarizations. It results in a qualitative differences with
the LO parton model predictions \cite{3,SS}. In Ref. \cite{RSS1} the
values of $F_2(x,Q^2)$ were calculated using phenomenological gluon
structure functions, and the infrared contributions to $F_2(x,Q^2)$ were
investigated in details. The possible estimations of the shadow
corrections in the processes of heavy flavour production can be found in
Refs. \cite{3,LRS}.
I am grateful to M.G.Ryskin and A.G.Shuvaev for multiple discussions,
to M.L.Mangano for very useful critical comments and to E.M.Levin who
participated at the early stage of this activity. I thank the Organizing
Commitee of HERA Monte Carlo Workshop for financial support. This work
is supported by grant NATO OUTR.LG 971390.
|
\section{Introduction}
The summation of logarithms of $1/x$ in deep inelastic structure functions
at small values of Bjorken $x$ leads to the Balitskii-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov
(BFKL) equation \cite{BFKL,FR}, which in the leading approximation sums
terms of order $[\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}\ln(1/x)]^n$. Recently the next-to-leading terms
have also been computed \cite{NLOA,NLOB}.
Since the dynamics of the small-$x$ region is supposed to be different
from that at higher $x$ in several respects, it is important to make and
test predictions of a wide range of observables in this region.
In recent papers \cite{FSV,Web98} predictions were presented for
the rates of emission of fixed numbers of `resolved' final-state gluons,
together with any number of unresolvable ones. Here `resolved'
means having a transverse momentum larger than some fixed value $\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}$.
The predictions were valid in the double-logarithmic (DL) approximation,
i.e.\ retaining only terms of the form $[\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}\ln(1/x)\ln(Q^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)]^n$.
In this approximation, each resolved gluon
can be equated to a single jet, since to resolve it into more than
one jet would cost extra powers of $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}$ with no corresponding powers
of $\ln(1/x)$.
The present paper extends the work of ref.~\cite{Web98} to include terms
with fewer powers of $\ln(Q^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$, i.e.\ those of the form
$[\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}\ln(1/x)]^n\,[\ln(Q^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)]^m$ where $0<m<n$, which we refer
to as single-logarithmic (SL) corrections. The fact that we still
demand a factor of $\ln(1/x)$ with each power of $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}$ means that
the identification of resolved gluons with jets\footnote{When counting
jets in deep inelastic lepton scattering, we always omit final-state
hadrons that originate from the quark-antiquark pair which couples
the gluon to the virtual photon.} remains valid.
There are two alternative methods for the calculation of final-state
properties at small $x$: the original multi-Regge BFKL method
and the CCFM \cite{C,CFM,M} approach, which takes
account of the coherence of soft gluon emission. It has been shown,
at the DL level in refs.~\cite{FSV,Web98} and now at the SL level
\cite{Sal99}, that the two methods are equivalent for the
observables considered here. We therefore adopt the BFKL approach,
which is calculationally simpler.
The paper is organized as follows. In sect.~\ref{sec_bfkl}
we recall the BFKL formalism and the predicted behaviour of the
gluon structure function at small $x$. In sect.~\ref{sec_rates} we
first compute the single-jet rate to SL accuracy and show that the only
modification to the DL result comes from the SL corrections
to the anomalous dimension. Next, in subsect.~\ref{sec_2jet},
we calculate the SL corrections
to the two-jet rate, first in the form of a
numerical integral and then as a perturbation series.
In subsect.~\ref{sec_3jet} we apply the same methods to the three-jet
rate. In sect.~\ref{sec_njet} we derive the SL perturbative expansion
of the generating function for the multi-jet rates, and use
this to obtain the corresponding expansions for the
mean jet multiplicity and its dispersion. Our conclusions
are presented in sect.~\ref{sec_conc}. A useful class of
integrals is evaluated to SL accuracy in the appendix.
\section{BFKL formalism}\label{sec_bfkl}
We start from the unintegrated structure function of a single gluon,
$f(x,k^2,\mu^2)$, which in the exclusive form of the BFKL
approach satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}\label{fxk2}
f(x,k^2,\mu^2) = \delta(1-x)\,\delta^2(k) +
\bar\as\int_{\mu^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{d\phi}{2\pi}
\frac{dz}{z^2}\Delta(z,k^2,\mu^2)\,f(x/z,|q+k|^2,\mu^2)\;.
\end{equation}
Here $\bar\as=3\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}/\pi$, $k$ is the (2-vector) transverse momentum of the
gluon probed in the deep inelastic scattering, $q$ is that of an emitted
gluon, $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle giving the direction of $q$,
$\mu$ is a collinear cutoff and $\Delta$ is the Regge form factor
\begin{equation}
\Delta(z,k^2,\mu^2) =
\exp\left(-\bar\as\ln\frac{1}{z}\ln\frac{k^2}{\mu^2}\right)\;.
\end{equation}
To carry out the $z$ integration it is convenient to use a Mellin
representation,
\begin{equation}\label{mellin}
f_\omega(k^2,\mu^2) = \int_0^1 dx\,x^\omega f(x,k^2,\mu^2)\;,
\end{equation}
with inverse
\begin{equation}\label{melinv}
f(x,k^2,\mu^2) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C d\omega\,x^{-\omega-1}
f_\omega(k^2,\mu^2)\;,
\end{equation}
where the contour $C$ is parallel to the imaginary axis and to the
right of all singularities of the integrand. This gives
\begin{equation}\label{bfkl}
f_\omega(k^2,\mu^2) = \delta^2(k) + H_\omega(k^2,\mu^2)
\int_{\mu^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{d\phi}{2\pi}f_\omega(|q+k|^2,\mu^2)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{delom}
H_\omega(k^2,\mu^2)= \frac{\bar\as}{\omega+\bar\as\ln(k^2/\mu^2)}\;.
\end{equation}
To solve eq.~(\ref{bfkl}) one can make use of the relation, derived in
the appendix,
\begin{equation}\label{intf}
\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}\frac{d\phi}{2\pi}f(|q+k|^2) =
\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}f(\max\{q^2,k^2\})
+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty \zeta(2m+1)
\left(k^2\frac{\partial}{\partial k^2}\right)^{2m}f(k^2)\;,
\end{equation}
which is valid for $\mu^2<k^2<Q^2$ to logarithmic accuracy,
i.e.\ neglecting terms suppressed by powers of $\mu^2/k^2$ or $k^2/Q^2$.
Then for $k^2>\mu^2$ the solution is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{fomsol}
f_\omega(k^2,\mu^2) = \frac{\gamma}{\pi k^2}\left(\frac{k^2}{\mu^2}\right)^\gamma
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
1=H_\omega(k^2,\mu^2)\left(\ln\frac{k^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{1}{\gamma-1}
+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty \zeta(2m+1)(\gamma-1)^{2m}\right)
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{omlip}
\omega = -\bar\as\left[2\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}+\psi(\gamma)+\psi(1-\gamma)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
$\psi$ being the digamma function and $\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}=-\psi(1)$ the Euler
constant. The solution of eq.~(\ref{omlip})
is $\gamma=\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)$, the Lipatov anomalous dimension:
\begin{equation}\label{glip}
\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)= \frac{\alb}{\om}+
2\zeta(3)\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^4+
2\zeta(5)\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^6+
12[\zeta(3)]^2\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^7+\ldots\;.
\end{equation}
The integrated gluon structure function at scale $Q^2$ is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{FomQ}
F_\omega(Q^2,\mu^2) = 1+\pi\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2}dk^2\,f_\omega(k^2,\mu^2)
=\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right)^{\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)}\;.
\end{equation}
Since we are interested in final states, we shall need to decompose
the structure function into terms corresponding to different numbers
of emitted gluons. The contribution to $f(x,k^2,\mu^2)$ from emission
of $n$ gluons is obtained by iteration of eq.~(\ref{fxk2}):
\begin{equation}
f^{(n)}(x,k^2,\mu^2) = \prod_{i=1}^n\int_{\mu^2}
\frac{dq_i^2}{q_i^2}\frac{d\phi_i}{2\pi}\frac{dz_i}{z_i}
\bar\as\Delta(z_i,k_i^2,\mu^2)\delta(x-x_n)\delta^2(k-k_n)\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
x_i=\prod_{l=1}^i z_l\;,\>\>\>\>k_i=-\sum_{l=1}^i q_l\;.
\end{equation}
The contribution to the structure function at scale $Q$ is then
obtained by integrating over all $\mu^2<q_i^2<Q^2$:
\begin{equation}\label{Fn}
F^{(n)}(x,Q^2,\mu^2) = \prod_{i=1}^n\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2}
\frac{dq_i^2}{q_i^2}\frac{d\phi_i}{2\pi}
\frac{dz_i}{z_i}\bar\as\Delta(z_i,k_i^2,\mu^2)\delta(x-x_n)\;,
\end{equation}
or in terms of the Mellin transform
\begin{equation}\label{Fomn}
F^{(n)}_\omega(Q^2,\mu^2) = \prod_{i=1}^n\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2}
\frac{dq_i^2}{q_i^2}\frac{d\phi_i}{2\pi}H_\omega(k_i^2,\mu^2)\;.
\end{equation}
\section{Jet rates}\label{sec_rates}
\subsection{Single-jet rate}\label{sec_1jet}
Consider first the effect of requiring one emitted gluon, say the $j$th,
to have $q_j^2>\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$ while all the others have $q_i^2<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$. This defines
the contribution of one resolved gluon plus $n-1$ unresolved,
$F^{(n,1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}$:
\begin{equation}
F_\omega^{(n,1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)= \sum_{j=1}^n
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_j^2}{q_j^2}\frac{d\phi_j}{2\pi}
H_\omega(k_j^2,\mu^2)\prod_{i\neq j}^n\int_{\mu^2}^{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}
\frac{dq_i^2}{q_i^2}\frac{d\phi_i}{2\pi}H_\omega(k_i^2,\mu^2)\;.
\end{equation}
Notice that for $i<j$ the contribution is identical to the $(j-1)$-gluon
contribution to the structure function evaluated at
$Q^2=\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$. On the other hand for $i>j$ we have $k_i^2\simeq q_j^2>\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$.
As shown in the appendix, when $q_j^2>\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$ we can write for any function
$f$, to logarithmic accuracy,
\begin{equation}\label{Hint1}
\int_{\mu^2}^{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}\frac{dq_i^2}{q_i^2}\frac{d\phi_i}{2\pi}
f(|q_i+q_j|^2) = \ln\left(\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}{\mu^2}\right)\,f(q_j^2)\;.
\end{equation}
Thus the $q_i$ integrations for $i>j$ become trivial and
\begin{equation}\label{Fn1resom}
F^{(n,1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2) = \frac{1}{S}
\sum_{j=1}^n F^{(j-1)}_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_j^2}{q_j^2}
\left[S\,H_\omega(q_j^2,\mu^2)\right]^{n-j+1}
\end{equation}
where we define\footnote{Note that we define
$S$ and $T$ differently from
Refs.~\cite{FSV,Web98} (twice as large) in order to simplify
expressions for the single-logarithmic terms.}
\begin{equation}\label{STdef}
S=\ln(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2/\mu^2)\;,\>\>\>\>T=\ln(Q^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\;.
\end{equation}
Summing over all $j$ and $n$ gives the total one-jet
contribution,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{F1res}
F^{(1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2) &=& F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)\,
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_j^2}{q_j^2}
H_\omega(q_j^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\nonumber\\
&=&\exp[\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) S]\,G_\omega^{(1)}(T)
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}\label{G1def}
G_\omega^{(1)}(T)=\ln\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)\;.
\end{equation}
Notice that the collinear-divergent part (the $S$-dependence)
factorizes, and the fraction of events with
one jet is given by the cutoff-independent function
\begin{equation}\label{R1res}
R^{(1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) =
\frac{F^{(1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)}{F_\omega(Q^2,\mu^2)}
\>=\>\exp[-\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) T]\,G_\omega^{(1)}(T)\;.
\end{equation}
Thus in the case of the single-jet rate, the only subleading logarithms
are those generated by the presence of the full Lipatov anomalous dimension
(\ref{glip}) in eq.~(\ref{R1res}).
To obtain the jet cross section as a function of $x$, we note
that eq.~(\ref{F1res}) implies that
\begin{equation}\label{F1FG}
F^{(1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) = F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\, G_\omega^{(1)}(T)\;,
\end{equation}
where we have used the factorization property to replace the
cutoff-dependent gluon structure function $F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)$ by
the measured structure function of the target hadron at
scale $\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$, $F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$. It follows that the single-jet
contribution as a function of $x$ is given by the convolution
\begin{equation}\label{F1x}
F^{(1\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}(x,Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) = F(x,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\otimes G^{(1)}(x,T)
\equiv\int_x^1\frac{dz}{z} F(z,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\otimes G^{(1)}(x/z,T)
\end{equation}
where the inverse Mellin transformation (\ref{melinv}) applied
to eq.~(\ref{G1def}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{G1x}
G^{(1)}(x,T)= \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C d\omega\,x^{-\omega-1}\,G_\omega^{(1)}(T)
\>=\>\frac{1-x^{\bar\as T}}{x\ln(1/x)}\;.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Two-jet rate}\label{sec_2jet}
Now suppose we resolve two gluons $j,j'$ ($j<j'$) with transverse momenta
$q_j^2,q_{j'}^2>\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$. In place of eq.~(\ref{F1res}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{F2res}
F^{(2\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2) = F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)\,
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_j^2}{q_j^2}H_\omega(q_j^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_{j'}^2}{q_{j'}^2}
\frac{d\phi_{j'}}{2\pi}K_\omega(|q_j+q_{j'}|^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)
\end{equation}
where, defining the dijet transverse momentum $q_J=q_j+q_{j'}$,
\begin{equation}
K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)=
H_\omega(q_J^2,\mu^2)\left(1+\sum_{n=j'+1}^\infty
\prod_{i=j'+1}^n\int_{\mu^2}^{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}\frac{dq_i^2}{q_i^2}
\frac{d\phi_i}{2\pi}H_\omega(k_i^2,\mu^2)\right)\;.
\end{equation}
When $q_J^2>\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$ we can safely set $k_i^2=q_J^2$ for $i>j'$,
to obtain
\begin{equation}
K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)=H_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\;.
\end{equation}
However, this cannot be correct for
$q_J^2<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$, because $K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$ would then be
infinite at $q_J^2=\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2\exp(-\omega/\bar\as)$. Since
$K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$ must be independent of the cutoff
$\mu$, we can evaluate it for $q_J^2<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$
by setting $\mu^2=q_J^2$, which gives
\begin{equation}\label{HqltR}
K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)=\frac{\alb}{\om} F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,q_J^2)
=\frac{\alb}{\om}\left(\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}{q_J^2}\right)^{\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)}\;.
\end{equation}
Thus we can define the continuous function
\begin{equation}\label{Kom}
K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)=H_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\theta(q_J^2-\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)
+\frac{\alb}{\om} F_\omega(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,q_J^2)\theta(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2-q_J^2)\;.
\end{equation}
The two-jet rate is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{R2res}
R^{(2\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) =
\frac{F^{(2\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)}{F_\omega(Q^2,\mu^2)}
\>=\>\exp[-\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) T]\,G_\omega^{(2)}(T)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{G2def}
G_\omega^{(2)}(T)
=\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_j^2}{q_j^2}\frac{dq_{j'}^2}{q_{j'}^2}
\frac{d\phi_{j'}}{2\pi}K_\omega(q_j^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\,K_\omega(|q_j+q_{j'}|^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\;.
\end{equation}
The integrations in eq.~(\ref{G2def}) can be performed numerically,
without encountering any non-integrable divergences or discontinuities
in the integrand. The resulting two-jet rate is shown by the solid curve
in fig.~\ref{fig_R2a} for a relatively small value of $\bar\as/\omega$ (0.2),
and for a larger value (0.4) in fig.~\ref{fig_R2b}.
The dashed curves show the result of using the DL prediction
for $G_\omega^{(2)}$ in eq.~(\ref{R2res}), i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{R2DL}
R^{(2\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) \simeq
\exp[-\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) T]\,G_\omega^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}(T)
\end{equation}
where \cite{Web98}
\begin{equation}\label{G2DL}
G_\omega^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}(T) = \frac{1}{2}\ln^2\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)
+\ln\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)
-\frac{\alb}{\om} T\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-1}\;.
\end{equation}
We see that for $\bar\as/\omega=0.2$ the single-logarithmic correction is small,
while for the larger value it is substantial.
\FIGURE{\input{full2.pstex_t}
\caption{\label{fig_R2a}
Two-jet rate for $\bar\as/\omega = 0.2$. Dashed: double-log
approximation. Solid: with single-log corrections.}}
\FIGURE{\input{full4.pstex_t}
\caption{\label{fig_R2b}
Two-jet rate for $\bar\as/\omega = 0.4$. Dashed: double-log
approximation. Solid: with single-log corrections.}}
Next we consider the perturbative expansion of the two-jet rate.
We can use eq.~(\ref{Kom}) and the results in the appendix to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Kint}
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_{j'}^2}{q_{j'}^2}\frac{d\phi_{j'}}{2\pi}
K_\omega(|q_j+q_{j'}|^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)&=&
\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_{j'}^2}{q_{j'}^2}
H_\omega(\max\{q_j^2,q_{j'}^2\},\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\nonumber\\
&+&2\sum_{m=1}^\infty(2m)!\,\zeta(2m+1)
\,[H_\omega(q_j^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)]^{2m+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting in eq.~(\ref{G2def}) we find
\begin{equation}\label{G2res}
G_\omega^{(2)}(T) = G_\omega^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}(T) + G_\omega^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}(T)
\end{equation}
where $G_\omega^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}$ is the double-logarithmic result (\ref{G2DL})
and the single-logarithmic correction is
\begin{equation}\label{G2SL}
G_\omega^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}(T) =
2\sum_{m=1}^\infty\frac{(2m)!}{2m+1}\zeta(2m+1)
\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^{2m+1}
\left[1-\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-2m-1}\right]\;.
\end{equation}
Note that the series in eq.~(\ref{G2SL}) is strongly divergent
for any value of $\bar\as/\omega$. This is due to the singularity of
$H_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$ at $q_J^2=\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2\exp(-\omega/\bar\as)<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$.
The change in $K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$ when $q_J^2<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$
(see eq.~(\ref{Kom})) removes
the singularity from the integrand in eq.~(\ref{G2def}) but this
does not affect the region of convergence of the perturbation series.
The situation is analogous to the way in which the running of the
QCD coupling $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}(q^2)$ at low values of $q^2$ produces infrared
renormalons \cite{renorm}:
the Landau singularity in the perturbative expression for $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}(q^2)$
leads to a factorial divergence of perturbative expansions with
respect to $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}(Q^2)$, where $Q^2$ is fixed and large, even if
we remove the Landau singularity by making a non-perturbative
modification of $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}(q^2)$ at low $q^2$ \cite{alfamodels}.
In the case of eq.~(\ref{Kint}), the correction arising from the
more careful treatment of the region $q_J^2<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$, corresponding to
the second term in eq.~(\ref{Kom}), would be
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Hintapp}
\delta\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_{j'}^2}{q_{j'}^2}
\frac{d\phi_{j'}}{2\pi} K_\omega(q_J^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)
&\simeq&
\frac{\alb}{\om}\int_0^{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}\frac{dq_J^2}{q_j^2}
\left[\left(\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}{q_J^2}\right)^{\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)}
-\sum_{m=0}^\infty\left(-\frac{\alb}{\om}
\ln\frac{q_J^2}{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}\right)^m\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\alb}{\om}\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}{q_j^2}
\left[\frac{1}{1-\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)}
-\sum_{m=0}^\infty m!\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^m\right]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
This does indeed contain a factorially divergent series, but,
owing to the overall factor of $1/q_j^2$, it does not contribute
any logarithms of $Q^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$ upon substitution in eq.~(\ref{G2def}).
Therefore a more accurate treatment of the region $q_J^2<\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$,
although necessary to evaluate the integrals,
does not affect the two-jet rate to SL precision.
If we interpret the series in eq.~(\ref{G2SL})
as an asymptotic expansion, then the partial sum truncated
after the smallest term represents an estimate of the total SL
correction, with an uncertainty of the order of the smallest term.
This estimate is shown by the points in figs.~\ref{fig_dR2a} and
\ref{fig_dR2b}, with the uncertainty represented by the
error bars. We see that estimates from the series are of the
same order of magnitude as the numerical results, but the
discrepancy may be several times the expected uncertainty.
At the smaller value of $\bar\as/\omega$, the SL correction is
relatively small (c.f.\ fig.~\ref{fig_R2a}) and the discrepancy is
not so important. For the larger value of $\bar\as/\omega$, the estimate
is better than expected, but the correction and the uncertainty
are both large.
\FIGURE{\input{corr2.pstex_t}
\caption{\label{fig_dR2a}
Solid: single-log correction to two-jet rate for $\bar\as/\omega = 0.2$.
Points: estimate from asymptotic expansion; `error bars'
indicate the smallest term in the expansion.}}
\FIGURE{\input{corr4.pstex_t}
\caption{\label{fig_dR2b}
Solid: single-log correction to two-jet rate for $\bar\as/\omega = 0.4$.
Points: estimate from asymptotic expansion; `error bars'
indicate the smallest term in the expansion.}}
To deduce the two-jet rate as a function of $x$, we can proceed
as in eq.~(\ref{F1x}), writing
\begin{equation}\label{F2x}
F^{(2\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}(x,Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) = F(x,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\otimes G^{(2)}(x,T)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{G2x}
G^{(2)}(x,T) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C d\omega\,x^{-\omega-1}
\,G_\omega^{(2)}(T)\;.
\end{equation}
For the DL contribution we find from eq.~(\ref{G2DL}) that
\begin{equation}\label{G2DLx}
G^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}(x,T) = \frac{1}{x\ln(1/x)}\,{\cal G}^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}[\bar\as T\ln(1/x)]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{cG2z}
{\cal G}^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}[z] = E_1(z)+\ln z +\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}+1
+e^{-z}\left[E_1(-z)+\ln z +\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}-1-z\right]\;,
\end{equation}
$E_1(z)$ being the exponential integral function
\begin{equation}\label{E1z}
E_1(z) = \int_z^\infty dt\frac{e^{-t}}{t}\;,
\end{equation}
interpreted as a principal-value integral when $z<0$.
The divergence of the series for the SL correction in $\omega$-space,
eq.~(\ref{G2SL}), is cured when one makes the inverse Mellin
transformation to $x$-space, because the factorial coefficients
are cancelled:
\begin{equation}\label{melom}
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C d\omega\,x^{-\omega-1}\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^{2m+1}
=\frac{\bar\as}{x}\frac{[\bar\as\ln(1/x)]^{2m}}{(2m)!}\;.
\end{equation}
Thus the SL correction to the two-jet rate can be expressed in closed
form as a function of $x$:
\begin{equation}\label{G2SLx}
G^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}(x,T) = \frac{1-x^{\bar\as T}}{x\ln(1/x)}
\,{\cal G}^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}[\bar\as\ln(1/x)]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{cG2ans}
{\cal G}^{(2,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}[z] = \ln\Gamma(1-z)-\ln\Gamma(1+z)-2\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}} z\;.
\end{equation}
Notice that the expression (\ref{G2SLx}) is singular at $\bar\as\ln(1/x)=1$.
From the viewpoint of the Mellin transformation (\ref{mellin}),
it is this singularity that produces the divergence of the series in
$\omega$-space. Conversely, use of the more correct expression (\ref{G2def})
in $\omega$-space, with the kernel function $K_\omega$ given in eq.~(\ref{Kom}),
should suffice to remove the singularity in $x$-space.
\subsection{Three-jet rate}\label{sec_3jet}
The method used above for the two-jet rate can be extended, albeit
laboriously, to higher jet multiplicities. In the three-jet case we have
\begin{equation}\label{R3res}
R^{(3\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) =
\frac{F^{(3\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2,\mu^2)}{F_\omega(Q^2,\mu^2)}
\>=\>\exp[-\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) T]\,G_\omega^{(3)}(T)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{G3def}
G_\omega^{(3)}(T) =\int_{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dq_j^2}{q_j^2}
\frac{dq_{j'}^2}{q_{j'}^2}\frac{dq_{j''}^2}{q_{j''}^2}
\frac{d\phi_{j'}}{2\pi}\frac{d\phi_{j''}}{2\pi}
K_\omega(q_j^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) K_\omega(|q_j+q_{j'}|^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)
K_\omega(|q_j+q_{j'}+q_{j''}|^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2).
\end{equation}
One could in principle evaluate
this expression numerically using eq.~(\ref{Kom}) for $K_\omega$.
Here we derive the perturbative expansion analogous to eq.~(\ref{G2SL}).
Introducing $t=\ln(q_j^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$ etc.\ for brevity, the results in
the appendix give
\begin{equation}
G_\omega^{(3)}(T) =
\int_0^T dt\,H_\omega(t)\left[\int_0^T dt'\,L_\omega\left(\max\{t,t'\}\right)
+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty\zeta(2m+1)\,
\frac{\partial^{2m}L_\omega}{\partial t^{2m}}\right]
\end{equation}
where we write $H_\omega(q_j^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$ as $H_\omega(t)$ and
\begin{equation}
L_\omega(t)= H_\omega(t)[\ln H_\omega(t) - \ln H_\omega(T)] + t\,[H_\omega(t)]^2
+2\sum_{m'=1}^\infty(2m')!\,\zeta(2m'+1)\,[H_\omega(t)]^{2m'+2}.
\end{equation}
Hence we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{G3res}
G_\omega^{(3)}(T)=G_\omega^{(3,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}(T)+G_\omega^{(3,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}(T)
\end{equation}
where $G_\omega^{(3,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}$ is the double-logarithmic result \cite{Web98}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G_\omega^{(3,{\mbox{\scriptsize DL}})}(T)\>=\>
\frac{1}{6}\ln^3\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)
+\ln^2\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\ln\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)
\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-1}
-\frac{\alb}{\om} T\left(1+\frac{3\bar\as}{2\omega}T\right)
\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-2}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{G3SL}
&&G_\omega^{(3,{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}})}(T)\>=\>
-2\sum_{m=1}^\infty (2m)!\,\zeta(2m+1)
\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^{2m+1}\Biggl\{
\left[1-\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-2m-2}\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{2m+1}\left[\ln\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)
+\psi(2m+1)+\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}+2\right]\left[1-\left(1+
\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-2m-1}\right]\Biggr\}+\nonumber\\
&&+\,4\sum_{m,m'=1}^\infty \frac{(2m+2m'+1)!}{(2m+2m'+2)(2m'+1)}\,
\zeta(2m+1)\,\zeta(2m'+1)
\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^{2m+2m'+2}\nonumber\\
&&\times
\left[1-\left(1+\frac{\alb}{\om} T\right)^{-2m-2m'-2}\right]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The expansion in eq.~(\ref{G3SL}) is again strongly divergent for
all values of $\bar\as/\omega$. As discussed in subsect.~\ref{sec_2jet},
it can still be interpreted as an asymptotic expansion and used
as a guide to the order of magnitude of the SL correction.
Furthermore, the divergence is cured upon inverting the
Mellin transformation to obtain the jet rate in $x$-space,
as long as $\bar\as\ln(1/x)<1$. To extend
the prediction to smaller values of $x$ one would need to
evaluate eq.~(\ref{G3def}) numerically using the full
kernel function in eq.~(\ref{Kom}).
\section{Generating function for multi-jet rates}\label{sec_njet}
For a general jet multiplicity $r$, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{Rrres}
R^{(r\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) = \frac{1}{r!}
\left.\frac{\partial^r}{\partial u^r}R_\omega(u,T)\right|_{u=0}\;,
\end{equation}
where the jet-rate generating function $R_\omega$ is given by
\begin{equation}
R_\omega(u,T)=\exp[-\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) T]\,G_\omega(u,T)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{GuT}
G_\omega(u,T)=\sum_{r=0}^\infty u^r G^{(r)}_\omega(T)\;.
\end{equation}
The function $G^{(r)}_\omega(T)$ was given in eqs.~(\ref{G1def}),
(\ref{G2res}) and (\ref{G3res}) for $r=1,2$ and 3, respectively.
We can obtain the perturbative expansion of the function
$G_\omega(u,T)$ as follows. We first define the unintegrated function
$g_\omega(u,t,T)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Gexpn}
G_\omega(u,T)= 1+\int_0^T dt\,g_\omega(u,t,T)\;.
\end{equation}
Then using the results in the appendix we find that $g_\omega(u,t,T)$
satisfies the integro-differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{gomu}
g_\omega(u,t,T) = uH_\omega(t)\left[1+
\int_0^T dt'\,g_\omega\left(u,\max\{t,t'\},T\right)
+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty\zeta(2m+1)\,
\frac{\partial^{2m}g_\omega}{\partial t^{2m}}\right]\;.
\end{equation}
Writing
\begin{equation}
g_\omega(u,t,T) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n(u,t,T)
\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^n\;,
\end{equation}
this implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{n+1}(u,t,T)&=&u\,\delta_{n,0}-(1-u)t\,c_n(u,t,T)
+u\int_t^T dt'\,c_n(u,t',T)\nonumber\\
&&+2u\sum_{m=1}^\infty\zeta(2m+1)
\frac{\partial^{2m}c_n}{\partial t^{2m}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Starting from $c_0=0$, this gives $c_n$ iteratively
as a polynomial in $u$, $t$ and $T$, which can be substituted in
eq.~(\ref{Gexpn}) to obtain the perturbative expansion of $G_\omega(u,T)$
to any desired order.\footnote{The results agree with those given
to fourth order in ref.~\cite{M}.} The relation (\ref{melom}) can
then be used to transform the result directly to $x$-space, giving
\begin{equation}\label{Frresx}
F^{(r\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}(x,Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) = \frac{1}{r!}F(x,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)\otimes
\left.\frac{\partial^r}{\partial u^r}G(u,x,T)\right|_{u=0}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{GuxT}
G(u,x,T)= \delta(1-x)+\int_0^T dt\,g(u,x,t,T)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
g(u,x,t,T) = \frac{\bar\as}{x}\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_{n+1}(u,t,T)
\frac{[\bar\as\ln(1/x)]^n}{n!}\;,
\end{equation}
which we believe to be a convergent series as long as $\bar\as\ln(1/x)<1$.
\subsection{Anomalous dimension}
Notice that for $u=1$ we have
\begin{equation}
R_\omega(1,T)=\sum_{r=0}^\infty R^{(r\,{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}})}_\omega(Q^2,\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2) = 1
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{G1T}
G_\omega(1,T)=\exp[\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om) T]\;.
\end{equation}
To show that eq.~(\ref{gomu}) does indeed lead to the Lipatov
result (\ref{omlip}) for the anomalous dimension,
we note that when $u=1$ the solution of eq.~(\ref{gomu}) is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gom1}
g_\omega(1,t,T) &=& \gamma\,e^{\gamma(T-t)}\nonumber\\
G_\omega(1,T)&=& 1+\int_0^T dt\,g_\omega(1,t,T)=e^{\gamma T}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma &=& H_\omega(t)\left[1+\gamma t
+2\sum_{m=1}^\infty\zeta(2m+1)\,\gamma^{2m+1}\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\alb}{\om}\left[1+
2\sum_{m=1}^\infty\zeta(2m+1)\,\gamma^{2m+1}\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\alb}{\om}\gamma\left[\frac{1}{\gamma}-2\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}
-\psi(1+\gamma)-\psi(1-\gamma)\right]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Rearranging terms, we obtain $\gamma=\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny L}}(\alb/\om)$
given by eqs.~(\ref{omlip}) and (\ref{glip}).
\subsection{Jet multiplicity moments}\label{sec_mom}
We can compute the moments of the jet multiplicity distribution by
successively differentiating the generating function at $u=1$:
\begin{equation}
\langle r(r-1)\ldots(r-s+1)\rangle =
\left.\frac{\partial^s}{\partial u^s}R_\omega(u,T)\right|_{u=1}\;.
\end{equation}
In this way we obtain the perturbative expansion of the mean number
of jets
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle r\rangle &=&
T\frac{\alb}{\om} +\frac{1}{2}T^2\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^2
+2\zeta(3)T\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^4\nonumber\\
&&+4\zeta(3)T^2\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^5
-8\zeta(5)T\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^6 +\cdots
\end{eqnarray}
and the mean square fluctuation in this number,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle r^2\rangle -\langle r\rangle^2 &=&
T\frac{\alb}{\om}+\frac{3}{2}T^2\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^2
+\frac{2}{3}T^3\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^3
-2\zeta(3)T\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^4\nonumber\\
&&+12\zeta(3)T^2\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^5
-\left(8\zeta(5)T -\frac{40}{3}\zeta(3)T^3\right)
\left(\frac{\alb}{\om}\right)^6 +\cdots\;.
\end{eqnarray}
It appears true to all orders to SL precision that, as in the DL
approximation \cite{Web98}, the mean number of jets is a quadratic
function of $T$ and the mean square fluctuation is
a cubic function of $T$. Thus the distribution of jet multiplicity at
small $x$ and large $T$ is narrow, in the sense that its r.m.s.\ width
increases less rapidly than its mean as $T$ increases.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec_conc}
The calculation of jet rates at small $x$ poses many interesting
challenges and sheds new light on the novel dynamics of this
kinematic region. In the present paper we have concentrated on
those perturbative contributions which have a factor of
$\ln(1/x)$ for each power of $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny S}}$ and are further enhanced
by one or more powers of $T=\ln(Q^2/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2)$, $\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}$ being
the minimum resolved jet transverse momentum.
For sufficiently large values of $\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$ and $Q^2\gg\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}^2$,
the resummation of such terms would seems to be a
well-defined problem in perturbation theory.
The results in sect.~\ref{sec_njet} do indeed specify
all terms of the form $(\bar\as/\omega)^n T^m$ with $m>0$,
for any jet multiplicity, $\omega$ being the moment variable
in the Mellin transform. However, as we have seen explicity
for the two- and three-jet rates (and we believe to be true
more generally), the single-logarithmic terms (those
with $0<m<n$) cannot be resummed directly since
they form strongly divergent series. In $\omega$-space, the
divergence is associated with kinematic regions in which the
vector sums of transverse momenta of combinations of jets
are less than $\mu_{\mbox{\tiny R}}$. A more careful treatment of such regions
renders the jet rates well-defined as integrals. Furthermore,
one obtains convergent series, within a limited range of $x$,
after performing the inverse Mellin transformation to $x$-space.
In the case of the two-jet rate, we were able to sum the
resulting series explicitly, to obtain a closed-form expression
valid in the region $\bar\as\ln(1/x)<1$.
A number of interesting questions arise from our results.
Clearly one would like to extend the resummation of jet rates
to higher multiplicities and smaller values of $x$. This will
require an $x$-space treatment of the difficult kinematic
regions mentioned above. One would also like to prove the
conjectures in subsect.~\ref{sec_mom} about jet multiplicity
moments to all orders, and preferably to resum them.
Ultimately, next-to-leading terms in $\ln(1/x)$ should
also be included. Such terms will arise from next-to-leading
corrections to the BFKL kernel and from the resolution of emitted
gluons into two jets.
\acknowledgments
We thank G.\ Salam for valuable comments and especially for
pointing out eq.~(\ref{HqltR}).
BRW is also grateful to S.\ Catani and G.\ Marchesini
for many helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\par
More than twenty years ago many authors \cite{DSC} have proposed
various strategies of deriving quark confinement in quantum
chromodynamics (QCD). One of them is to show that the QCD vacuum is
the dual superconductor which squeezes the color electric flux
between quarks and anti-quarks. The evidences have been accumulated
by recent investigations. Especially, recent numerical simulations
have confirmed this picture, see \cite{review,Bali98}. In this
scenario, the magnetic monopole
\cite{Dirac31,WY75,GO78} obtained by the Abelian projection
\cite{tHooft81} in QCD plays the essential role
\cite{EI82,SY90}. These results suggest that the low-energy
effective theory of QCD is given by the dual Ginzburg-Landau theory
\cite{Suzuki88}. In fact, it has been shown that the dual
Ginzburg-Landau theory can be derived starting from the QCD
Lagrangian at least in the strong coupling region, see e.g,
\cite{KondoI}.
\par
In the previous paper \cite{KondoII}, we have proposed a novel
formulation of the Yang-Mills theory as a
(perturbative) deformation of a topological quantum field theory
(TQFT).%
\footnote{In this reformulation, the gauge-fixed Yang-Mills theory is decomposed into the TQFT part and the remaining part. Then we assume that the remaining part can be treated in perturbation theory in the gauge coupling constant. This assumption is nothing but the meaning of the perturbative deformation.
}
We have shown \cite{KondoII,KondoIV} that the quark confinement in
QCD in the sense of area law of the Wilson loop (or
equivalently, the linear static potential between quark and
anti-quark) can be derived from the formulation at least in the
maximal Abelian (MA) gauge. The MA gauge realizes the Abelian
magnetic monopole in Yang-Mills theory without introducing the
scalar field as an elementary field (Hence it is realized as a
composite field constructed from the gauge degrees of freedom). In
the similar way, it has been shown
\cite{KondoIII} that the four-dimensional Abelian gauge theory can
have the confining phase in the strong coupling region.
This can be used to give another derivation of quark confinement in
QCD based on the low-energy effective {\it Abelian} gauge theory,
see \cite{KondoV}.
\par
The above results are consistent with those of lattice gauge
theory
\cite{LGT}, though our formulation is given directly on the
continuum space-time. This similarity is due to a fact that the
ingredients of confinement in our formulation lies in the
compactness of the gauge group (or the periodicity in the gauge
potential) and the existence of topological soliton. Thus, the
existence of magnetic monopole is a sufficient condition for
explaining quark confinement, as confirmed by analytical and
numerical results
\cite{review}.
\par
In this paper, we re-derive the formulation proposed in
\cite{KondoII,KondoIII} based on the background field method (BGFM)
\cite{DeWitt67,tHooft75,Abbott82,Abbott81,AGS83}.
A purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in the previous
presentation
\cite{KondoII} without any ad hoc argument. This derivation enables
us to discuss various topological soliton or topological defect
other than the magnetic monopole, which might equally play the
important role in explaining the origin of quark confinement.
Such a viewpoint is necessary to answer the question: what are the
most relevant degrees of freedom for quark confinement, since the
necessary and sufficient condition for quark confinement is not yet
known. Therefore, our formulation can also be applied to other
scenarios of quark confinement based on various confiners, e.g.
instanton, center vortex or non-Abelian magnetic monopole, although
the details will be given in a subsequent paper.
Another advantage of BGFM is that it simplifies the proof
\cite{QR97,KondoI} that the renormalization group beta function of
the Abelian-projected effective gauge theory is the same as the
original Yang-Mills non-Abelian gauge theory.
\par
Just as the topological Yang-Mills theory
\cite{Witten88} describes the gauge field configurations satisfying
the self-dual equation, i.e., instantons,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}=\pm \tilde {\cal F}_{\mu\nu} ,
\quad \tilde {\cal F}_{\mu\nu} := {1 \over 2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} {\cal F}^{\rho\sigma} ,
\label{SDeq0}
\end{eqnarray}
the TQFT that we have proposed deals with the gauge field
configurations which obeys the MA gauge equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
D^{\mp}_\mu[a]A_\mu^{\pm}=0 ,
\label{MAGeq}
\end{eqnarray}
which is nothing but the background field equation.
Both equations are the 1st order partial differential equations.
They may have some properties in common. In fact, a class of
classical solutions of the MA gauge equation (\ref{MAGeq})
simultaneously satisfies the self-dual equation
(\ref{SDeq0}) and vice versa \cite{BOT96,CG95}. It is obtained from
the same ansatz as that of 't Hooft for the multi-instanton. The
instanton is the point defect in four dimensions, while the magnetic
monopole is the point defect in three dimensions. In four
dimensions, therefore, the magnetic monopole is a one-dimensional
object, i.e., a current $k_\mu$ (a closed loop due to the topological
conservation law $\partial_\mu k_\mu = 0$). This is a Lorentz
covariant generalization of the observation that the static monopole
in three dimensions draws the straight line in the time direction in
four dimensions where the monopole charge is given by the integral
$Q_m:=\int d^3x k_0(x)$ from the monopole density $k_0$. Since
we frequently use the 'magnetic' monopole as implying the solution of
the MA gauge equation, the solution can describe the object which
looks like the magnetic monopole and the instanton at the same
time. Therefore, the magnetic monopole and the instanton are not
the disjoint concept in four dimensions.
Actually, strong correlations between monopoles and instantons are
shown in the analytical studies \cite{BOT96,CG95} and observed in the
lattice simulations
\cite{HT96,BS96,STSM95,FSST97,FMT97}.
It is easy to see that the instanton is also a solution of the field
equation (2nd order partial differential equation)
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_\nu[{\cal A}] {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}=0 .
\label{Feq0}
\end{eqnarray}
However, it is not yet clarified which solution of the MA gauge
equation (\ref{MAGeq}) becomes that of the field equation besides
the solution mentioned above. The solution of (\ref{MAGeq}) may
contain the solution which is not the solution of the
field equation (\ref{Feq0}).
\par
When we see the intersection of the
magnetic monopole current with the two-dimensional plane, the
classical configuration satisfying (\ref{MAGeq})
looks like the instanton in two-dimensional nonlinear sigma model
(NLSM$_2$), as shown in
\cite{KondoII}. Therefore the condensation of the magnetic monopole
current in four dimensions can be examined on the two-dimensional
subspace which can be chosen arbitrarily. The condensation of the
two-dimensional instanton in NLSM$_2$ leads to that of the
four-dimensional magnetic monopole current in Yang-Mills theory. So
the instanton condensation in NLSM$_2$ is a sufficient condition of
quark confinement based on the dual superconductor scenario.
\par
In the scenario \cite{KondoII} of deriving quark confinement,
the gauge fixing part for the gauge fixing condition (\ref{MAGeq})
has played the essential role.
Since the quark confinement must be a gauge invariant concept, it
is better to derive it based on the gauge invariant formulation. In
contrast to the lattice gauge theory, however, the continuum
formulation of the ordinary gauge theory free from the gauge fixing
is not available except for special cases. Then we are forced to
deal with the formulation based on the specific choice of gauge
fixing. The readers might think the claim strange that the essence
of quark confinement lies in the gauge-fixing part.
Recall that, in the level of the classical theory, the action part of
the gauge theory is well understood from a viewpoint of the geometry
of connection. In quantum theory, however, we need to include the
gauge fixing term in order to correctly quantize the gauge theory.
Usually, the gauge fixing term introduced in this way is not
considered to have any geometric meaning.
However, this observation is
not necessarily correct. In fact, the gauge fixing term plus the
associated Faddeev-Popov ghost term can have the very
geometric meaning from the viewpoint of global topology, as will
be discussed in this paper. In the quantum gauge theory,
therefore, the action part and the gauge fixing part should be
treated on equal footing. Unfortunately, we must discuss the
topology of the infinite dimensional manifold for gauge field
configurations. Then the mathematically rigorous analysis will be
rather hard, so that we can at best analyze the finite dimensional
analog.
\par
Usually, we consider that, even if the gauge fixing term has a
geometric interpretation, it can not have any local dynamics
(propagating mode) and describe only the topological objects, since
it is written as the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyupin (BRST) exact form,
i.e.,
$S_{GF}=\{ Q_B, \kappa \Psi \}$
using the BRST charge
$Q_B$. In the manifestly covariant formalism of gauge theory, the
physical state
$| phys \rangle$ is specified by the condition,
$Q_B | phys \rangle =0$.
If we consider the theory with the action
$S_{GF}=\{ Q_B, \kappa \Psi \}$ alone by neglecting the Yang-Mills
action (this theory is identified with the TQFT), the
expectation value of the gauge invariant quantity
$\langle {\cal O} \rangle$
does not depend on the coupling $\kappa$, since
${\partial \over \partial \kappa} \langle 0|{\cal O} |0 \rangle
= - \langle 0| {\cal O} \{ Q_B, \Psi \} |0 \rangle
+ \langle 0| {\cal O} |0 \rangle \langle 0|\{ Q_B, \Psi \} |0 \rangle
= - \langle 0| \{ Q_B, {\cal O} \Psi \} \rangle
= 0
$
where we have used the BRST invariance of ${\cal O}$ and
$|0 \rangle \in |phys \rangle$.
However, taking into account the action $S_{YM}$ in addition to
$S_{GF}$, we can not draw the same conclusion. This is the usual
situation of quantized gauge theory.
A subtle point is that the above consideration is based on the
assumption that the BRST symmetry is not broken.
If the BRST symmetry happen to be spontaneously broken
\cite{Fujikawa83}, the physical state including the vacuum is not
annihilated by the BRST charge, i.e., $Q_B | phys \rangle \not=0$.
In this case, the TQFT with the action
$S_{TQFT}=\{ Q_B, \kappa \Psi \}$ can have local dynamics and the
expectation value can depend on the coupling constant $\kappa$.
\par
In our scenarios, the spontaneous breaking of the hidden supersymmetry $OSp(4|2)$ rather than the BRST symmetry
can take place by the dimensional reduction (in the sense of
Parisi-Sourlas \cite{PS79,HK85}), at least for a special choice of
the MA gauge
\cite{KondoII}. Here it is worth remarking that the equivalence of the correlation
functions hold only for a class of them and hence the Hilbert space
of the reduced theory is different from the original theory
\cite{KondoII}. The symmetry breaking occurs spontaneously in the following
sense. We can choose arbitrary
$(D-2)$-dimensional subspace from the $D$-dimensional spacetime. Once
the specific subspace is chosen, however, the hidden supersymmetry $OSp(4|2)$, i.e., the rotational symmetry in the superspace is
broken by this procedure.
\par
Another purpose of this paper is to propose a numerical simulation
in order to confirm the dimensional reduction and
examine its implications to quark confinement problem. The result
will prove or disprove the validity of our scenario for deriving
quark confinement based on the above reformulation.
\par
This paper is organized as follows.
In section 2, we briefly review the BGFM for the
Yang-Mills theory and its BRST version based on the functional
integral formalism.
In section 3, we explain how the quantum theory of
topological soliton can be obtained in the framework of BGFM.
We discuss a relationship between the instanton and the magnetic
monopole in this construction.
In section 4, by making the change of gauge field variable, we
show that the formulation proposed in \cite{KondoII} is recovered
from the BFGM. This is the main result of this paper.
In section 5, we give a strategy of deriving quark confinement based
on the above formulation. We take up some issues which have not
been mentioned in the previous publications. We give a
proposal of numerical calculation for checking the validity of the
strategy.
In section 6, we examine the mass generation for the gluon field in
the MA gauge. We discuss a possibility of mass generation caused
by the dimensional reduction as a result of breakdown of the
hidden supersymmetry. In section 7, we discuss that the gauge fixing part in
the quantum theory of gauge fields can have a geometric meaning
from the viewpoint of global topology. In the final section, we
summarize the results and discuss the role of various topological
solitons other than the magnetic monopole for explaining color
confinement in QCD.
\section{Background field method}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\par
\subsection{Path integral for Yang-Mills field}
We consider the functional integral approach to the Yang-Mills
gauge field theory with the action
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{YM}[{\cal A}] := \int d^Dx {\cal L}_{YM}[{\cal A}]
= - \int d^Dx {1 \over 4} ({\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^A[{\cal A}])^2 ,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^A[{\cal A}]$ is the field strength for the
gauge field ${\cal A}_\mu^A$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^A[{\cal A}]
:= \partial_\mu {\cal A}_\nu^A - \partial_\nu {\cal A}_\mu^A
+ g f^{ABC} {\cal A}_\mu^B {\cal A}_\nu^C .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
In the quantum theory of the Yang-Mills gauge field, the generating
functional is defined by
\footnote{The tilde is used only for later convenience (in section
4) and does not have particular physical meaning.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] := \int [d{\cal A}] \delta(\tilde F^A[{\cal A}])
\det \left[ {\delta \tilde F^A \over \delta \tilde \omega^B} \right]
\exp \left\{ i [ S_{YM}[{\cal A}] + (J_\mu \cdot {\cal A}_\mu) ]
\right\} ,
\label{Z[J]}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(J \cdot {\cal A})$ is the source term
\begin{eqnarray}
(J_\mu \cdot {\cal A}_\mu):= \int d^Dx J_\mu^A(x) {\cal A}_\mu^A(x)
.
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{Z[J]}), the gauge-fixing condition is imposed by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde F^A[{\cal A}] = 0 ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
$
\det \left[ {\delta \tilde F^A \over \delta \tilde \omega^B} \right]
$ is the so-called Faddeev-Popov (FP) determinant
which is the determinant of the derivative of the gauge-fixing
function $\tilde F^A$ under an infinitesimal gauge transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta {\cal A}_\mu^A
= {\cal D}_\mu^{AB}[{\cal A}] \tilde \omega^B
:= \partial_\mu \tilde \omega^A
+ gf^{ABC} {\cal A}_\mu^B \tilde \omega^C ,
\\
{\cal D}_\mu^{AB} := \partial_\mu \delta^{AB}
- gf^{ABC} {\cal A}_\mu^C .
\end{eqnarray}
The delta function is made less singular by introducing the
gauge-fixing parameter $\tilde \alpha$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta(\tilde F^A[{\cal A}])
:= \prod_{x, A} \delta(\tilde F^A[{\cal A}(x)])
\rightarrow \exp \left\{ -i{1 \over 2\tilde \alpha}
(\tilde F[{\cal A}] \cdot \tilde F[{\cal A}])
\right\} .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
For example, a common choice is the Lorentz gauge,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde F^A[{\cal A}] = \partial_\mu {\cal A}_\mu^A .
\end{eqnarray}
Then the FP determinant is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\det \left[ {\delta \tilde F^A \over \delta \tilde \omega^B} \right]
= \det (\partial_\mu {\cal D}_\mu^{AB}[{\cal A}]\delta^D(x-y)) .
\end{eqnarray}
The connected Green's functions are generated by
\begin{eqnarray}
W[J] := - i \ln Z[J] .
\end{eqnarray}
The effective action is defined by making the Legendre transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma[\bar Q] := W[J] - (J_\mu \cdot \bar Q_\mu) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar Q^A := {\delta W \over \delta J_\mu^A} .
\end{eqnarray}
It is well known that the derivative of the effective action with
respect to
$\bar Q$ are the one-particle irreducible (1PI) Green's function.
\subsection{BGFM}
\par
Next, we consider the quantization on a given background gauge field
$\Omega_\mu$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_\mu = \Omega_\mu + {\cal Q}_\mu ,
\label{separa}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal Q}_\mu$ denotes the field to be quantized.
The generating functional is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde Z[J, \Omega]
:= \int [d{\cal Q}]
\det \left[ {\delta \tilde F^A \over \delta \tilde \omega^B} \right]
\exp \left\{ i \left[ S_{YM}[\Omega+{\cal Q}]
+ (J_\mu \cdot {\cal Q}_\mu)
-{1 \over 2\tilde \alpha}
(\tilde F[{\cal Q}] \cdot \tilde F[{\cal Q}]) \right]
\right\} .
\label{Z[J,O]}
\end{eqnarray}
where the gauge invariance for
${\cal Q}_\mu$ is broken by the the gauge fixing condition
$\tilde F^A[{\cal Q}]=0$ which is
supposed to fix completely the gauge degrees of freedom and
the ${\delta \tilde F^A \over \delta \tilde \omega^B}$ is the
derivative of the gauge-fixing term under the infinitesimal gauge
transformation given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta {\cal Q}_\mu^A
= ({\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}] \tilde \omega)^A .
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{Z[J,O]}), we do not couple the background field to the
source following 't Hooft \cite{tHooft75}
In the background field method (BGFM)
\cite{DeWitt67,tHooft75,Abbott82,Abbott81,AGS83}, the the following
gauge fixing condition is chosen,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde F^A[{\cal Q}] := {\cal D}_\mu^{AB}[\Omega] {\cal Q}_\mu^B
= 0 ,
\label{BGFgauge}
\end{eqnarray}
which is called the background field (BGF) gauge.
An advantage of the BGF gauge is that the BGF gauge
condition retains explicit gauge invariance for the background
gauge field $\Omega_\mu$ even after the gauge fixing for the field
${\cal Q}_\mu$.
\par
{\it Proposition}\cite{Abbott82}: Under the BGF gauge condition
(\ref{BGFgauge}), the BGF generating functional
$\tilde Z[J, \Omega]$ and
$\tilde W[J, \Omega] := -i \ln \tilde Z[J, \Omega]$
are invariant under the (infinitesimal) transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Omega_\mu^A
&=& ({\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] \omega)^A
:= (\partial_\mu \omega + i g [\omega,
\Omega_\mu])^A ,
\label{traOme}
\\
\delta J_\mu^A &=& i g[\omega, J_\mu]^A
:= - g f^{ABC} \omega^B J_\mu^C .
\label{traJ}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
This is shown as follows. By making the change of integration
variables,
${\cal Q}_\mu \rightarrow {\cal Q}_\mu + i[\omega, {\cal
Q}_\mu]$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta {\cal Q}_\mu^A = i g[\omega, {\cal Q}_\mu]^A
= \omega \times {\cal Q} .
\label{traQ}
\end{eqnarray}
Eq.~(\ref{traJ}) and (\ref{traQ}) represent an adjoint group
rotation for $J_\mu$ and ${\cal Q}_\mu$ respectively, so the term
$(J_\mu \cdot Q_\mu)$ is clearly invariant. Adding (\ref{traOme})
and (\ref{traQ}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta (\Omega_\mu+{\cal Q}_\mu)^A
= ({\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}] \omega)^A .
\label{traA}
\end{eqnarray}
This is just a gauge transformation on the field variable
${\cal A}_\mu=\Omega_\mu+{\cal Q}_\mu$, so the action
$S_{YM}[\Omega+{\cal Q}]$ is also invariant.
Note that the BGF gauge condition $\tilde F^A[{\cal Q}]$ is just
the covariant derivative of ${\cal Q}_\mu$ with respect to the BGF
$\Omega_\mu$. Eq.~(\ref{traOme}) is a gauge transformation on
$\Omega_\mu$ and (\ref{traQ}) is an adjoint rotation of ${\cal
Q}_\mu$. Then the gauge fixing term $(\tilde F \cdot \tilde F)$ is
invariant under such transformations. The FP determinant is also
invariant, since the determinant is invariant under the adjoint
rotation. Thus the BGF generating functional $\tilde Z[J, {\cal
Q}]$ is invariant under (\ref{traOme}) and (\ref{traJ}).
\par
By using
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde W[J, \Omega] := -i \ln \tilde Z[J, \Omega] ,
\end{eqnarray}
we define the background effective action
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Gamma[\tilde {\cal Q}, \Omega] := \tilde W[J, \Omega]
- (J_\mu, \tilde Q_\mu) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde Q_\mu^A = {\delta \tilde W \over \delta J_\mu^A} .
\end{eqnarray}
From the invariance of $\tilde Z[J, {\cal Q}]$, it follows that
$\tilde \Gamma[\tilde {\cal Q}, \Omega]$
is invariant under
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Omega_\mu
&=& ({\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] \tilde \omega) ,
\label{traOme2}
\\
\delta \tilde {\cal Q}_\mu
&=& i g[\tilde \omega, \tilde {\cal Q}_\mu] ,
\label{traQ2}
\end{eqnarray}
Since (\ref{traQ2}) is a homogeneous transformation,
$\tilde \Gamma[0, \Omega]$ is invariant under the transformation
(\ref{traOme2}) alone. Hence the effective action
$\tilde \Gamma[0, \Omega]$ in the BGFM is an explicitly gauge
invariant functional of
$\Omega$, since (\ref{traOme2}) is just an ordinary gauge
transformation. As a result, 1PI Green's functions generated by
differentiating
$\tilde \Gamma[0, \Omega]$ with respect to $\Omega$ will obey the
naive Ward-Takahashi identities of gauge invariance. Hence,
$\tilde \Gamma[0, \Omega]$ calculated in the BGFG is equal to the
conventional effective action
$\Gamma[\bar Q]$
with $\bar Q=\Omega$ calculated in an unconventional gauge which
depends on $\Omega$
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde F^A[{\cal Q}] := {\cal D}_\mu^{AB}[\Omega]
({\cal Q}_\mu^B - \Omega_\mu^B)
= \partial_\mu {\cal Q}_\mu^A
+ g f^{ABC} \Omega_\mu^B {\cal Q}_\mu^C
- \partial_\mu \Omega_\mu = 0 .
\label{BGFgauge2}
\end{eqnarray}
Then we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Gamma[0, \Omega] = \Gamma[\bar Q]\big|_{\bar Q=\Omega} ,
\end{eqnarray}
as a special case of
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Gamma[\tilde Q, \Omega] = \Gamma[\bar Q]\big|_{\bar Q
= \tilde Q + \Omega} .
\end{eqnarray}
The 1PI Green functions calculated from the gauge invariant
effective action $\tilde \Gamma[0,\Omega]$ will be very different
from those calculated by conventional method in normal gauges.
Nevertheless, the relation assures us that all gauge-invariant
physical quantities will come out the same in either approach
\cite{AGS83}. Thus
$\tilde \Gamma[0, \Omega]$ can be used to generate the S-matrix of a
gauge theory in exactly the same way as the usual effective action
is employed.
\subsection{BRST version of the BGFM}
\par
Now we give the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyupin (BRST) version of the
BGFM. The BGF generating functional is rewritten into
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde Z[J, \Omega]
:= \int [d{\cal Q}] [d\tilde C][d\bar {\tilde C}][d\tilde B]
\exp \left\{ i S_{YM}[\Omega+{\cal Q}]
+ i \tilde S_{GF}[{\cal Q}, \tilde C, \bar {\tilde C}, \tilde B]
+ i (J_\mu \cdot {\cal Q}_\mu)
\right\} ,
\label{ZBGFM}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde B$ is the auxiliary scalar field and $\tilde C, \bar
{\tilde C}$ are Hermitian anticommuting scalar field called the FP
ghost and anti-ghost field,
$\tilde C^\dagger = \tilde C,
\bar {\tilde C}^\dagger=\bar {\tilde C}$. Using the BRST
transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \delta_B \Omega_\mu(x)
&=& 0 ,
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B {\cal Q}_\mu(x)
&=& {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}] {\tilde C}(x)
:= \partial_\mu {\tilde C}(x)
- ig [\Omega_\mu(x)+{\cal Q}_\mu(x), {\tilde C}(x)],
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B {\tilde C}(x)
&=& i{1 \over 2}g[{\tilde C}(x), {\tilde C}(x)],
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B \bar {\tilde C}(x) &=& i \tilde B(x) ,
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B \tilde B(x) &=& 0 ,
\label{BRST0}
\end{eqnarray}
the gauge fixing and the FP ghost
terms for the BGG are combined into a compact form,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde S_{GF}[{\cal Q}, \tilde C, \bar {\tilde C}, \tilde B]
&:=& - \int d^Dx \ i \tilde \delta_B \ {\rm tr}_G
\left[ \bar {\tilde C}\left( \tilde F[{\cal Q}]+
{\tilde \alpha \over 2}\tilde B \right)
\right] ,
\label{GF0}
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde S_{GF}[{\cal Q}, \tilde C, \bar {\tilde C}, \tilde B]
= \int d^Dx \ {\rm tr}_G \left[
\tilde B {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] {\cal Q}_\mu
+ {\tilde \alpha \over 2} \tilde B \tilde B
+ i \bar {\tilde C} {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega]
{\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}]\tilde C \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde \alpha$ is the gauge-fixing parameter and $\tilde
\alpha=0$ corresponds to the Landau gauge (delta function gauge).
This is clearly BRST invariant
$\delta_B S_{GF}= 0$ due to nilpotency of the BRST transformation,
$\delta_B^2 \equiv 0$.
If the auxiliary field $\tilde B$ is integrated out, the gauge-fixing
part reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde S_{GF}[{\cal Q}, \tilde C, \bar {\tilde C}]
= \int d^Dx \ {\rm tr}_G \left[
-{1 \over 2\tilde \alpha} ({\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] {\cal Q}_\mu)^2
+ i \bar {\tilde C} {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega]
{\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}]\tilde C \right] .
\label{GFQ}
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, this recovers the original form (\ref{Z[J,O]}), since
\begin{eqnarray}
\det \left[ {\delta \tilde F^A \over \delta \tilde \omega^B}
\right]
= \int [d\tilde C][d\bar {\tilde C}] \exp \left[ i\int d^Dx
\ {\rm tr}_G \left( i \bar {\tilde C} {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega]
{\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}]\tilde C \right) \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
The explicit form of the FP ghost term is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm tr}_G \left[ i \bar {\tilde C} {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega]
{\cal D}_\mu[\Omega+{\cal Q}]\tilde C \right]
&=& i \bar {\tilde C}^A [ \partial_\mu \partial_\mu \delta^{AB}
- g f^{ACB} {\uparrow \partial_\mu} (\Omega_\mu+{\cal Q}_\mu)^C
+ g f^{ACB} \Omega_\mu^B \partial_\mu
\nonumber\\&&
+ g^2 f^{ACE}f^{EDB} \Omega_\mu^C (\Omega_\mu+{\cal Q}_\mu)^D ]
\tilde C^B ,
\label{GFQ1}
\end{eqnarray}
and the gauge fixing term is
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\rm tr}_G \left[ -{1 \over 2\tilde \alpha}
({\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] {\cal Q}_\mu)^2 \right]
\nonumber\\
&=& -{1 \over 2\tilde \alpha} \left[ (\partial_\mu {\cal
Q}_\mu^A)^2
+ 2 g f^{ABC} \Omega_\nu^B {\cal Q}_\nu^C \partial_\mu {\cal
Q}_\mu^A
+ g^2 f^{ABC} f^{ADE} \Omega_\mu^B {\cal Q}_\mu^C \Omega_\nu^D
{\cal Q}_\nu^E \right] .
\label{GFQ2}
\end{eqnarray}
Feynmann rule for the BGFM is derived from the shifted action
$S_{YM}[\Omega+{\cal Q}]$ and (\ref{GFQ}), see Abbott
\cite{Abbott82}.
In the limit $\Omega_\mu \rightarrow 0$, the BRST version of BGFM
reduces to the usual BRST formulation of the Yang-Mills theory in
the Lorentz gauge,
$F^A[Q] = \partial^\mu {\cal Q}_\mu$.
\par
The advantage of the BGFM becomes apparent when the
two-loop $\beta$ function is calculated. The BGFM makes the
calculation much easier than previous calculations using the
conventional approach, see
\cite{Abbott81,AGS83}.
\section{Quantum theory of topological soliton and BGFM}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Summation over topological soliton background}
\par
In the conventional approach, the background field $\Omega_\mu$ is
chosen to be a solution of the classical field equation. In
Yang-Mills theory, the equation of motion is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\delta S_{YM}[{\cal A}] \over \delta {\cal A}_\mu^A}
\equiv {\cal D}^{AB}_{\nu} [{\cal A}]
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^{B}[{\cal A}] = 0.
\label{Feq}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, under the identification (\ref{separa}),
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_\mu = \Omega_\mu + {\cal Q}_\mu ,
\end{eqnarray}
the quantization is
performed around arbitrary but fixed background $\Omega_\mu$ which
satisfies (\ref{Feq}). In this paper, we consider the topologically
nontrivial field configuration as a background field
$\Omega_\mu$, around which the quantization of the Yang-Mills theory
is performed.
Once a specific type of field configurations is chosen as the
background $\Omega_\mu$, we will include all possible
configurations of the same type, in other words, we sum up all
contributions coming from such a type of configurations.
\footnote{
Such a procedure was performed so far in various forms, e.g., by
summing up the monopole-currents trajectories
\cite{ST78,BS78,AE99}.
}
Therefore,
in our formulation, a candidate for the generating functional of the
{\it total} Yang-Mills theory is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] &=& \int [d\Omega_\mu] \tilde Z[J, \Omega]
=: \int [d\Omega_\mu] \exp (i \tilde S_{eff}[J, \Omega]) ,
\label{Z[J]0}
\end{eqnarray}
where we
have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde S_{eff}[J, \Omega] := - i \ln \tilde Z[J, \Omega] ,
\end{eqnarray}
and $[d\Omega_\mu]$ is the integration measure specified later.
\par
Note that the action
$\tilde S_{eff}[J, \Omega]$ can have the local gauge invariance
(\ref{traOme}) for
$\Omega_\mu$ by virtue of the BGFM.
Hence, the total Yang-Mills theory defined in this way is identified
with the (quantized) gauge theory with the action $\tilde
S_{eff}[J,\Omega]$, provided that the integration measure $[d\Omega_\mu]$ is
gauge invariant. However, in order to quantize the total Yang-Mills
theory correctly, we need to fix the local gauge invariance for the
non-Abelian gauge field
$\Omega_\mu$. Thus, instead of (\ref{Z[J]0}), we define the
generating functional of the total Yang-Mills theory by
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] = \int [d\Omega_\mu]
\delta(F^A[\Omega])
\det \left[ {\delta F^A \over \delta \omega^B} \right]
\tilde Z[J, \Omega] ,
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] = \int [d\Omega_\mu]
\det \left[ {\delta F^A \over \delta \omega^B} \right]
\exp \left(i \tilde S_{eff}[J, \Omega]
-i{1 \over 2\alpha}
(F[\Omega] \cdot F[\Omega]) \right) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the gauge fixing function $F^A$ is not necessarily equal
to the BGF gauge $\tilde F^A$. The choice of $F^A$ is quite
important in our formulation for realizing topological soliton
background, as explained below.
In order to be able to incorporate the topological soliton, the gauge
fixing function $F[\Omega]$ should be {\it nonlinear} in $\Omega$.
The measure $[d\Omega_\mu]$ must be chosen appropriately for
the topological soliton in question. In the final stage the measure
is replaced by the integration over the
collective coordinates of the soliton.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(12,8)
\thicklines
\put(3,7.5){\framebox(6,1){Yang-Mills classical solution}}
\put(4,7.0){2nd order NL PDE}
\put(4,6.5){${\cal D}_\nu[{\cal A}] {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}=0$}
\put(6,3.5){\oval(13,8)}
\put(8.5,7){\circle{0.2}}
\put(8.8,6.9){SSU}
\put(1.5,5){\framebox(4,1){Magnetic monopole}}
\put(1.5,4.5){1st order NL PDE}
\put(1.5,4.0){MA gauge}
\put(1.5,3.5){$D^{\mp}_\mu[a]A_\mu^{\pm}=0$}
\put(-1.0,2){\bf $?$}
\put(3.0,2.5){\oval(9,5)}
\put(5.5,2){\circle*{0.2}}
\put(5.8,1.9){'t Hooft}
\put(1.5,2){\circle{0.2}}
\put(1.8,0.9){CG}
\put(1.5,1){\circle{0.2}}
\put(1.8,1.9){BOT}
\put(8,4.5){\framebox(3,1){Instanton}}
\put(8,4.0){Ist order NL PDE}
\put(8,3.5){${\cal F}_{\mu\nu}=\pm \tilde {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}$}
\put(8,3.0){ADHM}
\put(8.5,2.5){\oval(7,4)}
\put(8.0,1){\circle{0.2}}
\put(8.3,0.9){Witten}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{
Moduli space, i.e, space of solutions for the Yang-Mills
equation of motion (\ref{Feq}), self-dual instanton equation
(\ref{SDeq}) and the magnetic monopole equation (\ref{MAg0}) in the
MA gauge in four dimensions. The instanton solution of the
self-dual equation (\ref{SDeq}) is also a solution of the Yang-Mills
equation of motion (\ref{Feq}). The converse is not necessarily
true. In fact, the Sibner-Sibner-Uhlenbeck (SSU) solution
\cite{SSU89} on
$S^4$ is a solution of the Yang-Mills field equation which is not a
solution of the self-dual equation
\cite{SSU89}. The general instanton solution on
$S^4$ can be constructed according to the Atiyah, Drinfeld, Hitchin
and Mannin (ADHM)
\cite{ADHM}.
The explicit form for the multi-instanton is known in the specific
cases, e.g., 't Hooft type
\cite{Rajaraman89} or Witten type \cite{Witten77}. Both types
include one-instanton solution of Belavin, Polyakov, Schwartz and
Tyupkin (BPST) \cite{BPST75}. The multi-instanton solution of 't
Hooft type is also the solution of the magnetic monopole equation
(\ref{MAg}). Some solutions are known for (\ref{MAg}), Chernodub
and Gubarev (CG) \cite{CG95} and Brower, Orginos and Tan (BOT)
\cite{BOT96}. See Appendix A.
The general solution of (\ref{MAg}) is not yet known.
In principle, there may exist a solution of the monopole equation
which is not a solution of Yang-Mills field equation, indicated by
$?$ in the figure. }
\label{fig:moduli}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Yang-Mills instanton}
\par
In four-dimensional Euclidean space, the most popular
topologically nontrivial field configuration of pure Yang-Mills
theory is the instanton (anti-instanton)
\cite{BPST75,tHooft76,Witten77,JNR77,ADHM,Coleman85,Rajaraman89}
which is a solution of the self-dual (self-antidual)
equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}[{\cal A}] =
\pm {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^*[{\cal A}], \quad
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^*[{\cal A}] := {1 \over 2}
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} {\cal F}_{\rho\sigma}[{\cal A}] ,
\label{SDeq}
\end{eqnarray}
with a finite action
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{YM}[{\cal A}] < \infty .
\end{eqnarray}
The self-dual equation (\ref{SDeq}) is a first order nonlinear
partial differential equation (NL PDE), whereas the field equation
(\ref{Feq})is a second order nonlinear partial differential
equation.
The instanton is a kind of topological soliton which is possible
due to the nonlinearity of the self-dual equation. Due to the
Bianchi identity,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_{\nu} [{\cal A}]{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^*[{\cal A}] \equiv 0 ,
\end{eqnarray}
any instanton (anti-instanton) solution is also a solution of the
Yang-Mills field equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_{\nu} [{\cal A}]{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}[{\cal A}] = 0 ,
\end{eqnarray}
but the converse does not hold.
In fact, the instanton
and the anti-instanton do not exhaust the solution of the Yang-Mills
field equation, since there exists at least one solution of the
Yang-Mills field equation (Sibner-Sibner-Uhlenbeck (SSU) solution
\cite{SSU89}) which is not a solution of the self-dual equation, see
Fig.~\ref{fig:moduli}. The existence of the instanton solution is
suggested from the non-triviality of Homotopy group
\cite{NS83,Nakahara90,Mermin79}
$\pi_3(G)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_3(SU(N)) = {\bf Z} \ (N=2,3, \cdots) .
\end{eqnarray}
It is possible to construct the instanton background by choosing the
gauge fixing condition,
\begin{eqnarray}
F^A[\Omega] = {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^{\pm}{}^A[\Omega],
\quad
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^{\pm}{}^A[\Omega]
:= {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^A[\Omega] \mp {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^A{}^*[\Omega] .
\label{SDYM}
\end{eqnarray}
It is shown \cite{KN98} that this choice leads to the topological
Yang-Mills theory \cite{Witten88,TQFT} which is an example of
the TQFT of Witten type. Since the topological Yang-Mills theory is
derived from the N=2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory by the
procedure called the twisting, this might shed more light on the
quark confinement based on the dual Meissner effect or the magnetic
monopole \cite{SW94}. However, quark confinement will be realized
only when the $N=2$ supersymmetry is broken down to $N=1$ by adding
the mass perturbation.
Since we do not have any convincing argument to justify such a
scenario, we do not consider this possibility anymore in this
paper.
\subsection{Magnetic monopole current}
\par
In our formulation, however, the background field $\Omega_\mu$ is not
a priori required to be the classical solution of the field equation
(\ref{Feq}), when we consider the quantum theory of the background
field
$\Omega_\mu$. In quantum theory, it is not necessarily true that
the most dominant contribution is given
by the solution of the field equation. This is obvious in the
functional integral approach because we must take into account the
entropy associated with the relevant field configurations, which
comes from the integration measure
$[d\Omega_\mu]$ of the functional integral. In fact, whether the
phase transition occurs or not is determined according to the balance
between the action (energy) and the entropy, which is called the
action (energy)-entropy argument. What kind of field configuration is
important may vary from problem to problem.
\par
In our approach, we take the magnetic monopole current as the
topologically nontrivial background $\Omega_\mu$.
This choice is suggested from the recent result \cite{SY90} of
Monte Carlo simulations in lattice gauge theories; the (Abelian)
magnetic monopole after Abelian projection \cite{tHooft81} plays the
dominant role in quark confinement. This fact is called the
(Abelian) magnetic monopole dominance
\cite{EI82}.
\par
The magnetic monopole in pure Yang-Mills theory (without the
elementary Higgs scalar field) is obtained as follows. First, we
restrict the Non-Abelian gauge group
$G$ to the subgroup $H$ ($G \rightarrow H$) and retain only the gauge
invariance for $H$, in other words, the gauge group element
$U(x) \in G$ is restricted to the coset $G/H$. To obtain Abelian
magnetic monopole, $H$ is chosen to be the maximal
torus subgroup of $G$ (We will discuss other choices
in the final section).
We realize this restriction by the partial gauge fixing.
The MAG is a partial gauge
fixing so that $G/H$ is fixed and $H$ is retained
by choosing
$F^A[\Omega]$ appropriately. The MA gauge condition is obtained by minimizing the ${\cal R}[{\cal
A}^U]$ with respect to the gauge rotation $U$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}[{\cal A}] := \int d^Dx \ {\rm tr}_{G/H}
\left( {1 \over 2}{\cal A}_\mu(x) {\cal A}_\mu(x) \right)
\equiv \int d^Dx \
{1 \over 2}A_\mu^a(x) A_\mu^a(x) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the Cartan decomposition which decomposes the
non-Abelian gauge field into the diagonal and the
off-diagonal pieces,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_\mu = {\cal A}_\mu^A T^A
= a_\mu^\alpha T^\alpha + A_\mu^a T^a .
\label{Cartandecomp}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the trace is taken only on the coset part, see Appendix B.
A geometric meaning of this function is given in section 7.
According to the Cartan decomposition, the Abelian gauge potential is
defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
a_\mu^\alpha(x) := {\rm tr}[{\cal H}_\alpha {\cal A}_\mu(x)]
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal H}_\alpha=T^\alpha (i=1, \cdots, {\rm rank}G)$ is the
Cartan subalgebra.
For $G=SU(2)$, the differential MA gauge is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{a}[{\cal A}] := (\partial_\mu \delta^{ab}
- \epsilon^{ab3} A_\mu{}^3) A_\mu^b
:= D_\mu{}^{ab}{}[A^3] A_\mu^b
\quad (a,b = 1,2) ,
\label{dMAG}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_\mu=A_\mu^3$.
Note that the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\mu{}^{ab}{}[A^3] A_\mu^b = 0
\quad (a,b = 1,2) .
\label{MAg0}
\end{eqnarray}
is a 1st order nonlinear partial differential equation. We call this
equation the monopole equation in what follows.
\par
Next, using the solution of $F^{a}[{\cal A}]=0$,
the magnetic monopole current is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
k_\mu^\alpha := \partial_\nu \tilde f_{\mu\nu}^\alpha
= {1 \over 2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \partial_\nu
f_{\rho\sigma}^\alpha,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Abelian field strength is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\mu\nu}^\alpha := \partial_\mu a_\nu^\alpha - \partial_\nu
a_\mu^\alpha .
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the topological conservation law,
$
\partial_\mu k_\mu^\alpha = 0
$
the magnetic monopole current denotes a closed loop in four
dimensions.
The respective magnetic monopole is characterized by
an integer-valued topological (magnetic) charge
$Q_m^\alpha := \int d^3x k_0^\alpha(x) \in {\bf Z}$
($\alpha=1,\cdots,N-1={\rm rank}SU(N)$).
For the static monopole, the monopole current is given by
$k_\mu^\alpha(x)=Q_m^\alpha \delta^3({\bf x}) \delta_{\mu 0}$
with $Q_m^\alpha$ being the magnetic charge.
\par
Finally, we must check the finiteness of ${\cal R}[{\cal A}]$, which
is necessary to define the Morse function, see section 7.
The instanton solution give a finite Yang-Mills action, i.e.,
$S_{YM}[{\cal A}]<\infty$ irrespective of the gauge choice, as a
consequence of self-duality of the equation.
On the other hand, the magnetic
monopole solution of
$F^{a}[{\cal A}]=0$ must give a finite
${\cal R}[{\cal A}]$, i.e.,
${\cal R}[{\cal A}]<\infty$. This condition leads to the finiteness
of the gauge-fixing action,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF}[\Omega] < \infty ,
\end{eqnarray}
in the MA gauge.
In the gauge-fixed formulation of the quantum gauge field theory, the
gauge fixing part $S_{GF}$ is important as well as the Yang-Mills
action, $S_{YM}$.
In what folllows, it is very convenient to separate the
pure gauge piece in the gauge potential,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \Omega_\mu(x)
:= {i \over g} \tilde U(x) \partial_\mu \tilde U^\dagger(x)
= \tilde \Omega_\mu^A(x) T^A , \quad \tilde U \in G/H .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
For $G=SU(2)$ and $H=U(1)$, it is shown that
the Abelian gauge potential calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
a_i(x) = {\rm tr}[{1 \over 2}\sigma_3 \tilde \Omega_i(x)]
(i=1,2,3)
\end{eqnarray}
agrees exactly with the well-known static potential for the Dirac
magnetic monopole \cite{Dirac31,WY75,GO78}, see e.g. \cite{KondoI}.
\par
From the mathematical point of view, the existence of magnetic
monopole is consistent with the following relation for the Homotopy
group,
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_2(G/H) = \pi_1(H) \ {\rm when} \ \pi_2(G)=0 .
\end{eqnarray}
Usually, the pure Yang-Mills theory does not have magnetic monopole
as a stable topological soliton. This is consistent with
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_2(G) = 0 .
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, for the existence of the magnetic monopole in pure
Yang-Mills theory, the coset structure $G/H$ is an indispensable
ingredient. For $G=SU(N)$, magnetic monopoles of
$N-1$ species are expected for the maximal torus group
$H=U(1)^{N-1}$, since
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_2(SU(N)/U(1)^{N-1}) = \pi_1(U(1)^{N-1}) = {\bf Z}^{N-1} ,
\end{eqnarray}
whereas
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_2(SU(N)) = 0 \ (N=2,3, \cdots) .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
\section{Deformation of a topological field theory}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Change of field variables}
\par
For the decomposition of field variable,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_\mu(x) = \Omega_\mu(x) + {\cal Q}_\mu(x) ,
\label{deco}
\end{eqnarray}
it is possible to identify the gauge transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta {\cal A}_\mu(x)
= {\cal D}_\mu[A] {\omega}(x)
:= \partial_\mu {\omega}(x) - ig [{\cal A}_\mu(x),
{\omega}(x)],
\end{eqnarray}
with a set of transformations
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Omega_\mu(x)
&=& {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] \omega(x) ,
\label{traOme3}
\\
\delta {\cal Q}_\mu(x) &=& i g [\omega(x), {\cal
Q}_\mu(x)] .
\label{traQ3}
\end{eqnarray}
Here (\ref{traOme3}) and (\ref{traQ3}) correspond to (\ref{traOme}) and (\ref{traQ}) respectively.
Note that $\Omega_\mu$ transforms as an gauge field, while ${\cal
Q}_\mu$ as a adjoint matter field.
\par
When ${\cal A}_\mu$ is given by a finite gauge rotation (large gauge
transformation) $U(x)$ of
${\cal V}_\mu$, we take the following identification,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\mu(x) := {i \over g} U(x) \partial_\mu U^\dagger(x), \quad
{\cal Q}_\mu(x) := U(x) {\cal V}_\mu(x) U^\dagger(x) ,
\label{cov}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have identified $\Omega_\mu(x)$ with the background field
which is supposed to be generated from
$U(x)$. This identification leads after simple calculation to
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] {\cal Q}_\mu
&:=& \partial_\mu {\cal Q}_\mu
- i g[\Omega_\mu, {\cal Q}_\mu]
\\
&=& \partial_\mu (U(x) {\cal V}_\mu(x) U^\dagger(x))
+ [ U(x) \partial_\mu U^\dagger(x),
U(x) {\cal V}_\mu(x) U^\dagger(x) ]
\nonumber\\
&=& U(x) \partial_\mu {\cal V}_\mu(x) U^\dagger(x) .
\label{gft}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the BGF gauge for ${\cal Q}_\mu$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] {\cal Q}_\mu(x) = 0 ,
\label{BGFG}
\end{eqnarray}
is equivalent
to the Lorentz gauge for ${\cal V}_\mu$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_\mu {\cal V}_\mu(x) = 0 ,
\label{Lorentz}
\end{eqnarray}
under the identification of the
variables (\ref{cov}).
Under (\ref{cov}), we can rewrite (\ref{traOme3}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta U \partial_\mu U^\dagger
+ U \partial_\mu \delta U^\dagger
= ig \omega U \partial_\mu U^\dagger
- ig U \partial_\mu(U^\dagger \omega) ,
\end{eqnarray}
and (\ref{traQ3}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta U {\cal V}_\mu U^\dagger
+ U {\cal V}_\mu \delta U^\dagger
+ U \delta {\cal V}_\mu U^\dagger
= ig \omega U {\cal V}_\mu U^\dagger
- ig U {\cal V}_\mu U^\dagger \omega .
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, in the BGF gauge, (\ref{traOme3}) and (\ref{traQ3}) reduce
to a set of transformations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta U(x)
&=& i g \omega(x) U(x) , \quad
\delta U^\dagger(x) = - i g U^\dagger(x) \omega(x) ,
\label{traU}
\\
\delta {\cal V}_\mu(x) &=& 0 ,
\label{traV}
\end{eqnarray}
since the gauge degrees of freedom for ${\cal V}_\mu$ (small gauge
transformation) is fixed by the Lorentz gauge (\ref{Lorentz}). In
what follows, we assume that the non-compact gauge field variable
${\cal V}_\mu(x)$ does not have topologically nontrivial
configuration and all topologically nontrivial contributions come
from the compact gauge group variable $U(x)$ alone. We treat
${\cal V}_\mu(x)$ and $U(x)$ as if they are independent variables.
The topological soliton (magnetic monopole) is derived as a solution
of the nonlinear equation for
$\Omega_\mu$ which follows from the nonlinear gauge fixing condition
(MA gauge). The local gauge invariance of $\tilde Z[J,\Omega]$
written in terms of $\Omega_\mu$ and ${\cal Q}_\mu$ reduces to the
invariance under the transformation (\ref{traU}), i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
U(x) \rightarrow e^{ig\omega(x)}U(x) .
\label{grot}
\end{eqnarray}
The measure $[d\Omega]$
invariant under (\ref{traOme}) is replaced by the invariant Haar
measure
$[dU]$ which is invariant under the local gauge rotation
(\ref{grot}).
\subsection{BRST formalism}
First, we rewrite the BRST formulation of BGFM in terms of new
variables.
By making the change of variable (\ref{cov}) which is a gauge
transformation of ${\cal V}(x)$ by $U(x)$,
it turns out that the BRST transformation (\ref{BRST0}) for
the variables $\Omega_\mu, {\cal Q}_\mu, \bar {\tilde C}, \bar
{\tilde C}, \tilde B$ is rewritten into
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \delta_B U(x) &=& 0 ,
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B {\cal V}_\mu(x)
&=& {\cal D}_\mu[{\cal V}] \gamma(x) ,
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B \gamma(x)
&=& i{1 \over 2}g[\gamma(x), \gamma(x)],
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B \bar \gamma(x) &=& i \beta(x) ,
\nonumber\\
\tilde \delta_B \beta(x) &=& 0 ,
\label{BRST1}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal V}_\mu, \gamma, \bar \gamma, \beta$ are the adjoint
rotation of
${\cal Q}_\mu, \tilde C, \bar {\tilde C}, \bar B$ respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal V}_\mu := U^\dagger {\cal Q}_\mu U, \quad
\gamma := U^\dagger \tilde C U, \quad
\bar \gamma := U^\dagger \bar {\tilde C} U, \quad
\beta := U^\dagger \tilde B U .
\label{adjr}
\end{eqnarray}
Under the adjoint rotation (\ref{adjr}), the measure is invariant,
\begin{eqnarray}
[d{\cal V}] [d\gamma][d\bar \gamma][d\beta]
= [d{\cal Q}] [d\tilde C][d\bar {\tilde C}][d\tilde B] .
\end{eqnarray}
The Yang-Mills action is invariant
\footnote{
For the definition of the field strength
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}[{\cal A}]
:= \partial_\mu {\cal A}_\nu - \partial_\nu {\cal A}_\mu
- i g [ {\cal A}_\mu, {\cal A}_\nu] ,
\end{eqnarray}
the change of variable
${\cal A}_\mu = U{\cal V}_\mu U^\dagger
+ { i \over g} U \partial_\mu U^\dagger$
leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}[{\cal A}] =
U {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}[{\cal V}] U^\dagger
+ { i \over g} U [\partial_\mu, \partial_\nu] U^\dagger .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the second term
${\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^s
:={ i \over g}U[\partial_\mu, \partial_\nu] U^\dagger$
can have a nonzero value and may modify the action. If $U(x) \in G$
is restricted to the coset
$G/H$, it may yield a line-like singularity. For example, it is
possible to have
${\cal F}_{xy}^s
:= {2\pi \over g} \delta(x)\delta(y)\theta(z) \sigma_3$
which corresponds to the presence of Dirac string extending into
the direction of the negative $z$ axis from the origin, see e.g.
Appendix C of \cite{KondoI}. Here the factor ${2\pi \over g}$
corresponds to the magnetic charge. The same contribution as the
Dirac string can be incorporated by taking into account the magnetic
monopole instead of the Dirac string, as shown in
\cite{KondoI}.
Moreover, the existence of such terms introduces rather singular
terms in the action. Thus, we do not consider the effect of this
term in what follows.
}
under this change of variables,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{YM}[{\cal A}] = S_{YM}[\Omega+{\cal Q}]
= S_{YM}[{\cal V}] .
\end{eqnarray}
The gauge fixing part (\ref{GF0}) for the BGF gauge is transformed
into
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde S_{GF}[{\cal V}, \gamma, \bar \gamma, \beta]
&:=& - \int d^Dx \ i \tilde \delta_B \ {\rm tr}_G
\left[ \bar \gamma \left( \partial_\mu {\cal V}_\mu +{\tilde \alpha
\over 2}\beta \right) \right]
\\
&=& \int d^Dx \ {\rm tr}_G \left[ \beta \partial_\mu {\cal V}_\mu
+ {\tilde \alpha \over 2} \beta \beta + i {\bar \gamma}
\partial_\mu {\cal D}_\mu[{\cal V}] \gamma
\right] ,
\label{GF2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used (\ref{gft}) and (\ref{adjr}). It turns out that
the gauge fixing condition for
${\cal V}_\mu$ field is given by the Lorentz gauge
(\ref{Lorentz}). Note that (\ref{GF2}) agrees with the form given
in \cite{KondoII}. This BRST transformation corresponds to the small
gauge transformation which does not change the topology of the gauge
field.
Thus the generating functional (\ref{ZBGFM}) is transformed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde Z[J, \Omega]
= \int [d{\cal V}] [d\gamma][d\bar \gamma][d\beta]
\exp \left\{ i [ S_{YM}[{\cal V}]
+ \tilde S_{GF}[{\cal V}, \gamma, \bar \gamma, \beta]
+ (J_\mu \cdot U {\cal V}_\mu U^\dagger) ]
\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
Next, we consider the total generating functional
\begin{eqnarray}
&& Z[J]
\nonumber\\&=& \int [d\Omega_\mu][dC][d\bar C][dB]
\tilde Z[J, \Omega]
\exp (i S_{GF}[\Omega, C, \bar C, B])
\exp [i(J_\mu \cdot \Omega_\mu)]
\\
&=& \int [d\Omega_\mu] [dC][d\bar C][dB]
\exp \{ i \tilde S_{eff}[J, \Omega]
+ i S_{GF}[\Omega, C, \bar C, B]
+i(J_\mu \cdot \Omega_\mu) \} .
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the source term $(J_\mu \cdot \Omega_\mu)$
for the background field. We introduce the BRST transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B \Omega_\mu(x)
&=& {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] C(x)
:= \partial_\mu C(x) - i g[\Omega_\mu(x), C(x)],
\nonumber\\
\delta_B C(x)
&=& i{1 \over 2}g[C(x), C(x)],
\nonumber\\
\delta_B \bar C(x) &=& i B(x) ,
\nonumber\\
\delta_B B(x) &=& 0 ,
\label{BRST2}
\end{eqnarray}
and the anti-BRST transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar \delta_B \Omega_\mu(x)
&=& {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] \bar C(x)
:= \partial_\mu \bar C(x) - i g[\Omega_\mu(x), \bar C(x)],
\nonumber\\
\bar \delta_B \bar C(x)
&=& i{1 \over 2}g[\bar C(x), \bar C(x)],
\nonumber\\
\bar \delta_B C(x) &=& i \bar B(x) ,
\nonumber\\
\bar \delta_B \bar B(x) &=& 0 ,
\label{BRST3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar B$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
B(x) + \bar B(x) = g [C(x), \bar C(x)] .
\end{eqnarray}
The BRST and anti-BRST transformations have the following properties,
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta_B)^2 = 0, \quad (\bar \delta_B)^2 = 0, \quad
\{ \delta_B, \bar \delta_B \}
:= \delta_B \bar \delta_B + \bar \delta_B \delta_B = 0 .
\label{nilpotent}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
In what follows, we consider the variable $U(x)$ as the fundamental
variable instead of $\Omega_\mu(x)$.
Then the BRST and anti-BRST transformations for $U$ and ${\cal
V}_\mu$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B U(x) = i g C(x) U(x), \quad
\bar \delta_B U(x) = i g \bar C(x) U(x) ,
\label{UBRST}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B {\cal V}_\mu(x) = 0 = \bar \delta_B {\cal V}_\mu(x) ,
\label{VBRST}
\end{eqnarray}
which are the BRST version of (\ref{traU}) and (\ref{traV})
respectively. In fact, (\ref{UBRST}) reproduces the usual BRST
(\ref{BRST2}) and anti-BRST (\ref{BRST3}) transformations of the
gauge field,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\mu(x) := {i \over g} U(x) \partial_\mu U^\dagger(x) .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that (\ref{UBRST}) and (\ref{VBRST}) lead to
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B \Omega_\mu(x)
&=& {\cal D}_\mu[\Omega] C(x) ,
\\
\delta_B {\cal Q}_\mu(x) &=& i g [C(x), {\cal Q}_\mu(x)] .
\end{eqnarray}
These are the BRST version of (\ref{traOme3}) and (\ref{traQ3})
respectively, since within the BGFM,
$\Omega_\mu, C, \bar C, B$ or $U, C, \bar C, B$ are external
fields in the sense that they are not integrated out in the
measure $[d{\cal V}] [d\tilde C][d\bar {\tilde C}][d\tilde B]$.
Thus the generating functional of the total Yang-Mills theory reads
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] = \int [dU] [dC][d\bar C][dB]
\exp \{ i \tilde S_{eff}[J, U]
+ i S_{GF}[\Omega, C, \bar C, B]
+i(J_\mu \cdot \Omega_\mu) \} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $[dU]$ is the invariant Haar measure and we have redefined
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde S_{eff}[J, U] := - i \ln \tilde Z[J, \Omega] .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
In order to realize the magnetic monopole background, we adopt
the MA gauge for which the gauge fixing and the FP ghost terms are
written in the form \cite{KondoI}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF}[\Omega, C, \bar C, B]
&:=& - \int d^Dx \ i \delta_B \ {\rm tr}_{G/H}
\left[ \bar C \left( F[\Omega]+{\alpha \over 2} B \right)
\right] ,
\label{GF1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the trace is taken on the coset $G/H$, not the entire $G$.
For $G=SU(2)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{a}[\Omega] := (\partial^\mu \delta^{ab}
- \epsilon^{ab3} \Omega^\mu{}^3) \Omega_\mu^b
:= D^\mu{}^{ab}{}[\Omega^3] \Omega_\mu^b
\quad (a,b = 1,2) .
\label{dMAG2}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
By adding an BRST-exact ghost self-interaction term, (\ref{GF1}) is cast into the more convenient form
\cite{KondoII},
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF}'[\Omega, C, \bar C, B]
:= \int d^Dx \ i \delta_B \bar \delta_B
{\rm tr}_{G/H} \left[ {1 \over 2} \Omega_\mu(x) \Omega_\mu(x)
- {\alpha \over 2} i C(x) \bar C(x) \right] .
\label{GF'}
\end{eqnarray}
From (\ref{nilpotent}), $S_{GF}'$ is invariant under the BRST and
anti-BRST transformations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B S_{GF}' = 0 = \bar \delta_B S_{GF}' .
\end{eqnarray}
This action $S_{GF}'$ describes the topological soliton derived
from the nonlinear equation $F[\Omega]=0$, the monopole equation.
This action is BRST exact and hence there is no local degrees of
freedom propagating in spacetime. It describes the quantity related
to the global topology, as though the Chern-Simons theory describes
the linking of knots
\cite{Witten89}. We call the theory with the
BRST exact action
$S_{GF}'=S_{TQFT}$ alone the topological quantum field theory (TQFT).
The generating functional is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{TQFT}[J] = \int [dU] [dC][d\bar C][dB]
\exp \{ i S_{TQFT}[\Omega, C, \bar C, B]
+i(J_\mu \cdot \Omega_\mu) \} .
\label{TQFT}
\end{eqnarray}
In view of this, the above reformulation of the Yang-Mills theory was
called the deformation of the TQFT.
\footnote{
Different reformulations based on the similar idea have been
presented by many authors, e.g., by Hata and Taniguchi \cite{HT95},
and
Fucito, Martellini and Zeni \cite{FMZ97}.
}
\par
In the above rederivation, the fact that the field $\Omega_\mu$
behaves as if it is a gauge field ${\cal A}_\mu$ is essential. This
is guaranteed by the BGFM.
\subsection{Expectation value}
\par
In our formulation, an arbitrary function $f({\cal A})$ of
${\cal A}$ is written as
$f({\cal A}) = g({\cal V}_\mu, U) h(U)$ by making the change of
variable (\ref{deco}) and (\ref{cov}).
Then the expectation value is evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle f({\cal A}) \rangle_{YM}
= \langle \langle g({\cal V}_\mu, U) h(U)
\rangle_{pYM}^{{\cal V}} \rangle_{TQFT}^U
= \langle \langle g({\cal V}_\mu, U)
\rangle_{pYM}^{{\cal V}} h(U) \rangle_{TQFT}^U .
\label{expec}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, taking the expectation value $\langle \cdot \rangle_{TQFT}^U$
corresponds to summing over topological soliton contributions
by making use of the TQFT described by the variable $U$, whereas
$\langle \cdot \rangle_{pYM}^{{\cal V}}$ denotes the expectation
value for the deformation piece which is described by the usual
Yang-Mills theory with the variable
${\cal V}_\mu$ (Here $p$ denotes the perturbative).
Of course, we can change the
ordering of taking the expectation value,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle f({\cal A}) \rangle_{YM}
= \langle \langle g({\cal V}_\mu,U) h(U)
\rangle_{TQFT}^{U} \rangle_{pYM}^{{\cal V}} .
\end{eqnarray}
Both expressions should give the same result, if they are calculated
exactly.
\par
Under the assumption of perturbative deformation, the expectation
$\langle g({\cal V}_\mu,U) \rangle_{pYM}$ is calculated by expanding
the integrand $g({\cal V}_\mu,U)$ into power series in
${\cal V}_\mu$.
This is a minimal assumption in the practical calculation.
After that,
$\langle g({\cal V}_\mu,U) \rangle_{pYM}$ is still a function of $U$,
say, $p(U)$. Finally, the expectation
$\langle p(U)h(U) \rangle_{TQFT}$ must be evaluated in the
non-perturbative way, since this piece estimates the soliton
contribution. Perturbative deformation is an assumption that the
deformation part is evaluated in the perturbation theory in the
coupling constant
$g$. In other words, all the essential non-perturbative
contributions are provided with the topological soliton described by
the TQFT.
Actually, this strategy was performed in the
evaluation of the Wilson loop \cite{KondoII,KondoIV}.
\subsection{Abelian-projected effective gauge theory}
The above result should be compared with the previous formulation
\cite{QR97,KondoI} which begins with the generating
functional,
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] = \int [d{\cal A}_\mu] [dC][d\bar C][dB]
\exp \{ i S_{YM}[{\cal A}]
+ i S_{GF}[{\cal A}, C, \bar C, B]
+i(J_\mu \cdot {\cal A}_\mu) \} .
\end{eqnarray}
First, following the Cartan decomposition (\ref{Cartandecomp}), the
non-Abelian gauge field was decomposed into the diagonal and the
off-diagonal pieces,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_\mu = {\cal A}_\mu^A T^A
= a_\mu^i T^i + A_\mu^a T^a .
\end{eqnarray}
Then the MA gauge was imposed as a gauge fixing condition.
Finally, all the off-diagonal fields taking values in the Lie
algebra of the coset
$G/H$ were integrated out in the functional integral,
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J] = \int [da_\mu^i] [dC^i][d\bar C^i][dB^i]
\exp \{ i S_{diag}[a^i,C^i,\bar C^i,B^i] +i(J_\mu \cdot a_\mu)\} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&& Z[a^i,C^i,\bar C^i,B^i]
:= \exp \{ i S_{diag}[a^i,C^i,\bar C^i,B^i] \}
\\
&&:= \int [dA_\mu^a] [dC^a][d\bar C^a][dB^a]
\exp \{ i S_{YM}[{\cal A}]
+ i S_{GF}[{\cal A}, C, \bar C, B]
+i(J_\mu \cdot A_\mu) \}
\end{eqnarray}
The theory with the action
$S_{diag}[a^i,C^i,\bar C^i,B^i]$ was called the Abelian-projected
effective gauge theory (APEGT).
It has been shown \cite{QR97,KondoI} that the APEGT has the same beta
function as the original Yang-Mills theory, exhibiting the
asymptotic freedom, although the APEGT is an Abelian gauge theory.
\par
It turns out that the previous strategy presented in
\cite{QR97,KondoI} is equivalent to the above formulation presented in
this paper and that the results obtained in the previous works are
the immediate consequence of the present formulation, if we identify
the diagonal and off-diagonal fields with the background field and
the quantum fluctuation respectively, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\mu = a_\mu^i T^i, \quad {\cal Q}_\mu = A_\mu^a T^a .
\end{eqnarray}
The theory with an action
$S_{diag}[a^i,C^i,\bar C^i,B^i]$ is written in terms of only the
diagonal fields. As long as the BGF gauge is imposed on the
off-diagonal field $A_\mu$, this theory becomes the Abelian gauge
theory, since the BGFM guarantees that the background field
$a_\mu$ transforms as a gauge field (Of course, the diagonal field
is reduced to the Abelian gauge field in this case). Indeed, the BGF
gauge
$D^{ab}[a]A^b=0$ is nothing but the MA gauge.
Hence the coincidence of the beta function is understood from the
BGFM.
\section{Strategy of a derivation of quark confinement}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We consider the D-dim. QCD (QCD$_D$) with a gauge group G for $D >2$.
The (full) non-Abelian Wilson loop is defined as the path-ordered
exponent along a loop $C$,
\begin{eqnarray}
W^C [{\cal A}] := {\rm tr} \left[ {\cal P}
\exp \left( i g \oint_C {\cal A}_\mu^A(x) T^A dx^\mu
\right) \right] /{\rm tr}(1) .
\end{eqnarray}
We define the (full) string tension $\sigma$
by
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma := - \lim_{A(C) \rightarrow \infty}
{1 \over A(C)} \ln \langle W^C[{\cal A}] \rangle ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A(C)$ is the minimal area spanned by the Wilson loop $C$.
The non-zero string tension $\sigma \not=0$ implies
that the Wilson loop expectation value behaves for large loop as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \rangle
\sim \exp (- \sigma A(C)) .
\end{eqnarray}
This is called the area (decay) law.
The static potential $V(R)$ for a pair of quark and anti-quark
is evaluated from the rectangular Wilson loop $C$ with sides $T$
and $R$ ($A(C)=TR$) according to
\begin{eqnarray}
V(R) = - \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} {1 \over T} \ln
\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \rangle .
\label{st}
\end{eqnarray}
The area law of the Wilson loop or non-zero string tension $\sigma
\not=0$ implies the existence of the linear part $\sigma R$ in the
static potential $V(R)$, leading to quark confinement.
\par
In a series of papers \cite{KondoI,KondoII,KondoIII,KondoIV,KondoV},
a derivation of the area law of the Wilson loop in $QCD_4$ has been
given in the following steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[] Step 1: Reformulating the Yang-Mills theory as a deformation
of a TQFT in MA gauge \cite{KondoII}
\item[] Step 2: Parisi-Sourlas Dimensional reduction \cite{KondoII}
\item[] Step 3: Abelian magnetic monopole
dominance \cite{KondoIV}
\item[] Step 4: Instanton calculus \cite{KondoII} or large $N$ expansion \cite{KT99}
\end{enumerate}
The first two steps are shown schematically as follows.
\par
\vskip 0.5cm
\begin{center}
\unitlength=1.0cm
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(12,6)
\put(2,5){\framebox(8,1){D-dim. QCD with a gauge group $G$}}
\put(6.2,5){\vector(0,-1){0.8}}
\put(7,4.5){MA gauge}
\put(-0.2,2.8){\framebox(12.4,1.4){}}
\put(0,3){\framebox(5,1){D-dim. Perturbative QCD}}
\put(6,3.5){$\bigotimes$}
\put(5.5,3){deform}
\put(7,3){\framebox(5,1){D-dim. TQFT}}
\put(8.5,3){\vector(0,-1){1}}
\put(9,2.4){Dimensional reduction}
\put(-0.2,0.8){\framebox(12.4,1.4){}}
\put(0,1){\framebox(5,1){D-dim. Perturbative QCD}}
\put(6,1.5){$\bigotimes$}
\put(5.5,1){deform}
\put(7,1){\framebox(5,1){(D-2)-dim. G/H NLSM}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
The following analyses within the above reformulation (the perturbative deformation of a TQFT) is based on an assumption that the contribution from ${\cal V}_\mu(x)$ can be treated in perturbation theory in the gauge coupling constant $g$. This assumption leads to the topological sector dominance in the sense that the area law contribution comes solely from the contribution of $U(x)$ described by the TQFT and the remaining part ${\cal V}_\mu(x)$ does not contribute to the area law of the Wilson loop.
\subsection{Step 1: Reformulating the Yang-Mills theory as a
deformation of a TQFT in MA gauge}
QCD$_D$ is reformulated as a deformation of a TQFT$_D$ in
MA gauge. The MA gauge is a partial gauge fixing such that the
coset part
$G/H$ of the gauge group $G$ is fixed and the maximal torus group
$H$ is left as a residual gauge group.
\par
For $G=SU(2)$, it has been shown \cite{KondoIV} that the expectation
value of the non-Abelian Wilson loop is rewritten using the
non-Abelian Stokes theorem
\cite{KondoIV} into
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \langle W^C[{\cal A}] \rangle_{YM}
\nonumber\\
&=& \Biggr\langle \Biggr\langle
\exp \left[ i g J \oint_C dx^\mu n^A(x) {\cal V}_\mu^A(x) \right]
\Biggr\rangle_{pYM}
\exp \left[ iJ \int_{S} d^2z \
\epsilon_{\mu\nu} {\bf n} \cdot (\partial_\mu {\bf n} \times
\partial_\nu {\bf n}) \right]
\Biggr\rangle_{TQFT} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S$ is a surface with a boundary $C$ ($\partial S=C$) and
${\bf n}(x)=(n^1(x),n^2(x),n^3(x))$ is the three-dimensional unit
vector (${\bf n}(x) \cdot {\bf n}(x) = 1$) defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
n^A(x) T^A = U^\dagger(x) T^3 U(x) ,
\quad T^A= {1 \over 2}\sigma^A \ (A=1,2,3) .
\label{aop}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $J$ specifies the representation of the fermion in the
definition of the Wilson loop and
$J=1/2$ corresponds to the fundamental representation.
\subsection{Step 2: Parisi-Sourlas dimensional reduction}
It has been shown \cite{KondoII} that TQFT$_D$ is equivalent to the
coset
$G/H$ nonlinear sigma model (NLSM) in (D-2) dimensions,
NLSM$_{D-2}$. This is a consequence of Parisi-Sourlas dimensional
reduction \cite{PS79} due to the supersymmetry hidden in TQFT
(\ref{TQFT}). This is an advantage that we have chosen the MA
gauge.
\par
As extensively discussed more than 20 years ago,
QCD$_4$ and NLSM$_2$ have various common properties:
renormalizability, asymptotic freedom (i.e., negative beta
function $\beta(g) < 0$), dynamical mass generation, existence of
instanton solution, no phase transition for any value of coupling
constant (i.e., one phase), etc.
This similarity between two theories can be understood from this
correspondence,
\begin{eqnarray}
QCD_4 \supset TQFT_4 \Longleftrightarrow G/H~ NLSM_2 .
\end{eqnarray}
For the $SU(N)$ gauge group, the existence of 2D instanton is guaranteed for any $N$, because
$\pi_2(SU(N)/U(1)^{N-1})=\pi_1(U(1)^{N-1})={\bf Z}^{N-1}$. See the second paper in \cite{KT99} for details.
\par
For $G=SU(2)$, G/H NLSM is nothing but the O(3) NLSM.
For the {\it planar} Wilson loop, the evaluation of the expectation
value
$\langle \cdot \rangle_{TQFT}$ in TQFT$_4$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \rangle_{YM} =
Z_{TQFT_4}^{-1}\int [dU(x)]_{x \in {\bf R}^4} \exp (-S_{TQFT_4}[U] )
p(U)h(U)
\end{eqnarray}
is reduced to that in the coset $G/H$ NLSM$_2$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \rangle_{YM} =
Z_{NLSM_2}^{-1}\int [d{\bf n}(x)]_{x \in {\bf R}^2} \exp
(-S_{NLSM_2}[{\bf n}] )
p(U)h(U) ,
\label{Wc}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the notation (\ref{expec}) with
\begin{eqnarray}
h(U) &:=& \exp \left[ iJ \int_{S} d^2z \
\epsilon_{\mu\nu} {\bf n} \cdot (\partial_\mu {\bf n} \times
\partial_\nu {\bf n}) \right] ,
\\
p(U) &:=& \Biggr\langle
\exp \left[ i g J \oint_C dx^\mu n^A(x) {\cal V}_\mu^A(x) \right]
\Biggr\rangle_{pYM} .
\end{eqnarray}
In the original Lagrangian of QCD, the scalar field is not included as an elementary field, but
it appears as a composite field according to (\ref{aop}).
The unit vector ${\bf n}(x)$ plays the same role as the monopole
scalar field $\phi(x)$ which describes the 't Hooft-Polyakov
monopole \cite{tHooft74,Polyakov74}, for $G=SU(2)$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
n^A(x) \leftrightarrow \hat \phi^A(x) := {\phi^A(x) \over |\phi(x)|}
, \quad |\phi(x)| := \sqrt{\phi^A(x)\phi^A(x)} .
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Step 3: Abelian magnetic monopole dominance}
The diagonal (or Abelian) string tension $\sigma_{Abel}$ is
defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{Abel}
:= - \lim_{A(C) \rightarrow \infty} {1 \over A(C)} \ln
\left\langle W^C[a^\Omega]
\right\rangle_{TQFT_4} ,
\end{eqnarray}
by making use of the diagonal Wilson loop,
\begin{eqnarray}
W^C[a^\Omega] &=& \exp \left( i g J \oint_C
dx^\mu a_\mu^\Omega (x) \right),
\\
\quad a_\mu^\Omega(x) &:=& \Omega_\mu^3(x)
:= {\rm tr}(T^3 \Omega_\mu(x)) ,
\quad
\Omega_\mu(x) := {i \over g} U(x) \partial_\mu U(x)^\dagger .
\label{dWl}
\end{eqnarray}
Owing to the dimensional reduction, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle W^C[a^\Omega] \right\rangle_{TQFT_4}
= \left\langle W^C[a^\Omega]
\right\rangle_{NLSM_2} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle W^C[a^\Omega] \rangle_{NLSM_2} =
Z_{NLSM_2}^{-1}\int [d{\bf n}(x)]_{x \in {\bf R}^2} \exp
(-S_{NLSM_2}[{\bf n}] )
W^C[a^\Omega] .
\label{Wc1}
\end{eqnarray}
Then it is shown that, in the limit of large Wilson loop, two string
tensions agree with each other,
$\sigma = \sigma_{Abel}$, since
\begin{eqnarray}
{1 \over A(C)} \left[ \ln
\left\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \right\rangle_{YM_4}
- \ln \left\langle W^C[a^\Omega] \right\rangle_{NLSM_2} \right]
\downarrow 0 \quad (A(C) \uparrow \infty) ,
\end{eqnarray}
if we identify the deformation with the perturbative one. Thus, for the large planar (non-intersecting) Wilson
loop , the full string tension $\sigma$ is saturated by the diagonal
string tension
$\sigma_{Abel}$. This explains the Abelian dominance and magnetic
monopole dominance.
\par
This result is derived as follows.
In calculating (\ref{Wc}), if we put $p(U)\equiv 1$, then
$\left\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \right\rangle_{YM_4}$ coincides with
$\left\langle W^C[a^\Omega] \right\rangle_{NLSM_2}$,
since it is shown \cite{KondoII} that
$h(U) \equiv W^C[a^\Omega]$. In our framework called the perturbative deformation of TQFT, $p(U)$ is estimated by making use of the power-series expansion in the coupling constant $g$ (or in the 't Hooft coupling $\lambda:= g^2N$ in the framework of large $N$ expansion, see \cite{KT99}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
p(U)
&=& 1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {(i g)^n \over n!} \Biggr\langle \left( J \oint_C dx^\mu n^A(x) {\cal V}_\mu^A(x) \right)^n \Biggr\rangle_{pYM}
\nonumber\\
&=& 1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {(i gJ)^n \over n!} \oint_C dx_1^{\mu_1} \cdots \oint_C dx_n^{\mu_n} n^{A_1}(x_1) \cdots n^{A_n}(x_n)
\nonumber\\
&& \times
\langle {\cal V}_{\mu_1}^{A_1}(x_1) \cdots {\cal V}_{\mu_n}^{A_n}(x_n) \rangle_{pYM} .
\end{eqnarray}
By calculating the expectation value
$\langle {\cal V}_{\mu_1}^{A_1}(x_1) \cdots {\cal V}_{\mu_n}^{A_n}(x_n) \rangle_{pYM}$, we can express $p(U)$ in terms of the ${\bf n}(x)$ fields which are defined on the loop $C$ embedded in the two-dimensional space. However, it is shown that the additional contribution from $p(U)-1$ to the expectation value of the Wilson loop does not have the the area decay part. Incidentally, although the perturbative deformation part is insufficient to derive the area law, it leads to the running coupling constant which is governed by the renormalization group $\beta$ function of the original Ynag-Mills theory in consistent with the asymptotic freedom.
\subsection{Step 4: Instanton calculus}
\par
The whole problem is reduced to calculating the diagonal Wilson loop
in NLSM$_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle W^C[a^\Omega]
\right\rangle_{NLSM_2}
= \left\langle e^{i 2\pi J Q_S }
\right\rangle_{NLSM_2} ,
\quad
Q_S = {1 \over 8\pi } \int_S d^2z \ \epsilon_{\mu\nu}
{\bf n} \cdot (\partial_\mu {\bf n} \times \partial_\nu {\bf n}) .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the integrand of $Q_S$ is the instanton density in
NLSM$_2$. Therefore, $Q_S$ counts the number of instantons minus
that of anti-instantons inside the area $S(\subset {\bf R}^2)$
bounded by the Wilson loop $C$.
This suggests that the quark confinement follows from the
condensation of topological soliton, the magnetic monopole.
\par
In this step we have employed the naive instanton calculus to
calculate the diagonal Wilson loop. In the dilute gas approximation
the two-dimensional instanton contributions are summing
up according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n_+=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n_-=0}^{\infty}
{1 \over n_+! n_-!}
\int \prod_{i=1}^{n} d^2z_i \int \prod_{i=1}^{n} d\mu(\rho_i)
\exp [-(n_++n_-)S_1(g) ] e^{i 2\pi J Q_S } ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the action of NLSM$_2$ is replaced by
$(n_++n_-)S_1(g)$ using the numbers of
instanton and anti-instanton $n_+, n_-$ and the action for one
instanton $S_1(g)= 4\pi^2/g^2$ in NLSM$_2$. Thus the (infinite
dimensional) functional integral measure
$[d{\bf n}(x)]_{x\in {\bf R}^2}$ has been replaced with the (finite
dimensional) integration with respect to the collective coordinates,
${z_i}$ (position of the instanton) and ${\rho_i}$ (size of the
instanton).
Such reduction of degrees of freedom in the functional integration is
a common feature in TQFT as shown in section 7.
\par
This leads to
the area law of the diagonal Wilson loop and the
non-zero diagonal string tension
$\sigma_{Abel}$ for half odd integer $J$
or the fractional charge $q$.
\subsection{Area law and quark confinement}
\par
In the framework of the deformation of a TQFT for the Yang-Mills
theory, the non-zero string tension $\sigma$ in QCD$_4$ follows from
the non-zero diagonal string tension $\sigma_{Abel}$ in NLSM$_2$.
The problem of proving area law in QCD$_4$ is reduced to the
corresponding problem in NLSM$_2$.
\par
All the above steps are exact except for the instanton
calculus of the Wilson loop in NLSM$_2$.
For sufficiently large and planar Wilson loop, it was shown
\cite{KondoII,KondoIV} that the string tension is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma = 2B e^{-S_1} \left[ 1 - \cos
\left( 2\pi J \right) \right] ,
\quad S_1= {2\pi^2 \alpha \over g^2} ,
\label{str}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B$ is a constant with the mass-squared dimension coming from
the integration over the instanton size $\int d\mu(\rho)$ and
$S_1$ is the action for one instanton in NLSM$_2$.
\par
The result (\ref{str}) shows that for half odd integers
$J={1 \over 2}, {3 \over 2}, {5 \over 2}, \cdots$, the Wilson loop
exhibits area law for sufficiently large Wilson loop $C$, whereas
the area law and the linear potential disappears for integers
$J=1,2,3, \cdots$.
Therefore, the fundamental fermion $J={1 \over 2}$ is confined, while
the adjoint fermion $J=1$ can not be confined.
\par
\par
In the above formulation using the MA gauge, it is the
{\it compact} residual Abelian group that plays the essential role in
evaluating the gauge invariant quantity. This feature is very
similar to the situation in the lattice gauge theory.
In fact, the result (\ref{str}) is a consequence of the periodicity
(or compactness) of the residual Abelian gauge group, i.e., maximal
torus group $U(1)$ of $SU(2)$, in the variable
$U$ after the MA gauge is chosen.
On the other hand, the gauge degrees of freedom for the
non-compact field
${\cal V}_\mu$ have been completely fixed by the gauge fixing
condition of Lorentz type.
The explicit expression (\ref{str}) depends on the approximation
taken in the instanton calculus, the periodicity of the string
tension (hence the absence of string tension for $J=1,2,\cdots$)
does not depend on the approximation.
\par
It is the perturbative part that gives the running of the coupling
constant $g$. The running is governed by the renormalization group
beta function $\beta(g)$. The usual Yang-Mills$_4$ theory
exhibits asymptotic freedom, e.g., for $G=SU(N_c)$ at one-loop
level,
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta(g) := \mu {dg(\mu) \over d\mu}
= - {b_0 \over 16\pi^2} g(\mu)^3 + \cdots ,
\quad
b_0 = {11N_c \over 3} > 0 .
\end{eqnarray}
In our framework, the correct beta function is derived based on the
BGFM, see \cite{QR97,KondoI}.
For the static potential $V(R)$, the perturbative part gives a
Coulomb potential contribution
$\alpha(\mu)/R$ where $\alpha(\mu):=g^2(\mu)/4\pi$ runs according to
the $\beta(g)$.
\par
Similar strategy can also be applied to QED$_4$ ($G=U(1)$) to prove
the existence of strong coupling confinement phase \cite{KondoIII}.
This follows from the existence of Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless
transition of the O(2) NLSM$_2$.
The corresponding steps are shown as follows.
\par
\vskip 0.5cm
\begin{center}
\unitlength=1cm
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(12,6)
\put(2,5){\framebox(8,1){D-dim. QED}}
\put(6.2,5){\vector(0,-1){0.8}}
\put(7,4.5){Covariant Lorentz gauge fixing}
\put(-0.2,2.8){\framebox(12.4,1.4){}}
\put(0,3){\framebox(5,1){D-dim. Perturbative QED}}
\put(6,3.5){$\bigotimes$}
\put(5.5,3){deform}
\put(7,3){\framebox(5,1){D-dim. TQFT}}
\put(8.5,3){\vector(0,-1){1}}
\put(9,2.4){Dimensional reduction}
\put(-0.2,0.8){\framebox(12.4,1.4){}}
\put(0,1){\framebox(5,1){D-dim. Perturbative QED}}
\put(6,1.5){$\bigotimes$}
\put(5.5,1){deform}
\put(7,1){\framebox(5,1){(D-2)-dim. O(2) NLSM}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
This result enables us to give another derivation
of quark confinement in QCD based on the low-energy effective {\it
Abelian} gauge theory \cite{KondoI}, see \cite{KondoV}.
This viewpoint is more interesting in the sense that the
confinement-deconfinement transition can be discussed within the
same framework.
\subsection{Remarks and unresolved issues}
\par
The dilute gas approximation can be improved.
More systematic instanton
calculations enable us to identify an instanton solution with the
Coulomb gas of vortices
\cite{BL79,FFS79,BL81,Silvestrov90,Polyakov87}.
Consequently, the low-energy effective Abelian gauge theory belongs
to the strong coupling phase where the quark confinement is
realized, see \cite{KondoV}.
\par
The absence of intermediate Casimir scaling region (i.e.,
$\sigma=0$ for integer $J$) may be due to our simplified
treatment of the instanton size. In order to obtain
the result (\ref{str}) we have treated the instanton as if it is
exactly a point-like object in the dilute gas approximation. The
Casimir scaling will be explained by taking into account the
size effect of the instanton, as performed for the center
vortex by Greensite et al.
\cite{Greensite}.
\par
Recent investigations show that the QCD vacuum is a dual super
conductor caused by the condensation of magnetic monopole and that
the low-energy effective gauge theory is given the dual
Ginzburg-Landau theory. However, numerical simulations claim that
the dual superconductor is near type I, rather than type II, see
\cite{Bali98}. This result seems to contradicts with the analytical
studies.
\par
It is desirable to extend the above analyses into more general gauge
groups. The case of $G=SU(3)$ will be discussed in forthcoming
paper in detail.
\subsection{A proposal of numerical calculations}
Some of the implications from the above strategy will be
checked by direct numerical simulations on the lattice.
Due to difficulties of defining supersymmetry on the lattice, it
might be impossible to check directly the equivalence
between the 4D TQFT and the 2D NLSM.
Nevertheless, it is desirable to check the
following statements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Validity of perturbative deformation of TQFT: The expectation
value of the diagonal Wilson loop in NLSM$_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle W^C[a^\Omega]
\right\rangle_{NLSM_2}
= \left\langle \exp \left[ i 2\pi J
{1 \over 8\pi } \int_S d^2z \ \epsilon_{\mu\nu}
{\bf n} \cdot (\partial_\mu {\bf n} \times \partial_\nu {\bf n})
\right]
\right\rangle_{NLSM_2} ,
\end{eqnarray}
behaves as that of the non-Abelian Wilson loop in Yang-Mills$_4$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle W^C[{\cal A}] \right\rangle_{YM_4}
= \left\langle
{\rm tr} \left[ {\cal P}
\exp \left( i g \oint_C {\cal A}_\mu^A(x) T^A dx^\mu
\right) \right] \right\rangle_{YM_4} .
\end{eqnarray}
Two string tensions $\sigma_{Abel}$ and $\sigma$ agree with each
other.
\item
Validity of instanton calculus: Only the instanton
contribution in NLSM$_2$ is sufficient to recover the Abelian string
tension,
$\sigma_{Abel}$.
\item
Existence of the scale:
The asymptotic scaling holds for the Abelian string tension
$\sigma_{Abel}$ calculated from the NLSM$_2$.
\end{enumerate}
The results will prove or disprove validity of our strategy of
deriving quark confinement.
\section{Gauge fixing and gluon mass}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{A naive MA gauge}
A simple but ad hoc way to give the mass for the off-diagonal gluon
is to introduce the following mass term to the Yang-Mills action,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_m = \int d^Dx {\rm tr}_{G/H} \left( {1 \over 2}m^2
{\cal A}_\mu {\cal A}_\mu \right) .
\label{massterm}
\end{eqnarray}
This introduce the mass of the off-diagonal gluons in the tree level
and this explicitly break the gauge invariance corresponding to
$G/H$. Indeed, the mass term (\ref{massterm}) is derived as a gauge
fixing term as follows. The simplest MA gauge where the off-diagonal
part is made as small as possible will be the following gauge,
\begin{eqnarray}
F^a[{\cal A}] := A_\mu^a = 0 .
\label{Agauge}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to write the gauge-fixing action, we must introduce the
vector auxiliary field $B_\mu$ and the vector FP ghost $C_\mu$ and
anti-ghost $\bar C_\mu$, so that
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF} = - \int d^Dx \ i\delta_B {\rm tr}_{G/H} \left[ \bar C_\mu
\left( {\cal A}_\mu + {\alpha \over 2} B_\mu \right) \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the nilpotent BRST transformation is constructed as
\footnote{
This BRST transformation does not leave the Yang-Mills action
invariant, unless the equation of motion is used.
So, it is unusual when we include the Yang-Mills action.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B {\cal A}_\mu &=& C_\mu,
\nonumber\\
\delta_B C_\mu &=& 0,
\nonumber\\
\delta_B \bar C_\mu &=& i B_\mu,
\nonumber\\
\delta_B B_\mu &=& 0 .
\end{eqnarray}
Eliminating the auxiliary field $B_\mu$, we reproduce the mass term,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF} = \int d^4x \ {\rm tr}_{G/H} \left[
{m^2_\alpha \over 2} {\cal A}_\mu(x){\cal A}_\mu (x)
+ i \bar C_\mu(x) C_\mu(x)
\right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have put $m^2_\alpha=1/\alpha$.
\footnote{
For $D=4$, the mass dimension is given as follows, dim[${\cal
A}_\mu$] = dim[$C_\mu$] = 1, dim[$B_\mu$] = dim[$\bar C_\mu$] = 3
and dim[$\alpha$]=-2.
}
In four-dimensions, the parameter $m_\alpha$ looks like a mass
which is arbitrary and can not be determined.
The BRST transformation is highly unusual, since it corresponds to
the gauge transformation much larger than the SU(N) gauge
transformation. Note that $C_\mu^A$ has the same number of indices
as
${\cal A}_\mu^A$. Hence we can use $C_\mu^A$ to eliminate the fields
${\cal A}_\mu^A$ to obtain the vacuous theory. The ghost field
$C_\mu^A$ has its own remaining ghost symmetry, parameterized by the
ghost field, $\phi^A$, the ghost for ghost, so the ghosts themselves
require more gauge fixing.
Note that the gauge fixing condition (\ref{Agauge}) does not allow
the topological soliton, since it is linear
in the field.
\par
Making the change of variables with the adjoint orbit
parameterization
\begin{eqnarray}
n^A(x) = {\rm tr} \left[ U^\dagger(x) T^3 U(x)T^A \right] ,
\quad T^A= {1 \over 2}\sigma^A \ (A=1,2,3)
\label{aop2}
\end{eqnarray}
lead to the four-dimensional coset G/H
NLSM.
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF} = \int d^4x \ \left[
{m^2_\alpha \over 2} \partial_\mu {\bf n}(x)\partial_\mu {\bf n}(x)
+ \cdots
\right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
since ${\cal A}_\mu= U\partial_\mu U^\dagger + \cdots$.
This is similar to a piece of the effective theory for the
low-energy QCD proposed by Faddeev and Niemi
\cite{FN98} based on Cho's works \cite{Cho80}.
\par
\subsection{The MA gauge}
The naive MA gauge above should be compared with the MA gauge.
The MA gauge
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{a}[\Omega] := (\partial^\mu \delta^{ab}
- \epsilon^{ab3} \Omega^\mu{}^3) \Omega_\mu^b
:= D^\mu{}^{ab}{}[\Omega^3] \Omega_\mu^b
\quad (a,b = 1,2)
\label{dMAG3}
\end{eqnarray}
is obtained by minimizing the ${\cal R}[{\cal A}^U]$
with respect to the gauge rotation $U$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}[{\cal A}] := \int d^Dx \ {\rm tr}_{G/H}
\left( {k \over 2}{\cal A}_\mu(x) {\cal A}_\mu(x) \right) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k$ is a constant.
The MA gauge fixing leads to the gauge-fixing action (\ref{GF1})
where the gauge fixing parameter is arbitrary at this stage.
In our formulation, we demand the supersymmetry \cite{KondoII} of the
gauge fixing action.
Then the dimensional reduction \cite{PS79} occurs as a
spontaneous breaking of the supersymmetry (as explained below).
This symmetry requirement has determined the form of the
gauge-fixing term (\ref{GF'}) and the result is independent from the
coefficient $k$ in
${\cal R}[{\ cal A}]$.
The explicit action (\ref{GF'}) after taking the BRST
transformation is rather complicated and does not have any apparent
mass term, see \cite{KondoI,KondoII}. However, the dimensional
reduction
\cite{KondoII} leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF}'
&:=& \int d^{D-2}z \ 2\pi
{\rm tr}_{G/H} \left[ {1 \over 2} {\cal A}_a(z,{\bf 0})
{\cal A}_a(z,{\bf 0})
+ i C(z,{\bf 0}) \bar C(z,{\bf 0}) \right]
\\
&=& \int d^{D}x \
{\rm tr}_{G/H} \left[ {2\pi \over 2} {\cal A}_a(x)
{\cal A}_a(x)
+ i 2\pi C(x) \bar C(x) \right] \delta^2(\hat x) ,
\label{GF''}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x=(z,\hat x) \in {\bf R}^D$ and $z \in {\bf R}^{D-2}$, $\hat x
\in {\bf R}^2$, $a=1, \cdots, D-2$.
Hence, the MA gauge leads to the unusual mass term,
$m(x)=m(z,\hat x)=2\pi \delta^2(\hat x)$. The mass is anisotropic
and the gauge field is massive only in $D-2$ dimensions. However, the
choice of the (D-2)-dimensional subspace is arbitrary. For $D=4$, the
equivalent action is given in the form of two-dimensional NLSM,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF} = \int d^{2}z \ \left[
{2\pi/g^2 \over 2}
\partial_a {\bf n}(z) \cdot \partial_a {\bf n}(z)
+ {\rm tr}_{G/H} \left( i 2 \pi \bar C_\mu(z) C_\mu(z) \right)
\right] .
\end{eqnarray}
It is known that the two-dimensional NLSM exhibits dynamical mass
generation, that is to say, the spectrum has a mass gap, although
the initial lagrangian does not have the usual mass term. In this
sense, in the subspace
$R^2$ the gauge field can have the mass.
\footnote{
The mass generation due to dimensional reduction to the NLSM was
first demonstrated by Hata and Kugo \cite{HK85} in the context of color
confinement. }
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(13,6)
\put(3.5,5.5){\bf $D=4+\epsilon$}
\put(3.5,5.0){\bf $~d=2+\epsilon$}
\put(0,5.5){\bf $\beta(g)$}
\put(3,2.4){\bf $g_c \sim O(\epsilon)$}
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\vector(0,1){5}}
\put(0,2){\vector(1,0){5}}
\put(-0.5,1.9){\bf 0}
\put(5.5,1.9){\bf $g$}
\bezier{300}(0,2)(2,4)(5,0)
\put(3,-0.5){\bf (a)}
\put(10.5,5.5){\bf $D=4$}
\put(10.5,5.0){\bf $~d=2$}
\put(7,5.5){\bf $\beta(g)$}
\thicklines
\put(7,0){\vector(0,1){5}}
\put(7,2){\vector(1,0){5}}
\put(6.5,1.9){\bf 0}
\put(12.5,1.9){\bf $g$}
\bezier{300}(7,2)(9,2)(12,0)
\put(10,-0.5){\bf (b)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Renormalization group beta functions for the
$D$-dimensional Yang-Mills gauge theory and the $d$-dimensional NLSM
have the same form when $d=D-2$.
(a) $D=4+\epsilon$ and $d=2+\epsilon$,
(b) $D=4$ and $d=2$.}
\label{fig:betafunc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spontaneous breakdown of hidden supersymmetry}
\par
A step of dimensional reduction is a little bit subtle. In the
TQFT, the action is BRST exact by definition, so the partition
function and the expectation value of the gauge invariant operator do
not depend on the coupling constant. However, the NLSM$_{D-2}$
obtained after the dimensional reduction from the TQFT$_D$ is not
topological and may depend on the coupling constant. This seems at
first glance inconsistent.
\par
This problem will be resolved as follows. The dimensional reduction
is a consequence of the hidden supersymmetry in TQFT obtained in the
MA gauge, see \cite{KondoII}. Here the supersymmetry implies the
invariance under the super rotation in the superspace
$(x^\mu, \theta, \bar \theta)$, i.e., the orthsymplectic group
$OSp(D|2)$. The advantage of introducing the superspace is to give a
geometric meaning to the BRST transformation.
In fact, the BRST symmetry becomes the translational invariance in
the superspace. The BRST charges
$Q_B$ and $\bar Q_B$ are generators of the translations in the direction of the
Grassmann variables
$\theta$ and $\bar \theta$, i.e., they are identified as
${\partial \over \partial \theta}$ and
${\partial \over \partial \bar \theta}$, respectively.
In the process of the dimensional reduction we can choose
arbitrary two dimensions ${\bf R}^2$ from D dimensions $(x^1, \cdots,
x^D)\in {\bf R}^D$, since there is no privileged direction. However,
once we have chosen specific two dimensions, the rotation symmetry
is partially broken by this procedure. In this sense, the
dimensional reduction causes the spontaneous breakdown of the
supersymmetry hidden in TQFT.
\par
This becomes more clear in evaluating the expectation value of an
operator based on the dimensional reduction. For this strategy to
work, the support of all the operators must be contained in the (D-2)
dimensional subspace to which the dimensional reduction occurs. Such
an expectation value is obtained from the generating functional by
restricting the external source
${\cal J}(x,\theta,\bar \theta)$ to a (D-2)-dimensional
subspace ${\cal J}((z,\hat x=0),\theta=0,\bar \theta=0)$ i.e.,
by putting $\hat x=\theta=\bar \theta=0$. This is obtained as a consequence of restricting the orthosymplectic $OSp(D|2)$ rotation to the orthogonal $O(D-2)$ rotation, see section IV of the
paper
\cite{KondoII}.
Of course, when a pair of quark and anti-quark exists,
it is convenient to choose the (D-2)-dimensional
subspace so that their trajectories are contained in the
subspace when $D\ge 4$.
The supersymmetry (i.e., rotational invariance $OSp(D|2)$ in the BRST superspace) is broken into the orthogonal $O(D-2)$ rotation, whereas the BRST symmetries (i.e.,
translational invariances in the direction of $\theta, \bar \theta$ in the superspace)
is broken by putting $\hat x=\theta=\bar \theta=0$.
Note that the Hilbert space of the (D-2)-dimensional bosonic theory
is different from the original D-dimensional supersymmetric theory.
Consequently, (D-2)-dimensional bosonic theory is no
longer topological.
Thus, the NLSM$_2$ can be obtained without contradiction from TQFT$_4$ by dimensional reduction.
\par
Finally we consider the above result from a different point of
view. We consider the
$4+\epsilon$ dimensional Yang-Mills theory and
$2+\epsilon$ dimensional NLSM. For $\epsilon>0$, both theories have
two phases, the disordered (high-temperature) phase in the strong
coupling region
$g>g_c$ and the ordered (low-temperature) phase in the weak coupling
region $g<g_c$ where $g_c \sim O(\epsilon)$. The beta function is
expected to be positive for $0<g<g_c$ and negative for $g>g_c$.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:betafunc}(a).
As $\epsilon$ decreases, the ordered phases
shrinks and finally disappears
($g_c(\epsilon) \downarrow 0$ as $\epsilon \downarrow 0$).
In this limit, the beta
function becomes negative for any value of $g$, leading to the
asymptotic freedom for YM$_4$ and NLSM$_2$.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:betafunc}(b).
In this limit, the massless Nambu-Goldstone particle
associated to the spontaneous breaking of
$G$ to $H$ also disappear, as examined by Bardeen, Lee and Shrock
\cite{BLS76}.
For $D=4$, thus, the massless Nambu-Goldstone (NG) particle associated
with the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry, if any, can not
exist in two dimensions.
\footnote{
The above argument is clearly insufficient in the following sense.
The BRST symmetry is a global continuous symmetry. If it is spontaneously broken, the NG particle should appear, otherwise the Higgs mechanism should occur.
It has been shown that the massless NG boson in question does not appear in the physical state and that the dynamical Higgs mechanism does occur. As a result, the off-diagonal gluons and the off-diagonal ghosts (anti-ghosts) become massive. See the recent paper \cite{KS00} and references cited there.
}
\section{Geometric meaning of gauge fixing term}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In quantizing the gauge theory, the procedure of gauge fixing is
indispensable to avoid infinities due to overcounting of gauge
equivalent configurations. So in the quantized gauge theory we must
treat the gauge fixing term seriously as well as the gauge field
action. Already at the level of classical theory, it is well known
that the gauge theory has a geometric meaning, i.e., gauge
theory is nothing but the geometry of connection. In this section we
want to emphasize that the gauge fixing term may have a geometric
meaning from a viewpoint of global topology.
\subsection{FP determinant}
The usual procedure of gauge fixing is to insert the identity
\begin{eqnarray}
1 = \Delta_{FP}[{\cal A}]
\int [dU] \prod_{x} \delta (F^a[{\cal A}^U])
\end{eqnarray}
into the functional integral
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \int [d{\cal A}^U] \exp (- S_{YM}[{\cal A}^U]) .
\end{eqnarray}
Then we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \int [dU] \int [d{\cal A}^U] \Delta_{FP}[{\cal A}^U]
\prod_{x} \delta (F^a[{\cal A}^U])
\exp (- S_{YM}[{\cal A}^U]) ,
\label{Za}
\end{eqnarray}
since $\Delta_{FP}$ is gauge invariant,
$\Delta_{FP}[{\cal A}] =\Delta_{FP}[{\cal A}^U]$.
The $\Delta_{FP}$ is calculated as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{FP}[{\cal A}]^{-1}
&=& \int [d\omega] \prod_{x} \delta (F^a[{\cal A}^\omega])
\nonumber\\
&=& \int [d\omega] \sum_{k}
{\delta \left( \omega - \omega_k \right) \over
| \det \left( {\delta F^a[{\cal A}^\omega] \over \delta \omega}
\right) |_{\omega=\omega_k} }
\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{k} {1 \over
| \det \left( {\delta F^a[{\cal A}^\omega] \over \delta \omega}
\right) |_{\omega=\omega_k} } .
\end{eqnarray}
When this result in the presence of Gribov copies is substituted into
(\ref{Za}), the BRST formulation does not work. Even when there is
no Gribov copies, we have the absolute value of the determinant,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{FP}[{\cal A}]
= \Big| \det \left( {\delta F^a[{\cal A}^\omega] \over \delta
\omega}
\right) \Big|_{\omega=\omega_k} .
\end{eqnarray}
This expression is difficult to be used.
Therefore, we do not adopt this approach. Rather we start from the
expression,
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \int [dU] \int [d{\cal A}^U]
\prod_{x} \delta (F^a[{\cal A}^U])
\det \left( {\delta F^a[{\cal A}^\omega] \over \delta \omega}
\right)
\exp (- S_{YM}[{\cal A}^U]) .
\end{eqnarray}
Such a formulation was proposed by Fujikawa \cite{Fujikawa79}.
We will show that such a proposal is very natural from the viewpoint
of global topology.
\subsection{Gauge fixing and global topology}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(13,6)
\thicklines
\put(3,6.4){\circle*{0.2}}
\put(3,1.6){\circle*{0.2}}
\bezier{300}(1,5)(3,7.8)(5,5)
\bezier{300}(1,5)(0.5,4)(1,3)
\bezier{300}(5,5)(5.5,4)(5,3)
\bezier{300}(1,3)(3,0.2)(5,3)
\thinlines
\bezier{300}(0.8,4)(3,5)(5.2,4)
\thicklines
\bezier{300}(0.8,4)(3,3)(5.2,4)
\put(3,-0.5){\bf (a)}
\put(6.5,4){\Large \bf+}
\put(10,6.4){\circle*{0.2}}
\put(10,5.0){\circle*{0.2}}
\put(10,3.0){\circle*{0.2}}
\put(10,1.6){\circle*{0.2}}
\bezier{300}(8,5)(10,7.8)(12,5)
\bezier{300}(8,5)(7.5,4)(8,3)
\bezier{300}(12,5)(12.5,4)(12,3)
\bezier{300}(8,3)(10,0.2)(12,3)
\put(10,4){\oval(1,2)}
\thinlines
\bezier{100}(7.8,4)(8.6,4.5)(9.45,4)
\bezier{300}(10.5,4)(11.3,4.5)(12.2,4)
\thicklines
\bezier{300}(7.8,4)(8.6,3.5)(9.45,4)
\bezier{300}(10.5,4)(11.3,3.5)(12.2,4)
\put(10,-0.5){\bf (b)}
\put(13,4){\Large \bf+ $\cdots$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Various two-dimensional surfaces with different
topology.
The Euler number $\chi$ of the two-dimensional surface is determined
by the topology of the surface, i.e., $\chi=2-2g$ for the surface
with the genus $g$. The Morse index $\nu_p=(-1)^{\lambda_p}$ is a
local quantity which is determined at the critical points (black dots in the
figures) of the
Morse function. The Euler number is equal to the sum of
the Morse indices over all the critical points, i.e.,
$\chi=n_0-n_1+n_2$. For example, it is easy to see that (a)
$\chi=2$ for the sphere $S^2$, (b) $\chi=0$ for the torus $T^2$.
}
\label{fig:2Dsurface}
\end{figure}
\par
In the following, we use the notation
$\phi^a = \{ {\cal A}_\mu^A(x) \}$
where $a$ denotes collectively $x,\mu,A$.
If we take the gauge fixing condition
\begin{eqnarray}
F^a[\phi] := {\delta f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a} = 0,
\end{eqnarray}
the partition function in the gauge theory is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Z &:=& \int [d\phi] \prod_{a} \delta (F^a[\phi])
\det \left( {\delta F^a[\phi] \over \delta \phi^b}
\right) e^{-S[\phi]}
\nonumber\\
&=& \int [d\phi] \prod_{a} \delta
\left( {\delta f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a} \right)
\det \left( {\delta^2 f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a \delta \phi^b}
\right) e^{-S[\phi]} .
\end{eqnarray}
Let $M$ be the manifold $M$
of field configurations $\{ \phi^a \}$ and $f$ a continuous function
from $M$ to ${\bf R}$, $f:M \rightarrow {\bf R}$.
In order to see the geometric meaning of the gauge
fixing term, we consider the limit
$S[\phi]
\rightarrow 0$, i.e., only the gauge fixing and the corresponding FP
ghost term,
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_G := \int [d\phi] \prod_{a} \delta
\left( {\delta f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a} \right)
\det \left( {\delta^2 f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a \delta \phi^b}
\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, from the property of the Dirac delta function, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_G &=& \int [d\phi] \sum_{k}
{\delta \left( \phi - \phi_k \right) \over
| \det \left( {\delta^2 f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a \delta \phi^b}
\right) |_{\phi=\phi_k} }
\det \left( {\delta^2 f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a \delta \phi^b}
\right)
\\
&=& \sum_{k: \nabla f(\phi_k)=0} {\rm sign} \left[
\det \left( {\delta^2 f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a \delta \phi^b}
\right)_{\phi=\phi_k} \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_k$ is a solution of $\nabla f(\phi)=0$ or
$F^a[\phi]=0$. Thus we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_G = \sum_{p: \nabla f(\phi_p)=0} \nu_p ,
\quad
\nu_p := {\rm sign} (\det H_f) = (- 1)^{\lambda_p} ,
\label{Local}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_f$ is the Hessian defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
H_f := {\delta^2 f(\phi) \over \delta \phi^a \delta \phi^b} .
\end{eqnarray}
For a smooth function $f$, the Hessian is a symmetric matrix and
hence its eigenvalues are all real. The index $\lambda_P$ is equal to
the number of negative eigenvalues of the Hessian.
Note that
$\chi$ is an integer. In order to obtain this simple expression,
the existence of the FP determinant is indispensable.
The function $f$ is called the Morse function
\cite{Milnor63}, if all the critical points $P$ (i.e., $\nabla
f(P)=0$) of $f$ are non-degenerate, i.e.,
$\det(H_f)\not=0$. For a finite dimensional case, it
is known that all non-degenerate critical points of $f$ are isolated
critical points, i.e., there is no other critical point in the
neighborhood of a critical point. Whether the critical point is
degenerate or non-degenerate does not depend on how to choose the
coordinate systems in the manifold $M$ of field configurations $\{
\phi^a \}$. A convenient way to see the above situation is to use
the standard form.
The quantity $\chi$ is obtained as the sum of the index $\nu_p$ over
all the critical points, once the function $f$ is given.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:2Dsurface} for a simple case of
two-dimensional surface $M_2$. In that case, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi(M_2) = n_0 - n_1 + n_2 ,
\label{Euler1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_0, n_1, n_2$ are the total numbers of the minimal, saddle
and maximum points respectively.
\par
For a given field configuration
$\phi^a$, we can consider the global topology.
The measure $[d\phi(x)]$ includes various field configurations with
various global topology, each of which is characterized by an
appropriate topological invariant.
By repeating the similar calculation, we obtain for the partition
function,
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \sum_{p: \nabla f(\phi_p)=0} \nu_p e^{-S[\phi_p]}
= \sum_{p: \nabla f(\phi_p)=0} (- 1)^{\lambda_p} e^{-S[\phi_p]} .
\label{Z}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
The two-dimensional case is rather simple, see
Fig.~\ref{fig:2Dsurface}. The Poincare'-Hopf theorem for the
two-dimensional surface states that $\chi$ defined in (\ref{Local})
is equal to the Euler number
$\chi$ of the
two-dimensional surface $M_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi(M_2) = 2 - 2g ,
\label{Euler2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ is the genus, i.e., number of handles. The Morse index
$\nu_p$ or
$\lambda_p$ is a local quantity, but, the sum $\chi$ given by
(\ref{Local}) is determined only from the global topology of the
surface
(\ref{Euler2}) without any local information.
The Poincare-Hopf theorem gives a bridge
between the local geometry and global topology:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Local} \rightarrow \sum_{p} ({\rm local~index})_p = {\rm
topological~invariant} \leftarrow {\rm Global} .
\end{eqnarray}
This is a very important result for our purpose. Because, by
deforming the surface in a continuous way, the location of the
critical point change and the Morse index at the new critical point
may also change, but the total sum of the Morse index is a
topological invariant which is determined only by the global
topology of the surface irrespective of the way of continuous
deformation.
\par
It is well known that the two-dimensional manifold is completely
classified by the genus or the Euler number. This is not the case
in higher dimensions. In fact, we must treat the infinite
dimensional case. Even in the infinite dimensional case, for a
specific field configuration $M_\infty^\alpha$, a topological
invariant
$Q(M_\infty^\alpha)$ will be determined. Then it is expected
that the $\chi_G$ is expressed as a sum of topological invariants,
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_G = \sum_{Q} w_Q Q(M_\infty^\alpha) .
\end{eqnarray}
In view of this, the functional we have chosen to derive the MA
gauge,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}[\Omega] := \int d^Dx \ {\rm tr}_{G/H}
\left( {1 \over 2} \Omega_\mu(x) \Omega_\mu(x) \right)
\end{eqnarray}
is considered to be a Morse function.
Indeed, the MA gauge condition is obtained as the gradient
of the Morse function ${\cal R}$ with respect to the large gauge
transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\delta {\cal R}[\Omega^\omega] \over \delta \omega}
= F[\Omega] .
\end{eqnarray}
The topology change in the field configurations may be caused by the
large (or finite) gauge transformation allowed in the
measure $[dU]$, since the measure is invariant under the
global gauge rotation
$U \rightarrow e^{i\omega}U$.
Thus, the gauge fixing and the associated FP term
when integrated out by the functional measure $[d\phi]$ can have a
geometric meaning which is related to the global topology of the
field configurations. The Morse function is a tool of probing the
global topology allowed in the functional space of the
field configurations by gathering the local information at all the
critical points.
The partition function of Yang-Mills theory is
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{YM}[0] = \sum_{p: F(\Omega_p)=0} \nu_p e^{-S_{eff}[\Omega_p]}
= \sum_{p: F(\Omega_p)=0} (- 1)^{\lambda_p}
e^{-S_{eff}[\Omega_p]} .
\label{Z0}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
Finally, we consider how $\chi$ changes when we change the Morse
function
$f$.
In two-dimensional case, $\chi(M_2)$ is determined by the topology of
manifold $M_2$ irrespective of the choice of Morse function $f$.
If this feature survives in the infinite dimensional case, we can
conclude that the global topology of the Yang-Mills theory does not
depend on the way of gauge fixing.
\subsection{Morse function and BRST transformation}
By introducing the auxiliary field $B$ and the FP ghost and
anti-ghost fields, $\psi, \bar \rho$, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi := \int [d\phi] \prod_{a} \delta (F^a[\phi])
\det \left( {\delta F^a[\phi] \over \delta \phi^b}
\right)
= \int [d\phi] [dB] [d\psi] [d\bar \rho] e^{-S_{GF}[\phi]} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the gauge-fixing action reads
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{GF} = \int d^Dx \left[ {\alpha \over 2} B^2 + BF
- \bar \rho F'[\phi] \psi \right]
= \int d^Dx \ \delta_B \left[ \bar \rho
\left( F[\phi]+{\alpha \over 2} B \right) \right]
\end{eqnarray}
with the nilpotent BRST transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B \phi &=& \psi,
\nonumber\\
\delta_B \psi &=& 0,
\\
\delta_B \bar \rho &=& B,
\\
\delta_B B &=& 0 .
\end{eqnarray}
By eliminating the auxiliary field $B$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi &=& \int [d\phi] [d\psi] [d\bar \rho] e^{-S_{GF}'},
\\
S_{GF}' &=& \int d^Dx \left[ -{1 \over 2\alpha} (F[\phi])^2
- \bar \rho F'[\phi] \psi \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_B \phi &=& \psi,
\nonumber\\
\delta_B \psi &=& 0,
\\
\delta_B \bar \rho &=& {F[\phi] \over \alpha} .
\end{eqnarray}
The critical point
$F[\phi] := {\partial f(\phi) \over \partial \phi}= 0$
corresponds to the fixed point of BRST transformation.
Therefore, the integration $\int [d\phi] \delta(F[\phi]) \cdots$
is localized on the fixed point of BRST transformation. This is a
characteristic feature of topological quantum field theory.
The condition $F^a[\phi]=0$ is regarded as a non-linear partial
differential equation. The space of parameters characterizing
the solution of this equation is called the moduli space. In the
TQFT, the above argument shows that the infinite dimensional
functional integral reduces to finite dimensional integral on moduli
space. For example, for the Yang-Mills instanton with $Q=k$, ${\rm
dim}M=8k < \infty$.
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this paper we have derived a reformulation of the Yang-Mills
theory based on the background field method. The reformulation
identifies the Yang-Mills theory as a deformation of a topological
quantum field theory as proposed in \cite{KondoII}. The background
field is given by a topological soliton.
\par
In order to show quark confinement, the condensation of a topological
soliton is necessary to occur. This has been actually derived by
summing up the topological soliton contributions, provided that the
topological soliton is described by the topological field theory. The
topological field theory has been derived from the gauge fixing term
corresponding to the {\it nonlinear} gauge fixing condition, the
maximal Abelian gauge.
The maximal Abelian gauge implies that the topological soliton in
question is nothing but the magnetic monopole current, the
four-dimensional version of the magnetic monopole.
The result ensures that the quark confinement is realized in the QCD
vacuum as a dual superconductor.
Furthermore, we have proposed a numerical simulation which is able to
confirm the validity of the above reformulation.
\par
We have discussed a novel mechanism for the mass generation for the
gauge field, i.e., dynamical mass generation as the
dimensional reduction which causes the spontaneous breakdown of the
hidden supersymmetry in the
topological field theory. Moreover, we have suggested that the gauge
fixing action may have the geometric meaning from the view point
of global topology by making use of the Morse function.
\par
In this paper we have restricted our consideration to the maximal
Abelian gauge where the residual gauge group $H$ is the maximal
torus group of the non-Abelian gauge group $G$
($H=U(1)^{N-1}$ for $G=SU(N)$), although our formulation can be
applied to any choice of $H$. Therefore the topological soliton is
given by the Abelian magnetic monopole. However, it is possible to
consider other choices for the residual gauge group $H$
(especially for $G=SU(N) (N \ge 3)$) which leads to the topological
soliton other than the Abelian magnetic monopole, e.g., non-Abelian
magnetic monopole, center vortex. Either choice will lead to the
quark confinement. From the viewpoint of {\it color} confinement,
however, the maximal torus group for $H$ is not necessarily the
best choice. The details will be given in the subsequent paper
\cite{Kondo99}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Two observations of \object{M\,67} with the ROSAT PSPC resulted
in the detection of X-ray emission from 25 members of this old open cluster
(Belloni et al.\ 1993, 1998).
\nocite{bellea} \nocite{bellea93}
The X-ray emission of many of these sources is readily understood.
For example, the X-ray emission originates in deep, hot atmospheric layers
in a hot white dwarf; is due to mass transfer in a cataclysmic variable;
and is caused by magnetic activity in two contact binaries
and several RS CVn-type binaries.
However, Belloni et al.\ (1998) point out several X-ray sources in
\object{M$\,$67}
for which the X-ray emission is unexplained.
All but one of these objects are located away from the isochrone formed by
the main sequence and the (sub)giant branch of \object{M$\,$67} (Fig.~\ref{cmd}).
In this paper we investigate the nature of the X-ray emission of these
stars through low- and high-resolution optical spectra.
In particular, we investigate whether the emission could be coronal as
a consequence of magnetic activity, by looking for emission cores in the
\ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines. Tidal interaction in a close binary
orbit is thought to enhance
magnetic activity at the stellar surface by spinning up the stars in the
binary. Therefore, we also derive projected rotational velocities with the
crosscorrelation
method. Finally, we study the H$\alpha$ profile as a possible indicator of
activity or mass transfer.
The observations and the data reduction are described in Sect.~2,
and the analysis of the spectra in Sect.~3.
Comparison with chromospherically active binaries is made in Sect.~4.
A discussion of our results is given in Sect.~5.
In the remainder of the introduction we give brief sketches of the
stars studied in this paper; details on many of them are given by
Mathieu et al.\ (1990). The stars are indicated with their number in
Sanders (1977), and are listed in Table~\ref{tab1}.
\nocite{mathlathea} \nocite{san}
\begin{table}
\caption{Stars of \object{M$\,$67} discussed in this paper. Visual
magnitude and colour (from Montgomery et al.\ 1993), spectral type
(from Allen \&\ Strom 1995, and Zhilinskii \&\ Frolov 1994), orbital
period and eccentricity (from Mathieu et al. 1990, Latham et al.\ 1992
and -- for S\,1113 --
Mathieu et al.\ 1999, in preparation), and X-ray countrate in PSPC channels
41--240,
corresponding to 0.4--2.4\,keV (from Belloni et al.\ 1998).
\label{tab1}}
\begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{0.25cm}}l@{\hspace{0.25cm}}l@{\hspace{0.25cm}}l@{\hspace{0.12cm}}l@{\hspace{0.25cm}}l@{\hspace{0.25cm}}l}
ID & $V$ & $B$-$V$ & sp.type & $P_{\mathrm{b}}$ & $e$ & ctrate \\
& & & & (d) & & (s$^{-1}$) \\
\\
\hline
\\
S\,1040 & 11.52 & 0.87 & G4III & 42.83 & 0.027(28) & 0.0050(6) \\
S\,1063 & 13.79 & 1.05 & G8IV & 18.39 & 0.217(14) & 0.0047(6) \\
S\,1072 & 11.32 & 0.61 & G3III--IV & 1495. & 0.32(7) & 0.0013(3) \\
S\,1082 & 11.25 & 0.42 & F5IV & & & 0.0046(6) \\
S\,1113 & 13.77 & 1.01 & & 2.823 & 0.031(14) & 0.0047(6) \\
S\,1237 & 10.78 & 0.94 & G8III & 697.8 & 0.105(15) & 0.0010(3) \\
S\,1242 & 12.72 & 0.68 & & 31.78 & 0.664(18) & 0.0007(2) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\nocite{montea} \nocite{lathmathea} \nocite{allestro} \nocite{zhilfrol}
\nocite{mathlathea}
S\,1063 and S\,1113 are two binaries located below the subgiant branch
in the colour-magnitude diagram of \object{M$\,$67}.
Their orbital periods, 18.4 and 2.82 days respectively, are too long
for them to be contact binaries; also they are too far above the main
sequence to be binaries of main-sequence stars.
In principle, a (sub)giant can become underluminous when it transfers
mass to its companion, as energy is taken from the stellar luminosity
to restore hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g.\ Kippenhahn \&\ Weigert 1967).
However, mass transfer through Roche lobe overflow very rapidly leads to
circularization of the binary orbit, whereas S\,1063 has an
eccentricity $e=0.217$.
The orbit of S\,1113 is circular, so mass transfer could be occurring
in that system.
For the moment, the nature of these binaries is not understood.
In both, Pasquini \&\ Belloni (1998) observed emission cores in the
\ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines.
S\,1063 is reported to be photometrically variable with $\sim$ 0.10 mag
(Rajamohan et al.\ 1988; Kaluzny \& Radczynska 1991),
but no period is found.
For S\,1113, photometric variability with a period of 0.313 days
and a total amplitude of 0.6 mag was claimed by Kurochkin (1960), but this
has not been confirmed by Kaluzny \& Radczynska (1991), who find variability
with only 0.05 mag. S\,1063 is the only \object{M\,67} star in our sample that
shows significantly variable X-ray emission (between 0.0081 and 0.0047
cts s$^{-1}$; Belloni et al.\ 1998).
\nocite{kippweig} \nocite{rajaea} \nocite{kuro} \nocite{kara} \nocite{pasqbell}
S\,1072 and S\,1237 are binaries with orbital periods of 1495 and 698
days, and with eccentricities $e=0.32$ and 0.105, respectively.
The colour and magnitude of S\,1072 cannot be explained with the pairing
of a giant and a blue straggler, since this is not compatible with its
$ubvy$ photometry (Nissen et al.\ 1987; Mathieu \&\ Latham 1986), nor with superposition of three
subgiants, since this is excluded by the radial velocity correlations
(Mathieu et al.\ 1990).
The absence of the 6708 \AA\ lithium
feature in the spectrum of S\,1072 indicates that the surface material has
undergone mixing (Hobbs \&\ Mathieu 1991; Pritchett \& Glaspey 1991).
S\,1237 could be a binary of a giant and a star at the top of the
evolved main sequence (Janes \& Smith 1984); high-resolution spectroscopy should
be able to detect the main-sequence star in that case (Mathieu et al.\ 1990).
The wide orbits and significant eccentricities appear to exclude
both mass transfer and tidal interaction as explanations for the X-ray
emission.
\nocite{nissea} \nocite{hobbmath} \nocite{pritglas} \nocite{janesmit}
\nocite{mathlath}
S\,1242 has the largest eccentricity of the binaries in our sample,
at $e=0.66$ in an orbit of 31.8$\,$days. Its position on the subgiant
branch is explained if a subgiant of 1.25\,$M_{\sun}$ has a secondary with $V>15$
(Mathieu et al.\ 1990). \ion{Ca}{ii} K line emission is
reported by Pasquini \&\ Belloni (1998).
Photometric variability with a period of 4.88$\,$days and amplitude of 0.0025
mag has been found by Gilliland et al.\ (1991).
We note that this photometric period corresponds to corotation
with the orbit at periastron, which suggests that the X-ray emission
may be due to tidal interaction taking place at periastron.
The binary would then be an interesting example of a system in transition
from an eccentric to a circular orbit. Indeed, according to the diagnostic
diagram of Verbunt \&\ Phinney (1995) a giant of 1.25\,$M_{\sun}$ with a
current radius of $\simeq2.3\,R_{\sun}$ (as derived from the location of
S\,1242 in the colour-magnitude diagram) cannot have circularized an orbit
of 31.8\,days.
\nocite{gillea} \nocite{verbphin}
S\,1040 is a binary consisting of a giant and a white dwarf. The progenitor
of the white dwarf circularized the orbit during a phase of
mass transfer (Verbunt \&\ Phinney 1995); as a result the mass of the
white dwarf is very low (Landsman et al.\ 1997).
The white dwarf is probably too cool, at 16\,160$\,$K, to be the X-ray emitter.
Indications for magnetic activity are \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K
(Pasquini \&\ Belloni 1998) and \ion{Mg}{ii} ($\lambda\lambda$ 2800 \AA,
Landsman et al.\ 1997) emission lines.
If the X-rays are due to coronal emission of the giant, this must be the
consequence of the past evolution of the binary, since the giant is too small
for significant tidal interaction to be taking place in the current orbit.
\nocite{landea}
S\,1082 is a blue straggler. Photometric variability of
0.08 mag within a few hours was observed by Simoda (1991). Goranskii
et al.\ (1992) found eclipses
with a total amplitude of 0.12 mag and a binary period of
1.07 days; however, the radial velocities of the star
do not show this period, and vary by about 2\,km s$^{-1}$, far too little
for a 1\,day eclipsing binary (Mathieu et al.\ 1986).
Landsman et al.\ (1998) detect a significant excess at 1520 \AA\ with the
Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, and ascribe this to a hot, subluminous
secondary. Such a secondary was suggested already by Mathys (1991) on the
basis of a broad component in the \ion{Na}{i} D and
\ion{O}{i} absorption lines.
\nocite{goraea} \nocite{mathlath} \nocite{math} \nocite{landea} \nocite{simo}
\nocite{mathea86}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=M67.ps,angle=-90,width=\columnwidth,clip=t} {\hfil}}
\caption{Colour-magnitude diagram of \object{M$\,$67}. Colours and magnitudes
are from
Montgomery et al.\ (1993). Only stars with membership probability
$> 0.8$ (based on their proper motion, Sanders 1977) were selected.
Stars indicate the observed X-ray binaries; squares two member giants
observed for comparison.
} \label{cmd}
\end{figure}
\nocite{montea} \nocite{san}
\section{Observations and data reduction}
Optical spectra were obtained on February 28/29, 1996 with the
4.2m William Herschel Telescope on La Palma, under good
weather conditions (seeing $<1\arcsec$ until 4$\fh$30 UT,
$<2\arcsec$ thereafter). In addition to the X-ray sources in \object{M$\,$67} we
observed
two ordinary member giants of \object{M$\,$67}, S\,1288 and S\,1402, for comparison.
Furthermore one flux standard and three velocity standards
were observed. The blue high-resolution spectra of S\,1113 were obtained on
April 7/8, 1998
with the same telescope through a service observation (seeing 1--2$\arcsec$).
A log of the observations is given in Table~\ref{tab11}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Log of the observations.
For each target we give the UT at start of the exposures and the exposure
time for the ISIS and UES blue and red spectra. All observations were
obtained on 28/29 February 1996, except the blue UES exposures of S\,1113
which were taken on 7/8 April 1998 (indicated with $^*$ in the table).
\label{tab11}}
\begin{tabular}{llrlrlr}
ID & \multicolumn{2}{l}{ISIS} &
\multicolumn{2}{l}{UES blue} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{UES red} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{---------------} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{---------------} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{---------------} \\
& UT & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$t_{\mathrm{exp}}$}& UT & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$t_{\mathrm{exp}}$} & UT & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$t_{\mathrm{exp}}$} \\
& & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(s)} & & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(s)} & & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(s)} \\
\\
\hline \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{{\sc targets}} \\
S\,1040 & 02:43&60 & 22:03&600 & 00:46&300 \\
S\,1063 & 02:30&180 & 20:51&1200 & 00:11&1200 \\
& & & 21:15&1200 & 00:33&600 \\
& & & 21:37&1200\\
S\,1072 & 02:49&60 & 22:24&360 & 01:01&240 \\
S\,1082 & 02:39&60 & 20:39&300 & 00:01&360 \\
& & & 23:24&600 & 01:41&360 \\
& & & & & 04:11&360 \\
S\,1113 & 03:01&180 & 22:37$^*$ & 900 & 03:36&1200 \\
& & & 22:58$^*$ & 900 & 03:58&600 \\
S\,1237 & 02:46&60 & 22:16&300 & 00:54&180 \\
S\,1242 & 02:55&120 & 22:33&1500 & 01:08&900 \\
\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{{\sc comparison giants}} \\
S\,1288 & 02:58&60 & 23:12&600 & 01:33&300 \\
S\,1402 & 02:52&60 & 23:01&450 & 01:26&240 \\
\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{{\sc flux standard}} \\
\object{HZ\,44} & 02:21&80 & 23:42&600 & 01:57&600 \\
& 03:13&80 \\
& 04:43&480 \\
\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{{\sc velocity standards}} \\
\object{HD$\,$132737} & & & 06:04& 90 & 05:13&45 \\
\object{HD$\,$136202} & & & 05:55&100 & 05:42&50 \\
\object{HD$\,$171232} & & & & & 05:34&45 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
All spectra have been reduced using the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility
(IRAF)\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for
Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
Science Foundation}.
\subsection{Low-resolution spectra}
Low-resolution spectra were taken with the ISIS double-beam
spectrograph (Carter et al.\ 1993).
The blue arm of ISIS was used with the 300
lines per mm grating and TEK-CCD, resulting in a wavelength coverage
of 3831 to 5404 \AA\ and a dispersion of 1.54 \AA\ per pixel at
4000 \AA. The red arm, combined with the 316 lines per mm grating and
EEV-CCD, covered a wavelength region of 5619 to 7135 \AA\ with a
dispersion of 1.40 \AA\ per pixel at 6500 \AA.
The format of the frames is 1124 $\times$ 200 pixels which
includes the under- and overscan regions. For the object exposures the slit
width was set to $4\arcsec$. Flatfields were made with a Tungsten
lamp while CuAr and CuNe lamp exposures were taken for the purpose of
wavelength calibration.
\nocite{cartea}
For the ISIS-spectra, basic reduction steps have been
done within the IRAF {\sc ccdred}-package. These steps include removing the
bias signal making use of the under- and overscan regions and zero frames,
trimming the
frames to remove the under- and overscan, and flatfielding to correct for small
pixel-to-pixel gain variations. The remaining reduction has been done with
IRAF {\sc specred}-package tasks.
With the optimal extraction algorithm (Horne 1986)
the two dimensional images are reduced to one dimensional spectra.
Next, the spectra are calibrated in wavelength with the arc frames. A
dispersion solution is found by fitting third (blue) and fourth (red) order
polynomials to the positions on the CCD of the arclamp lines.
The fluxes of the spectra are calibrated with the absolute fluxes of HZ\,44,
tabulated at 50 \AA\ intervals (Massey et al. 1988), and adopting the
standard atmospheric extinction curve for La Palma as given by King (1985).
The estimated accuracy of the flux calibration is $\sim 10$\%.
\nocite{horn}\nocite{king} \nocite{massea}
\subsection{High-resolution spectra}
High-resolution echelle spectra were taken with~the Utrecht Echelle
Spectrograph (UES, Unger et al.\ 1993).
Observations were done with a $\sim 1\arcsec$ slitwidth.
\nocite{ungeea}
For the 1996 observations, the UES was used in combination with a
1024 $\times$ 1024 pixels TEK-CCD,
and the 31.6 lines per mm grating (E31), which resulted in a broad wavelength
coverage, but small separation of the echelle orders on the CCD.
In this setup, the UES resolving power is 49\,000 per resolution element
(two pixels), corresponding to a dispersion of 3 km s$^{-1}$ per pixel
or 0.06 \AA\ per pixel at 6000 \AA.
The frames were centered on $\lambda_\mathrm{cen}=4250$ \AA\ and
$\lambda_\mathrm{cen}=5930$ \AA\ in order to get a blue (3820 to 4920 \AA) and
red (4890 to 7940 \AA) echelle spectrum. The number of orders recorded on the
CCD is 34 in the blue and 45 in the red, each covering $\sim$ 45 to 80 \AA\
increasing for longer wavelengths. Towards the red, gaps occur between the
wavelength coverage of adjacent orders.
Exposures of a quartz lamp were taken to make the flatfield corrections.
ThAr exposures served as wavelength calibration frames.
For the 1998 observations of S\,1113, a 2048 $\times$ 2048 pixels SITe-CCD was
used. Two spectra were taken with the 79.0 lines per mm (E79) grating
($\lambda_\mathrm{cen}=4343$ \AA). The difference between the E79 and the E31
gratings is that E79-spectra have a larger separation of the echelle-orders
on the detector, which can improve the determination of the sky-background.
The spectral
resolution of the gratings is the same (the central dispersion in these
observations is $\sim 0.04$ \AA\ per pixel). The specified wavelength-coverage
for this combination of grating and detector is 3546 to 6163 \AA\, but only the
central orders were bright enough to extract spectra (3724 to 5998 \AA).
Flatfield and ThAr
exposures were made for calibration purposes.
The reduction of the UES spectra has been performed using the routines
available within the IRAF {\sc echelle}-package.
First, the frames are debiased and the under- and overscan regions removed.
After locating the orders on the CCD for both the quartz lamp and the object
exposures, we flatfielded the frames.
Spectra are extracted with optimal extraction.
The small order separation makes sky subtraction difficult; however, our
targets are bright, and the resulting error is negligible.
In the step of wavelength
calibration, the dispersion solution is derived by fitting
third and fourth order polynomials leaving rms-residuals of 0.004 \AA\ (red)
and 0.002 \AA\ (blue, 0.003 \AA\ for the 1998-spectra). To find absolute fluxes for the \ion{Ca}{ii} K
($\lambda \, 3933.67$ \AA) \& H ($\lambda \, 3968.47$ \AA) emission lines
(Sect.~3.1), the fluxes of the relevant blue orders of an object have been
calibrated with the calibrated ISIS spectrum of the same object. Continuum
normalization of the orders in the red spectra, required for the rotational
velocity analysis, is done by fitting third to fifth order polynomials to the
wavelength-calibrated spectra.
\section{Data analysis}
We study two indicators of magnetic activity.
The direct indicator is emission in the cores of the
\ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines.
Another indicator is the rotational speed: rapid (differential) rotation
and convective motions are thought to generate magnetic fields through a
dynamo.
\subsection{Determination of \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission fluxes}
To estimate the amount of flux emitted in the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K line
cores, $F_{\mathrm{Ca}}$, we add the fluxes above the H\&K absorption
profiles as follows. An upper and a lower limit of the
level of the absorption pseudo-continuum is estimated by eye and
is marked by a straight line. For S\,1113 this is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{subca}.
We obtain a lower and upper limit
of the emitted flux by adding the fluxes in each wavelength-bin
above these levels. The value given in Table~\ref{fluxes} is the
average of these two results, the uncertainty is half their difference.
Use of higher order fits (following Fern\'andez-Figueroa et al.\ 1994)
to the absorption profile gives similar results.
If an emission line is not clearly visible, we obtain an upper limit by
estimating the minimal detectable emission flux at the H\&K line centers
within a 1 \AA\ wide region (typical width of the emission lines).
Six of our sources show \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K line emission (Fig.~\ref{cahk}).
The profiles of S\,1113 appear to be double-lined, suggesting that we see activity
of both stars (Fig.~\ref{subca}). The fluxes given in Table~\ref{fluxes} are the total fluxes,
i.e.\ no attempt was made to deblend the emission lines.
No emission is visible in the spectrum of S\,1082.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=plotca.ps,width=\columnwidth,clip=t} {\hfil}}
\caption{The \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K regions in the high-resolution spectra of
our targets. In the lower right corner the spectrum of the non-active
comparison giant S\,1288 is shown.} \label{cahk}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Fluxes of emission cores in \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines and
projected rotational velocities derived from our high-resolution spectra.
The velocities were determined from crosscorrelation with the spectrum
of \object{HD\,136202} (F8III-IV, ESA 1997) for S\,1040, S\,1072, S\,1082 and S\,1242; and with
the spectrum of \object{HD\,171232} (G8III, ESA 1997) for the other stars. Both HD stars have
line widths $\tau=1.8\pm$0.1\,km s$^{-1}$. For S\,1113 we list both components; the primary contributes $\sim 82$\%\ of
the light and has broader lines.
\label{fluxes}}
\begin{tabular}{lrrl}
ID & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\log F_{\ion{Ca}{k}}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\log F_{\ion{Ca}{h}}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$v\sin i$} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{l}{(${\rm erg}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(${\rm erg}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$)} &
\multicolumn{1}{l}{(km s$^{-1}$)} \\ \\ \hline
\\
S\,1040 & $16(4)\times10^{-15}$ & $17(5)\times10^{-15}$ & 3.0(1.0) \\
S\,1063 & $6(1)\times10^{-15}$ & $7(1)\times10^{-15}$ & 3.9(0.8) \\
S\,1072 & $3(2)\times10^{-15}$ & $<13\times10^{-15}$ & 8.1(1.1) \\
S\,1082 & $ <11\times10^{-15}$ & $<24\times10^{-15}$ & 5.1(0.7) \\
S\,1113 & $9(2)\times10^{-15}$ & $10(3)\times10^{-15}$ & 45(6) \\
& & & 12(1) \\
S\,1237 & $4(2)\times10^{-15}$ & $8(5)\times10^{-15}$ & $<1.8$ \\
S\,1242 & $2.2(0.5)\times10^{-15}$ & $2(1)\times10^{-15}$ & $<2.6(1.0)$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\nocite{hipp}
\subsection{Determination of projected rotational velocities}
\subsubsection{Crosscorrelation}
In order to derive the projected rotational velocity $v\sin i$ of our targets,
we apply the crosscorrelation technique (e.g. Tonry \& Davis 1979). This
method computes the correlation between the object spectrum and an
appropriately chosen template spectrum as function of relative shift. The
position of the maximum of the crosscorrelation function ({\sc ccf}) provides
the value of the radial-velocity difference between object and template. The
width of the peak is indicative for the width of the spectral lines and can
therefore be used as a measure of the rotational velocity of the stars.
\nocite{tonrdavi}
For rotational velocities not too large the line profiles may be
approximated with Gaussians, allowing analytical treatment
of the crosscorrelation method.
Assuming that the binary spectrum is a shifted, scaled and
broadened version of the template spectrum, the broadening
can be related to the width of the {\sc ccf} peak as follows
(Gunn et al.\ 1996).
With $\tau$ the dispersion in the template's and $\beta$ the
dispersion in the target's spectral lines,
$\mu$ the dispersion of the {\sc ccf} peak and $\sigma$ the dispersion of the
gaussian that describes the broadening of the object's spectrum with respect
to the template, one can write:
\begin{equation}
\mu^2=\tau^2 + \beta^2=2\tau^2 + \sigma^2
\label{sigma}\end{equation}
Eq.~\ref{sigma} applies to both components in the binary
spectrum and their corresponding {\sc ccf} peaks.
\nocite{gunnea}
The crosscorrelations are performed with the IRAF task {\sc fxcor} that uses
Fourier transforms of the spectra to compute the {\sc ccf}. Before performing
the crosscorrelation, the continuum is subtracted from the normalized spectra.
Filtering in the Fourier domain is applied to avoid undesirable contributions
originating from noise or intrinsically broad lines (see Wyatt 1985).
\nocite{wyat}
The templates are chosen from the radial-velocity standards such that their
spectral types resemble those of the targets.
The value of $\tau$ for these stars is determined for each order separately by
autocorrelation of the template spectrum adopting the same filter used for
the crosscorrelations.
In this case $\sigma$ is zero and therefore $\tau$ is found directly from the
width of the {\sc ccf} peak: ${\tau}^2={\mu}^2/2$.
The template spectra are correlated with our target stars
order by order, where we limit ourselves to orders in the red spectra that do
not suffer from strong telluric lines. Most {\sc ccf} peaks can be
fitted well with a gaussian. As the final value for $v\sin i$ we give
the broadening $\sigma$ averaged over the different orders, and for
the uncertainty we take the rms of the spread around the average of $\sigma$
(Table~\ref{fluxes}).
Equating $v\sin i$ to $\sigma$ implicitly assumes that $\tau$ is
the width of the lines not related to rotation. An upper limit
to $v\sin i$ is found from the other extreme in which we assume that the total
width of the spectral line $\beta$ follows from
rotation. This creates uncertainties of the order of $\sigma$ for
S\,1242. In the case of S\,1237 we find that $\beta < \tau$ ($\sigma < 0$),
i.e. the lines in S\,1237 are narrower than in the template. For these two
stars, we give an upper limit of $v\sin i < \beta$ in Table~\ref{fluxes}.
S1113 is the only binary observed whose {\sc ccf} shows two peaks.
The {\sc ccf} peaks of both stars overlap in the 1998 observation.
Therefore we do not use these spectra in the following analysis.
For the 1996 spectra, the {\sc ccf} shows two peaks, one of which is broad
indicating the presence of a
fast rotating star. Both peaks are clearly separated with a center-to-center
velocity separation of $\sim$ 110 km s$^{-1}$.
The lines in the spectrum are
smeared out and less pronounced, resulting in a noisy {\sc ccf}. To improve
this, we combine four sequential orders before
crosscorrelating (being constrained by the maximum number of points
{\sc fxcor} can handle).
From eq.~17 in Gunn et al. we derive the relative light
contribution of both components to the spectrum from the height and
dispersion of the crosscorrelation peaks, assuming that the binary stars have
the same spectrum as the template ($\alpha=1$ in eq.~17). According to this
the rapidly rotating star contributes $\sim 82$\%\ of the light.
Note that luminosity ratios derived from cross-correlations are uncertain
and should be confirmed photometrically.
\subsubsection{Fourier-Bessel transformation}
The line profile of the fast rotating star in S\,1113 is not compatible
anymore with a Gaussian,
therefore we adopt another method to determine its $v\sin i$,
described in Piters et al. (1996). This method uses the
property that the Fourier-Bessel transform of a spectral line that is purely
rotationally broadened has a maximum at the position of the
projected rotational velocity. In practice, this position is a function
of the limits over which the Fourier transform is performed. The local
maxima of this velocity-versus-cutoff-frequency (vcf) function approach
$v\sin i$ within half a percent, the result growing more accurate for maxima
at higher frequencies. This error is negligible when compared to errors
arising from noise, other line broadening mechanisms, etc. (see Piters et al.
1996). In our determination of $v\sin i$ of the primary of S\,1113, we
have used the first local maximum in the vcf-plot of the transformation of
four isolated \ion{Fe}{i} lines at $\lambda\lambda$ 6265.14, 6400.15, 6408.03
and 6411.54 \AA.
The $v\sin i$ in Table~\ref{fluxes} is an average of the resulting values;
the $v\sin i$ of the secondary is found from crosscorrelation.
The application of the Fourier-Bessel transformation method is limited
on the low velocity side by the spectral resolution: the Fourier transform
cannot be performed beyond the Nyquist frequency which for slow rotators
lies at a frequency that is lower than the cutoff-frequency at which the
first maximum occurs in the vcf-plot. For our spectra this means that
the method cannot be used for $v\sin i <$ 5.2 km s$^{-1}$. Indeed, for every
star for which the crosscorrelation method gives a $v\sin i$ smaller than
this value, the vcf-plot does not reach the first local maximum, except
for S\,1082 for which we find $v\sin i$ = 9.5(1.6). For S\,1072,
the Fourier-Bessel transform gives a $v\sin i$ of 12.7(1.0) km s$^{-1}$.
Spectral lines were selected from those used in Groot et al. (1996)
and from the additional lines used for S\,1113.
\nocite{pitegrooea} \nocite{grootea}
\section{Results}
The results of our search for emission cores in the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines
are displayed in Fig.~\ref{cahk} and in Table~\ref{fluxes}.
The emission lines are strong in S\,1063, S\,1113 and S\,1040;
and still detectable in S\,1242 which indicates chromospheric activity in
these stars.
In S\,1072 and S\,1237 the emission cores are marginal, and on
S\,1082 we can only determine an upper limit.
The (projected) rotational velocities of all of our stars are relatively
small $v\sin i<10\,$km s$^{-1}$, with the exception of S\,1113.
In Sect.~4.1 we investigate whether the relations between X-ray emission,
strength of the emission cores in the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines, and the
rotational velocities of the unusual X-ray emitters in \object{M$\,$67} are similar
to the relations found for well-known magnetically active stars,
the RS CVn binaries.
In Sect.~4.2 we briefly discuss the behaviour of the H$\alpha$ line
and spectral lines other than \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K that are indicators of
chromospheric activity.
Individual systems are discussed in Sect.~4.3.
\subsection{Comparison with RS CVn binaries}
To investigate whether the X-rays of the \object{M$\,$67} stars studied in
this paper are related to magnetic activity, we compare their
optical activity indicators and X-ray fluxes with those of a
sample of RS CVn binaries. In particular, we select RS CVn binaries for which
fluxes of the emission cores in the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K lines have been
determined from high-resolution spectra by Fern\'andez-Figueroa et al.\ (1994).
To obtain X-ray countrates for these binaries, we searched
the ROSAT data archive for PSPC observations of them.
We then analyzed all these observations, and determined the countrates,
in the same bandpass as used in the analysis of \object{M\,67},
using the standard procedure described in
Zimmermann et al.\ (1994).
All pointings that we have analyzed actually led to a positive
detection of the RS CVn system: even when not the target of the observation,
the RS CVn system is usually the brightest object in the field of view.
The results of our analysis are listed in Table~\ref{tabros}.
\nocite{fernea} \nocite{zimmea94}
\begin{table}
\caption{ROSAT PSPC countrates for RS~CVn binaries, from our analysis of
archival data. For each source we list the distance, adopted from the Hipparcos
catalogue (ESA 1997), the Julian date ($-$2440000) of the beginning of the
ROSAT exposure, the effective exposure time, the countrate in
channels 41--240 (i.e.\ roughly in the 0.4--2.4\,keV band), and the
offset of the star to the ROSAT pointing direction.
Where applicable we also refer to earlier publication of the ROSAT
observation: $^a$Singh et al. (1996a), $^b$Welty \& Ramsey (1995),
$^c$White et al. (1994), $^d$Yi et al. (1997), $^e$Singh et al. (1996b),
$^f$Bauer \&\ Bregman (1996), $^g$Ortolani et al. (1997).
\label{tabros}}
\begin{tabular}{lllrl@{\hspace{0.05cm}}r}
name & d & JD & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$t_{\mathrm{exp}}$} & ctrate & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\Delta$} \\
& (pc) & & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(s)} &
(s$^{-1}$) & \multicolumn{1}{l}{($\arcmin$)} \\
\\ \hline
\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{{\sc Luminosity class V (Group 1)}} \\
\object{IL Com} & 107$\pm$12 & 8420.575 & 16156 & 0.322(5) & 36 \\
& & 8775.123 & 8345 & 0.126(5) & 36 \\
\object{TZ CrB} & 21.7$\pm$0.5 & 8864.531 & 4267 & 6.072(15) & 0 \\
& & 9003.872 & 5776 & 6.228(11) & 0 \\
& & 8864.595 & 3651 & 6.84(2) & 24 \\
& & 9004.871 & 3151 & 5.41(2) & 24 \\
\object{V772 Her} & 37.7$\pm$1.9 & 9049.117 & 14531 & 1.206(4) & 0 \\
\object{BY Dra} & 16.4$\pm$0.2 & 9247.809 & 9895 & 1.009(7) & 0 \\
\object{V775 Her}$^a$ & 21.4$\pm$0.5 & 9085.714 & 2140 & 1.10(2) & 0 \\
\object{ER Vul} & 49.9$\pm$2.1 & 9148.099 & 1209 & 1.23(3) & 0 \\
\object{KZ And} & 25.3$\pm$4.9 & 8604.712 & 5249 & 0.888(16) & 36 \\
\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{{\sc Luminosity class IV (Group 2)}} \\
\object{V711 Tau} & 29.0$\pm$7 & 8648.446 & 3098 & 6.29(2) & 0 \\
\object{UX Com} & 168$\pm$51 & 8426.486 & 21428 & 0.146(3) & 33 \\
\object{RS CVn} & 108$\pm$12 & 8810.279 & 2526 & 0.336(17) & 44 \\
& & 8991.040 & 6214 & 0.372(11) & 44 \\
& & 8796.874 & 5076 & 0.305(12) & 51 \\
& & 8966.506 & 2904 & 0.366(18) & 51 \\
\object{HR 5110} & 44.5$\pm$1.2 & 8431.422 & 71803 & 2.3152(14) & 44 \\
& & 9158.435 & 37658 & 2.403(3) & 44 \\
\object{SS Boo}$^b$ & 202$\pm$57 & 9030.359 & 10327 & 0.059(2) & 0 \\
\object{RT Lac}$^b$ & 193$\pm$39 & 8789.392 & 8668 & 0.198(5) & 0 \\
\object{AR Lac}$^c$ & 42.0$\pm$1.0 & 8620.767 & 13460 & 1.717(4) & 0 \\
& & 9136.873 & 4892 & 2.902(13) & 0 \\
\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{{\sc Luminosity class III/II (Group 3)}} \\
\object{12 Cam} & 192$\pm$34 & 8322.477 & 3516 & 0.574(13) & 3 \\
\object{$\sigma$ Gem}$^d$ & 37.5$\pm$1.1 & 8346.927 & 4745 & 5.269(14) & 0 \\
& & 8904.569 & 1438 & 3.43(4) & 0 \\
& & 8735.159 & 7940 & 4.753(8) & 0 \\
\object{DK Dra} & 138$\pm$10 & 9272.484 & 4156 & 1.32(2) & 41 \\
\object{$\epsilon$ UMi} & 106$\pm$7.6 & 8328.919 & 14690 & 0.624(6) & 40 \\
\object{DR Dra}$^e$ & 103.$\pm$8.5& 8863.981 & 10576 & 1.554(8) & 31 \\
\object{HR 7428}$^e$ & 323$\pm$53 & 9088.631 & 24889 & 0.112(2) & 0 \\
\object{IM Peg} & 96.8$\pm$7.1 & 8589.200 & 6335 & 1.692(15) & 44 \\
& & 8769.630 & 8150 & 1.422(12) & 44 \\
& & 8973.263 & 22143 & 1.909(4) & 44 \\
\object{$\lambda$ And}$^{f, g}$ & 25.8$\pm$0.5 & 8448.155 & 31165 & 4.077(2) & 0 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\nocite{bauebreg} \nocite{singeaa} \nocite{ortoea} \nocite{whitea}
\nocite{weltrams} \nocite{yielea} \nocite{singeab}
To compare systems at different distances, we multiply the ROSAT
countrate and the flux of the emission cores for each system with
the square of the distance listed in Table~\ref{tabros};
for \object{M$\,$67} we adopt a distance of 850\,pc (Twarog \& Anthony-Twarog 1989).
No corrections are made for interstellar absorption.
The choice of the 0.4--2.4\,keV bandpass minimizes the effects of interstellar
absorption, which are severe at energies $<0.4$\,keV.
As it is unknown which component of the binary emits the X-rays,
we plot the total X-ray and \ion{Ca}{ii} fluxes, adding the contributions
of both components where these are given separately by
Fern\'andez-Figueroa et al.\ (1994).
\nocite{twan}
The resulting 'absolute' countrates and fluxes are shown in Fig.~\ref{xca}.
The \object{M$\,$67} systems with \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission clearly visible in
Fig.~\ref{cahk}, viz.\ S\,1063, S\,1113, S\,1040 and S\,1242
lie on the relation between X-ray and \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission defined
by the RS CVn systems, in agreement with the hypothesis that the
X-ray flux of these objects is related to the magnetic activity.
It is also seen that the upper limits or marginally detected
emission cores in S\,1082, S\,1072 and S\,1237 are high enough
that we cannot exclude the hypothesis that the X-ray emission in these
systems is related to magnetic activity.
The rotational velocity is another indicator of magnetic activity.
We investigate the relation between rotational velocity and Ca emission
by selecting those stars from the sample of
Fern\'andez-Figueroa for which a value of $v\sin i$ is given in
the Catalogue of Chromospherically Active Binary Stars
(Strassmeier et al. 1993).
In Fig.~\ref{vsinica} the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission of these stars
is compared with their $v\sin i$.
In this figure we do discriminate between the separate
contributions of both stars to $F_{\mathrm{Ca}}$, with the
exception of S\,1113 for which we combine the total flux
$F_{\mathrm{Ca}}$ with the $v\sin i$ of the primary.
The \object{M$\,$67} stars are found within the range occupied by
chromospherically active stars. We note that the
correlation between the observed H\&K flux and $v\sin i$ is not tight.
In particular, high and low \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission flux is found at
low values of $v\sin i$. Some of the scatter may be due to the use of
$v\sin i$ instead of the stellar rotation period.
Parameters depending on the spectral type
(e.g. properties of the convective region) have been used
to reduce the scatter in the activity-rotation relation;
whereas this is successful for main-sequence stars with
$0.5\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox {$\sim$} B-V\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox {$\sim$} 0.8$, it fails for other main-sequence stars and
for giants (see discussion in St\c{e}pie\'n 1994). For example,
the three giants \object{33 Psc} (K0 III), \object{12 Cam} (K0 III) and
\object{DR Dra} (K0-2 III)
have $v\sin i$ values of 10, 10 and 8 km s$^{-1}$, respectively, but
differ in $\log d^2 F_{\mathrm{Ca}}$ by three orders of magnitude (see Fig.
\ref{vsinica}).
\nocite{straea} \nocite{step}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=xca_41.ps,width=\columnwidth,angle=-90,clip=t} {\hfil}}
\caption{PSPC countrates in channels 41--240 versus observed \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K
emission flux $F_{\mathrm{Ca}}$ (in erg s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$). Both are
multiplied with the square of the distance (in pc). Open circles are
chromospherically active
binaries from the sample of Fern\'andez-Figueroa (1994). Their size indicates
the luminosity class of the active component. When more
than one PSPC observation
is available, the countrate of the longest exposure is plotted.
Filled symbols are the \object{M\,67}-sources. Triangles indicate upper limits.}
\label{xca}
\end{figure}
\nocite{fernea}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=cafluxvsini.ps,angle=-90,width=\columnwidth,clip=t}
{\hfil}}
\caption{Observed \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission flux $F_{\mathrm{Ca}}$ versus
$v\sin i$. Open circles show the comparison sample of chromospherically
active binaries up to 60 km s$^{-1}$ (Strassmeier et al. 1993 and Fern\'andez-Figueroa 1994).
Their size indicates the luminosity class of the active
star. Vertical bars indicate 1-$\sigma$ errors due to uncertainty in the distance,
for systems with a Hipparcos parallax. \object{M\,67} sources are plotted as filled symbols. \label{vsinica}
}
\end{figure}
\nocite{straea}
\subsection{Activity indicators}
The H$\alpha$ lines ($\lambda$ 6562.76 \AA) of only two stars, S\,1063 and S\,1113, show
clear evidence of emission, as shown in Fig.~\ref{subha}. This is described
in more detail in their individual subsection in Sect.~4.3.
For the other \object{M$\,$67} stars, we have used the few (sub)giants in the library of UES-spectra
of Montes \&\ Mart\'{\i}n (1998) to investigate the behaviour of H$\alpha$.
We have chosen library spectra of stars that match the spectra of the
\object{M$\,$67} stars as closely as
possible (see Fig.~\ref{halpha}).
S\,1072 and S\,1237 show no evidence for filling in of the H$\alpha$ profile compared
to a G0IV--V and a K0III star, respectively. In S\,1040 H$\alpha$ seems slightly filled in compared to
a G8IV and a K0III star. This is also the case for S\,1242 compared to a G0IV-V star, but we note
that no classification for this star is found in literature. For S\,1082, no matching spectrum is
available in this wavelength region.
\nocite{montmart}
Filling in of the lines in the \ion{Mg}{i} b triplet ($\lambda\lambda$
5167.33, 5172.70 and 5183.62 \AA) and in the \ion{Na}{i} D doublet
($\lambda\lambda$ 5889.95 and 5895.92 \AA) is visible in some active stars.
The presence of a \ion{He}{i} D$_3$ ($\lambda$ 5876.56) absorption or
emission feature can also indicate activity (see discussion in
Montes \&\ Mart\'{\i}n (1998) and references therein). However, in none of the
\object{M$\,$67} stars we see filled in \ion{Mg}{i} b and \ion{Na}{i} D lines.
Neither do we see a clear \ion{He}{i} D$_3$ feature.
For S\,1082 (\ion{Mg}{i} b and \ion{Na}{i} D) and S\,1113 (\ion{Mg}{i} b,
\ion{Na}{i} D and \ion{He}{i} D$_3$) we find no suitable library stars for
these features.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=halpha.ps,width=\columnwidth,angle=-90,clip=t} {\hfil}}
\caption{H$\alpha$ profiles of S\,1040, S\,1072, S\,1237 and S\,1242.
Library UES-spectra (Montes \&\ Mart\'{\i}n 1998) are plotted
with a thinner line. The comparison star is a K0III giant (\object{HD\,48432})
for S\,1040 and S\,1237, and a G0IV--V subgiant (\object{HD\,160269})
for the other stars. Position of H$\alpha$ and other lines are indicated
with vertical lines.}
\label{halpha}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Individual systems}
\subsubsection{S\,1063 and S\,1113}
The two stars below the subgiant branch, S\,1063 and S\,1113,
both show relatively strong \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission, and are the
only two stars in our sample showing H$\alpha$ in emission, shown in
Fig.~\ref{subha}.
We use the orbital solutions for both objects to try and identify
the star responsible for these emission lines. The velocities of
both components in S\,1113, and of one component in S\,1063
are indicated in Fig.~\ref{subha}.
The H$\alpha$ line profile of S\,1063 is asymmetric, showing
emission which is blue-shifted with respect to the absorption.
The location of the absorption line is compatible with the velocity
of the primary, which dominates the flux; the emission is probably due
to the secondary.
Remarkably, the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission peak is at the velocity of the
primary. This suggests that the H$\alpha$ emission is not chromospheric
in nature.
The H$\alpha$ emission of S\,1063 does not show the double peak that is
known to indicate accretion disk emission (Horne \&\ Marsh, 1986).
\nocite{hornmars}
In S\,1113 the H$\alpha$ emission profile is symmetric and broad,
with full width at continuum level of 15 \AA.
The emission peak is centered on the more massive star,
which contributes 82\%\ of the total flux (Table~\ref{fluxes}).
This suggests that the H$\alpha$ emission is due to the primary.
The \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission shows marginal evidence for a double
peak, suggesting that both stars contribute to the chromospheric
emission. In Fig.~\ref{subca} we indicate the expected position of
the H\&K lines for both stars. For the phase observed, their peaks overlap
in the crosscorrelation function. In the figure we use the velocities
resulting from fitting the order that gives the 'cleanest' crosscorrelation.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=subha.ps,width=\columnwidth,clip=t}}
\caption{H$\alpha$ in S\,1113 (top), S\,1063 (middle) and comparison giant
S\,1288. The intensity is normalized to the continuum level; the upper two
spectra are displaced vertically by 0.5 and 1 unit. The line marks the radial
velocity shift of the stars as determined by the crosscorrelation; for S\,1113 the
primary (P) and secondary (S) star are separately indicated.}
\label{subha}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=s1113ca.ps,width=\columnwidth,angle=-90,clip=t}}
\caption{\ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission cores in S\,1113. The vertical lines
mark the shifted position of the lines for the primary (P) and secondary (S)
as derived from the crosscorrelation with the radial velocity standard
\object{HD$\,$132737}
(K0III, ESA 1997). Errors are also indicated. The long horizontal lines indicate the upper and lower limit chosen
to determine the emitted \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K flux (see Sect.~3.1).}
\label{subca}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{S\,1072 and S\,1237}
The \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission in the wide binaries S\,1072 and S\,1237
is only marginally significant. The level of their X-ray and \ion{Ca}{ii}
emission is more appropriate for active main-sequence stars (Fig.\ref{xca}).
One might speculate that it is due to the invisible companion of the
giant detected in the crosscorrelation; even if this were the case,
we would not understand why this companion would be chromospherically active.
We conclude that we do not understand why these two stars are X-ray
sources. We find no indication for a faint secondary in the crosscorrelation
profile of S\,1237; at the time of observation, the spectra of two equally
massive stars as suggested by Janes \&\ Smith (1984) would be separated by
4 to 7 km s$^{-1}$ (derived from the ephemeris in Mathieu et al. 1990).
Since the secondary is 1.6 magnitude fainter in V than the primary, we think that
this small separation is compatible with finding a single peak in the
crosscorrelation.
\subsubsection{S\,1242}
S\,1242 is chromospherically active, as shown by its
\ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission.
We suggest that this activity, which also explains the X-rays,
is due to rapid rotation induced by tidal interaction at periastron, which
tries to bring the subgiant into corotation with the orbit at
periastron.
If we assume that the observed period of photometric variability
is the rotation period we derive an inclination of
$\sim$ 9$\degr$ using our maximum value of $v\sin i$ and the estimated
radius. This would be in agreement with a companion
at the high end of the range 0.14--0.94 $M_{\odot}$ allowed by the mass
function (Mathieu et al. 1990).
\subsubsection{S\,1040}
Our detection of clear chromospheric emission indicates that
the X-ray emission of S\,1040 is due to the giant.
The white dwarf has a low temperature, and is unlikely to contribute
to the X-ray flux.
We find a rather slow rotational velocity for the giant, 3\,km s$^{-1}$.
Gilliland et al.\ (1991) detected a periodicity of 7.97 days in
the visual flux (B and V bandpasses) of S\,1040, with an
amplitude of 0.012\,mag.
If this is the rotation period of the giant, the radius of 5.1\,$R_{\sun}$
(Landsman et al.\ 1997) implies an equatorial rotation
velocity of $v=32$\,km s$^{-1}$.
This is compatible with the velocity measured with our crosscorrelation,
$v\sin i$, for an inclination $i\ltap5.3\degr$.
This inclination has an a priori probability less than 0.5\%; and it
implies an unacceptably high mass for the white dwarf, from the
measured mass function $f(m)=0.00268$.
We conclude that the 8\,days period cannot be the rotation period
of the giant.
It is doubtful that the white dwarf can be responsible, as its
contribution to the $B$ and $V$ flux is small.
\subsubsection{S\,1082}
The H$\alpha$ absorption profile of the blue straggler S\,1082
is variable.
If we consider the most symmetric spectrum profile, that of
00:01 UT, as the unperturbed profile of the primary, we find
that the changes are due to extra emission.
This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{s1082ha}.
We suggest that this variation is due to the subluminous companion,
possibly to a wind of that star. We have also investigated the presence
of a broad shallow depression underlying the \ion{Na}{i} D lines (near
$\lambda$ 5895 \AA) and the \ion{O}{i} triplet (near $\lambda$ 7775 \AA)
as found by Mathys (1991). We find that this broad component is variable,
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{s1082na}.
Mathys (1991) suggests that the broad component originates
in the subluminous companion.
This companion outshines the primary by a factor six at $\lambda$ 1500
\AA\, and thus is presumably hot (Landsman et al. 1998).
We note that the star cannot be too hot or it would not show neutral
lines. \nocite{landea98}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=haflux_s1082.ps,angle=-90,width=\columnwidth,clip=t}}
\caption{H$\alpha$ profile for the three exposures of S\,1082.
The spectra are labelled according to the UT at start of the exposure.
For clarity, the lower spectrum is offset with $-0.2 \times 10^{-13}$
erg s$^{-1}$ \AA$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in both figures. The lower panels show
the difference between the first and second (left) and the first and the
third exposure.}
\label{s1082ha}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=s1082na.ps,angle=-90,width=\columnwidth,clip=t}}
\caption{\ion{Na}{i} D lines in S\,1082. Shown from left to right are the
three spectra labelled according to the UT at start of the exposure.
Variability is most clearly seen left of the Na $\lambda$ 5895.92 line.}
\label{s1082na}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
In this paper we have tried to find an explanation for the X-ray emission
of seven sources in \object{M$\,$67}.
For S\,1242 and S\,1040 we have concluded from the \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K
emission cores that magnetic activity is responsible for the X-rays. This is
supported by filling in of H$\alpha$ (see e.g. Montes et al. 1997; Eker et al.
1995). In S\,1242, activity is likely to be triggered by interaction at
periastron in the eccentric orbit. This is also reflected in the period of
photometric variability. For S\,1040, the reason for activity is
less clear. The explanation could involve mass transfer from the precursor of
the white dwarf to the giant and the latter's subsequent expansion during the
giant phase. As was already noted by Landsman et al. (1997), a similar system
is \object{AY Cet}, a binary of a white dwarf of $T_\mathrm{eff}=18\,000$ K
(Simon et al. 1985) and a G5III giant in an 56.8 days circular orbit.
The $v\sin i$ of that giant is also low, 4 km s$^{-1}$, and the long photometric period
of 77.2 days implies asynchronous rotation (Strassmeier et al. 1993). The
X-ray luminosity for \object{AY Cet} is $1.5 \times 10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$
in the 0.2--4 keV band as measured with Einstein by Walter \&\ Bowyer (1981),
somewhat higher than the luminosity of S\,1040.
(With the coronal model discussed by Belloni et al. (1998), the countrate
for S\,1040 corresponds to $5.6 \times 10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the
0.2--4 keV band.)
Walter \&\ Bowyer attribute
the X-rays to coronal activity of the giant.
\nocite{simoea} \nocite{waltbowy} \nocite{ekerea} \nocite{mfea}
The \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission cores in S\,1063 and S\,1113 are very strong.
In S\,1113 we might even see emission
of both stars. Due to the shape of the H$\alpha$ emission we cannot conclude
with certainty that the X-rays arise in an active corona and not in a disk or
stream. The wings in the emission peak of S\,1113 are very broad.
However, Montes et al. (1997) have demonstrated that the excess emission in
the H$\alpha$ lines of the more active binaries is sometimes a composite of a
narrow and broad component, the latter having a full width at half maximum of
up to 470 km s$^{-1}$. They ascribe this broad component to microflaring accompanied
by large scale motions. We note the similarity between S\,1113 and
\object{V711 Tau},
a well known extremely active binary of a G5IV ($v\sin i$ = 13 km s$^{-1}$) and K1IV
($v\sin i = 38$ km s$^{-1}$) star in a 2.84 days circular orbit and a mass ratio 0.79
(Strassmeier et al. 1993); the mass ratio of S\,1113 is 0.70
(Mathieu et al. 1998, in preparation). From the countrate of
\object{V711 Tau} in Table~\ref{tabros}
we find $L_{\mathrm{x}}=6.8 \times 10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the 0.1--2.4 keV band using
the same model as in Belloni et al. (1998) with $N_{H}=0$, which is comparable
to the luminosity of S\,1113 in the same band $L_{\mathrm{x}}=7.3 \times 10^{30}$
erg s$^{-1}$ (Belloni et al. 1998). The H$\alpha$ emission of S\,1063 is more
difficult to explain. As this system is not double-lined, H$\alpha$ emisson by
the (invisible) secondary star would have to be strong to rise above the
continuum of the primary.
\nocite{mfea}
In the binaries S\,1072 and S\,1237 we see no H$\alpha$ emission while
the level of \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission is low in comparison with active
stars of the same luminosity class. We have no explanation for this. For
S\,1072, an option is a wrong identification of the X-ray source with an
optical counterpart. Belloni et al. (1998) give a probability of 43\%
that one or two of their twelve identifications of an X-ray source with a
binary in \object{M$\,$67} is due to chance.
No \ion{Ca}{ii} H\&K emission is seen in the spectrum of the blue straggler
S\,1082. Possibly, the X-ray emission has to do with the hot, subluminous
secondary that could also cause the photometric
variability and whose signature we might have seen in the H$\alpha$ line.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors wish to thank G. Geertsema for her help during our
observations, P. Groot for providing his program to compute projected
rotational velocities with the Fourier-Bessel transformation method and
M. van Kerkwijk for comments on the manuscript. MvdB is supported by
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since its construction the protons and anti-protons used in the
Tevatron Collider have been produced and injected into the Tevatron,
by the Main Ring which was the original 400 GeV proton synchrotron
constructed during the 1970's. The Main Injector is a new 120-150
GeV rapid cycling synchrotron in a tunnel separate from that of the
Tevatron. The Main Injector improves significantly the anti-proton
production capability of the complex. The new 8 GeV permanent magnet
storage ring, the Recycler, in the Main Injector tunnel, permits
reuse of the anti-protons that remain in the Tevatron at the end of
a store. Since most of the luminosity degradation results from beam
dilution rather than anti-proton loss, this effectively doubles the
available anti-protons for collisions.
The greatly increased luminosity of the Tevatron Collider opens up
windows on new physics. The production rate for heavy objects such
as the top quark will be greatly enhanced. Perhaps most strikingly
the increased luminosity may eventually provide sensitivity to the
Higgs boson system which is thought to generate the mass of the
observed particles, the $W$ boson, the $Z$ boson, and the quarks and
leptons.
The Main Injector is constructed with extracted beams that can be
used for fixed target experiments. The operational possibilities are
sufficiently flexible to interleave anti-proton production and fixed
target physics with modest impact on either. One of the primary
uses of the high intensity extracted proton beam will be to produce
a beam of neutrinos which will then be directed towards the Soudan
mine in Minnesota where a distant detector can make measurements on
the evolution of the neutrino species in the beam.
The couplings of the three generations of quarks are described using
the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa flavor mixing matrix. A complete
understanding this matrix does not yet exist. For example, the
violation of Charge-Parity symmetry has been observed in the decay
of neutral long-lived $K^{0}_{L}$ mesons but nowhere else. Kaon
beams from the Main Injector promise key measurements in that
system. The analogous investigation of the $b$-quark system is only
beginning. The collider experiments CDF and D\O\ or/and a new
dedicated experiment, BTeV, have ready access to large numbers of B
hadrons, thus permitting extensive measurements beyond those being made
at electron-positron B factories.
The varieties of physics in these different sectors are all at or
beyond the edge of our theoretical understanding and offer new
insight on our world. In the rest of this paper we explore the
machine and the enabled physics in a little more detail.
\section{The Machine}
The Main Injector is a rapid cycling proton synchrotron with a
circumference half that of the Tevatron. Protons are injected from
the Booster machine to the Main Injector at 8 GeV and are
accelerated to 120 GeV for either extraction to the anti-proton
production target or to an external physics target. For injection of
either protons or anti-protons into the Tevatron, the Main Injector
ramps to 150 GeV.
The machine performance parameters of interest for the particle
physicist are given in Table~\ref{table-miparam}. In mixed modes of
operation, the Main Injector can deliver $2.5$~$10^{13}$ protons to
the experimental target and $5.0$~$10^{12}$ protons to the
anti-proton production target every 2.87 secs. This causes a 15-20\%
reduction of anti-proton production as a result of the increased
cycle time. There are also potential improvements which could
ultimately yield $5-10$~$10^{13}$ protons per cycle.
\begin{table}
\caption{Main Injector Performance Characteristics.}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
&$\overline{p}$ Production &Fast Spill &Slow Spill\\
\tableline
Energy(GeV) &120 &120 &120\\
Protons per Cycle & $5.0$~$10^{12}$ & $3.0$~$10^{13}$ & $3.0$~$10^{13}$ \\
Flat Top(secs)& 0.01 &0.01 &1.00\\
Cycle Time(secs)& 1.47 & 1.87 & 2.87 \
\label{table-miparam}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The Collider luminosity is controlled by the total number of
anti-protons available to accelerate and store. The anti-protons are
produced by the 120 GeV protons incident on a nickel target. The
produced anti-protons are focussed with a Lithium lens and collected
in a debuncher ring at 8 GeV. From the debuncher they are transferred
to the accumulator ring, also at 8 GeV, where they are cooled, thus
producing stored anti-proton bunches. These are transferred to the 8
GeV Recycler ring before acceleration in the Main Injector, and
eventually the Tevatron, to the full energy.
During a store, nuclear collisions cause some attrition while the
beam-beam effects lead to an increase in the emittance of the
beams. This effect dominates the reduction in luminosity over a
period of hours. The effect is most strong on the anti-protons since
the proton bunches are, in general, more intense than those of
anti-protons. At the end of a store, which is usually defined by the
luminosity having dropped to a few tenths of its initial value, the
number of anti-protons has only reduced by a factor of two or
less. These survivors can be decelerated through the Tevatron and
Main Injector and captured in the Recycler. This is an 8 GeV
permanent magnet machine equipped with stochastic cooling. It permits
the recovery of emittances suitable for reinjection into the Tevatron
and thus results in an effective factor of two enhancement to the
number of available anti-protons under normal operation. The Tevatron
Collider will operate with the luminosities indicated in
Table~\ref{table-tevchar}
\begin{table}
\caption{Tevatron Collider Operating Characteristics.}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
&Bunch Spacing(nsec) & Inst. Luminosity($\rm{10^{31} cm^{2} sec^{-1}}$) &Interactions per crossing&Luminous Region(cm)\\
\tableline
Run Ib (1994-6) & 3500 & 1.6\tablenote{This was typical, the absolute record exceeded 2.5 $\rm{10^{31} cm^{2} sec^{-1}}$.} & 1-2 & 30 \\
Run II (2000-3) & 396/132 & 10/20 & 1-2/1-2& 30/15 \\
Run III(2004-7) & 132 & 50 & 5 & 15 \
\label{table-tevchar}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Further enhancements can be expected from the introduction
of electron cooling in the Recycler and from the use of tune
compensation in the Tevatron. A possible accumulation of integrated
luminosity as a function of time is shown in
Table~\ref{table-integL}. Before the full operation of the Large
Hadron Collider at CERN, more than 10~$\rm{fb^{-1}}$ could be
expected.
\begin{table}
\caption{Tevatron Collider Integrated Luminosity.}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccccccc}
Year &2000&2001&2002&2003&2004&2005&2006&2007\\
\tableline
Peak Luminosity($10^{31} cm^{2} sec^{-1}$)& 5 & 10 &20 && 40 & 50 & 50 & 50 \\
Integrated Luminosity($\rm{fb^{-1}}$)&0.5&1.0&2.0&&4.5&5.5&5.5&5.5\\
Accumulated Luminosity($\rm{fb^{-1}}$)&0.5&1.5&3.5&&8.0&13.5&19.0&24.0\
\label{table-integL}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The Main Injector was being commissioned\cite{bd-opspage} at the time
of the conference and that process has gone extremely well. In
particular the machine is being operated with parameter values near
those of the design and with relatively minimal use of correction
elements. As for performance, it is already close to its intensity
and cycle time goals. Meanwhile the Recycler is still in the final
stages of installation. Beam has been passed through a fraction of
its circumference.
\section{The Physics}
\subsection{Neutrino Mixing and mass}
Over the years there have been speculations about whether or not
neutrinos have identically zero mass. If not, one expects the weak
eigenstates states to mix so that a pure beam of neutrinos of one
species will evolve to contain an admixture of neutrinos of one or
more other species. This phenomenon is called neutrino oscillation.
The probability that a transition takes place is proportional to
$\sin^{2}(1.27{\Delta{m}^2}{L}/E)$ where the difference in mass
squared between the two neutrino states, $ {\Delta{m}^2}$, is
measured in $(eV)^{2}$, the path length, L, in kilometres and the
energy, E, in GeV. The strength of the oscillations is usually
described by a factor $\sin^{2}{2\theta}$.
At the present time there are a number of observations\cite{feldman}
from experiments which could be explained had the the neutrinos a
finite mass. However the picture is quite complicated. The
observation of a deficit of neutrinos from the sun suggests
oscillations with very low $ {\Delta{m}^2}$. The experiments
measuring the fluxes of atmospheric neutrinos, including the recent
results from Kamiokande\cite{superkhere}, suggest
${\Delta{m}^2}\simeq 10^{-3} - 10^{-2}(eV)^{2}$ with maximal
strength. The LSND experiment at Los Alamos has observed a hint of
oscillations with $ {\Delta{m}^2}\simeq 10^{-2} - 10^{0}(eV)^{2}$
with $\sin^{2}{2\theta}$ as low as $10^{-3}$. These observations are
indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig-allhints}\cite{conrad_ichep}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip -0.5 cm
\centerline{\epsfxsize 2.8 truein \epsfbox{montallhints_bare.ps}}
\vskip -1.0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-allhints}
\small Hints of neutrino oscillations from present measurements. Note that the most recent atmospheric measurements, reported at this conference, suggest a region of ${\Delta{m}^2}$ somehwat higher than indicated in this figure from the summer of 1998. }
\end{figure}
The NuMI project, Neutrinos at the Main Injector, will construct a
neutrino beam with energies peaking in the 10-25 GeV range. These
neutrinos will be directed at two detectors, one on the Fermilab
site, the other 740 km further north in the Soudan mine in Minnesota,
see Fig.~\ref{fig-numimap}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 1.9 truein \epsfbox{montminosmap.eps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-numimap}
\small Map indicating the trajectory of the neutrino beam from Fermilab to the Soudan mine in Minnesota. Inset at the bottom is a ``section'' of the earth showing the penetration of the neutrino trajectories through the earth's crust.}
\end{figure}
The MINOS experiment\cite{minos_expt}, Main Injector Neutrino
Oscillation, will comprise two detectors one on the Fermilab site
which monitors the neutrino beam interactions close to the source and
one at the Soudan mine. The far detector sketched in
Fig.~\ref{fig-minosfardet} will consist of iron toroid plates and
solid scintillator sheets. The goals of the experiment are
unequivocally to observe the oscillations indicated by the
SuperKamiokande and other experiments and to identify the mode(s) of
oscillation. Neutral current events are distinguished from charged
current events using measurements of the shapes of the neutrino
induced showers. This technique gives some promise of positive
identification of oscillations into $\nu_{\tau}$. This capability
could be enhanced by a supplementary emulsion detector should the
existing measurements continue to suggest that the $\nu_{\tau}$ mode
is the relevant one. The sensitivity of the experiment is primarily
at high values of $\sin^{2}{2\theta}$ and with $ {\Delta{m}^2}\ge
10^{-3}(eV)^{2}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vskip -11.5 cm
\centerline{\epsfxsize 3.3 truein \epsfbox{montfardet_rot.ps }}
\vskip 9.5 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-minosfardet}
\small Layout of the MINOS ``Far Detector'' which will be situated in the Soudan mine.}
\end{figure}
The mini-BooNE experiment\cite{boone}, Booster Neutrino Experiment,
is not a Main Injector experiment. Rather it uses protons from the 8
GeV proton Booster machine to generate low energy neutrinos. Using an
apparatus derived from that of LSND and situated about 1 km from the
source, it aims definitively to cover that region of parameter space
corresponding to the LSND observations. The systematic uncertainties
would be significantly different from those of LSND.
\subsection{Physics of the Kaon System}
The Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa(CKM) matrix has nine elements that can
be described using four real parameters of which one is a phase
angle. In turn, if the matrix is unitary, these parameters can be
represented by a triangles. The lengths of the sides are controlled
by the various transition amplitudes. The magnitude of
Charge-Parity(CP) symmetry violation is controlled by the phase
angle. This description of the quarks and their couplings may or may
not hold in nature. It is one of the highest priorities of high
energy physics to explore the CKM matrix in more detail and to
determine whether or not the conjectures about its properties are
true.
At present the single indication of CP symmetry violation, which is
what requires the complex matrix element, occurs in the $K^{0}_{L}$
system\cite{blucher}. At present CP violation has not been observed
in any other system containing strange quarks nor yet definitively
observed in the $b$-quark sector\cite{cdf-sin2beta}.
The conditions for existence of CP violation in any given system may
be quite involved. In the $K^{0}_{L}$ system, for example, at the
time of the conference it was still possible for the observed CP
violation to be completely described by the mixing effects which are
controlled by the parameter $\epsilon$. The search is for CP
violation in the decay, `` direct CP violation'', which is controlled
by the parameter $\epsilon$'. The new
measurement\cite{blucher,ktev_new}, which appeared since the time of
the conference, give $\cal{R}e(\epsilon$'/$\epsilon)$$\simeq (28 \pm
4)\times10^{-4}$
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 5.5 truein \epsfbox{montburas_triangle.ps}}
\vskip -.2 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-burasfig}
\small The Unitarity Triangle associated with the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa flavor mixing matrix and the measurements possible in the kaon system.}
\end{figure}
In order to make progress, thoughts have turned to other
possibilities\cite{cooper-kaons}. A version\cite{buras} of the
unitarity triangle is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-burasfig}. In principle
it is possible to over-constrain the triangle and hence to test the
theory using only measurements with kaons. As indicated, a
measurement of the branching fraction for
$K^{0}_{L}\rightarrow\pi^{0}\nu\overline{\nu}$ would directly
constrain the height of the triangle while a similar measurement of
the charged decay $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\overline{\nu}$
determines the radius of an arc which should also pass through the
apex of the triangle, if the theory is correct.
The charged kaon decay has been sought\cite{bnl-kaplus} at Brookhaven
national Laboratory in the decays of stopped kaons with one event
observed. Recently a proposal\cite{fnal-kaplus}, the ``CKM''
experiment, has been made to use decays in flight. The apparatus is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-ckmexp}; the beam would be a 22 GeV
radiofrequency-separated beam of charged kaons at the Main
Injector. It is interesting to look carefully at the aspect ratio of
the experiment. It is very long and very narrow approximating an
instrumented sewer pipe. The goal is to fully identify and measure
the incident kaon and the outgoing charged pion, the only two
measurable particles in the process.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 4.4 truein \epsfbox{montckm_apparatus.ps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-ckmexp}
\small Layout of the CKM Experiment.}
\end{figure}
The equivalent neutral kaon experiment\cite{fnal-kami}, ``KaMI'',
which would search for $K^{0}_{L}\rightarrow\pi^{0}\nu\overline{\nu}$
could be derived from the KTeV experiment making the recent
measurements of $\epsilon$'/$\epsilon$ at Fermilab. The key elements
are the electromagnetic calorimeter and the photon vetos which are
crucial to the background suppression. As with the charged kaon
decay, this would be a very difficult measurement.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 4.4 truein \epsfbox{montkami_app.ps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-kamiexp}
\small Layout of the KAMI Experiment}
\end{figure}
Completing the suite of kaon proposals is the ``CPT''
Experiment\cite{fnal-cpt}. The goal is to measure CP violation in a
number of modes especially in $K^{0}_{S}$ decays. It also gives the
opportunity to measure the phase of the charged pion decays which in
conjunction with the measurement of $\epsilon$'/$\epsilon$ gives a
check on CPT symmetry with a sensitivity which corresponds to the
Planck scale. It should be noted, see Fig.~\ref{fig-cptexp}, that
since it is necessary to measure the interference terms between
$K^{0}_{L}$ and $K^{0}_{S}$, the apparatus would be significantly
shorter than either of the other two experiments. The $K^{0}$ beam is
derived from the same RF-separated $K^{+}$ beam that is used for the
``CKM'' experiment.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 2.5 truein \epsfbox{montcpt_detector.eps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-cptexp}
\small Layout of the CPT Experiment.}
\end{figure}
\samepage
\subsection{Physics of the B System}
In order to access large numbers of $b$ quarks at Fermilab, it is
necessary to turn to the Tevatron Collider. The existing two
detectors, CDF, see Fig.~\ref{fig-cdf}, and D\O\, see
Fig.~\ref{fig-d0}, are being upgraded for operation in the Main
Injector era. The upgrades\cite{cdf-upgrade,d0-upgrade} are extensive
and are driven by the physics goals and by the changed operating
characteristics of the Tevatron; the decreased spacing between bunch
crossings has forced a rework of all the front-end eleectronic
systems to introduce pipelines. A particular region of improvement is
in the tracking in which each detector is being substantially
modified. D\O\ has installed a central solenoid and both experiments
are constructing new outer trackers. The inner, silicon, systems will
have upward of 600,000 channels each. These will provide high quality
$b$-quark tagging and B meson reconstruction. In addition to
enhancing the B-physics capabilities, $b$-quark tagging is recognised
as an important tool in the exploration of and search for higher mass
states. This was demonstrated in top-quark physics and is expected to
be true for Higgs, SUSY or technicolor states.
\begin{figure}[h]
\vskip 0.2 cm
\centerline{\hspace{3cm}\epsfxsize 5.5 truein \epsfbox{montcdf_side.eps}}
\vskip 0.5 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-cdf}
\small The upgraded CDF detector. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\hspace{1.5in}\epsfxsize 6.0 truein \epsfbox{montd0detect_tomd.ps}}
\vskip -2 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-d0}
\small The upgraded D\O\ apparatus. }
\end{figure}
The physics which will be addressed by CDF and D\O\ is wide ranging.
In later sections electroweak studies and physics beyond the standard
model will be addressed but in this section we will concentrate on B
physics. Recent results from CDF presage a bright future for the
general purpose detectors at the Tevatron and for B physics at hadron
colliders more generally. There is also an initiative to consider a
dedicated detector\cite{btev-proposal}.
The BTeV proposal is motivated by the enormous production rate for
$b$ quarks and the potential of a detector which accentuates the
forward and backward directions in order to exploit the favorable
mapping of rapidity to solid angle and to benefit from the relatively
larger decay lengths for $b$ quarks of a given transverse
momentum. The planned detector is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-btev}. It
consists of two spectrometer arms. Each arm is equipped with a
silicon detector system inside the beam pipe and ring imaging
Cherenkov counters. It is expected that the latter will be especially
important.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 4.4 truein \epsfbox{montbtev.eps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-btev}
\small The BTeV apparatus. }
\end{figure}
If the standard model is correct, the same triangle in Fig.~\ref{fig-burasfig} should describe the $b$-quark
system. Measurements of the CP violating asymmetry in the decay $ B
\rightarrow J/\psi K^{0}_{S}$ would determine $\sin 2\beta$. The
recent measurement\cite{cdf-sin2beta} from CDF finds $\sin
2\beta=0.79_{-0.44}^{+0.41}$ suggesting a positive value at about
the 90\% C.L. A feature of this measurement is the use of several
different flavor tagging techniques. With approximately
2$\rm{fb^{-1}}$ and the upgraded detectors, the uncertainty on $\sin
2\beta$ will be reduced below 0.1 for each experiment. Similar
uncertainties are projected for $\sin 2\alpha$ although the interpretation for this case is considered to be more difficult. Measurement of the third angle, $\gamma$, will be a challenge.
During the last year, there have been a number of results from CDF
on various aspects of higher mass B hadron states. The measurements
of $B_s$ mixing\cite{cdf_b_s} are competitive with those from LEP
and SLD. Extrapolating to Run II, we expect sensitivities in the
range $x_s \ge 25$ from each experiment thus comfortably covering
the expected range. The observation\cite{cdf_b_c} of the $B_c$ meson
has further demonstrated that sophisticated studies of B physics are
possible at a hadron collider. One should note that the final state
used for this observation was semi-leptonic. Despite the incomplete
reconstruction the backgrounds were manageable. Given the enormous
rates, the Tevatron is arguably the best place to do B physics.
This is especially true for states which are not decay products of
the $\Upsilon_{4S}$ and are therefore difficult to access with an
electron-positron B factory.
\subsection{Electroweak Physics}
The hadron colliders have for some time contributed to the suite of
measurements which provide stringent cross-checks of the electroweak
model. The initial measurements from the CERN $Sp\overline{p}S$
observation of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons paved the way. The current
measurements\cite{wmass_measurements} from the Tevatron keep pace in
precision with those from LEP and at each new level of precision we
see ways to constrain the details of the production measurements
from the data themselves. For example in the recent D\O\ measurement
it was found that the constraint from the rapidity distribution of
the bosons is only marginally weaker than that from the parton
distribution function measurements from the worlds experiments. The
current errors are 80-90 MeV per experiment. Already the latter are
strongly influenced by measurements of the $W$ asymmetry at the
Tevatron. The constraints from the data themselves will scale with
statistics to higher integrated luminosity. This means that the
current estimates of about 40 MeV per channel and per experiment are
indeed possible.
\begin{figure}[]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 2.6 truein \epsfbox{montmarcel_wmass_linear.eps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-wmassevol}
\small Expected evolution of the precision of a measurement of the $W$-boson mass at the Tevatron Collider. }
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Uncertainties in a single experiment top mass determination.}
\begin{tabular}{l|cc}
Uncertainty(GeV) & Run I & Run II\\
\tableline
Statistical& 5.6 & 1.3 \\
\tableline
Jet Energy Calibration & 4.0 & 0.4 \\
Gluon ISR/FSR & 3.1 & 0.7 \\
Detector Noise etc & 1.6 & 0.4 \\
Fit Procedure & 1.3 & 0.3 \\
\tableline
All Systematic & 5.5 & 0.9 \\
\tableline
Total & 7.8 & 1.6 \
\label{table-topmass}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
This kind of evolution as expressed in an earlier
study\cite{tev2000} is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig-wmassevol}.
That study considered particularly the effects of the underlying
event on the technique which uses the transverse mass of the event
(lepton plus neutrino) as the primary measure of the boson
mass. This leads to a relative deterioration as the number of
interactions per bunch crossing increases. What is also shown is the
subsequent evolution as we decrease the bunch spacing in the machine
to 132 nsecs. Fora given luminosity this decreases the number of
interactions per crossing. We are also learning to take advantage of
all the measures of the boson mass, the lepton transverse momentum,
and the neutrino transverse momentum. It is gratifying that this
projection made some four years ago holds good through the 100
$\rm{pb}^{-1}$ of data from which the recent measurements are
derived.
A very powerful newcomer to precision measurements is the top
mass. It enters into the electroweak parameters through its dominance
of the quark loops. From the existing data, the 3\% uncertainty makes
the top-quark mass the best known of all quark masses. The 5 GeV
uncertainty in the top-quark mass is equivalent to about 30 MeV
uncertainty in the $W$ mass in terms of its its sensitivity to the
Higgs mass.. Currently the dominant error\cite{topmasserrors} comes
from the calibration of the jets. Recently CDF observed the
$Z\rightarrow b\overline{b}$ decay. Extrapolating to the luminosities
and upgraded detectors with silicon track triggers to enhance the
sensitivity to this channel, a very precise calibration of the jet
energies becomes possible. This will be used in conjunction with the
$W$-boson decays to jets which are present in the top signal data
themselves. The resulting evolution of a single experiment in the
lepton-plus-jets channel is illustrated in
Table~\ref{table-topmass}. An uncertainty of less than 2 GeV appears
to be possible.
A number of other electroweak studies are possible including the
comparison of the $W$ width as determined by direct and indirect
methods and a study of the $Z$ asymmetry. The latter may serve
either as a determination of $\sin^{2}\theta_{W}$ for the light
quarks or another constraint on the parton distribution
functions. Taken together, the masses of the $W$ boson and the top
quark lead to constraints on the mass of the Higgs boson either in
the standard model or in the supersymmetric variants. This is
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig-mwmt} where, in the plane of the $W$
mass and the top-quark mass, the various measurements including the
latest from CDF and D\O\ at the Tevatron. We can anticipate that
these indirect measurements will determine the Higgs mass to about
50\% of its value.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 4.0 truein \epsfbox{montmwmt3mar99.eps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-mwmt}
\small $M_{W}$ versus $M_{t}$. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Physics beyond the Standard Model}
There are as many searches for new physics as can be generated by
the imagination of physicists. In the search for compositeness,
structure, higher mass bosons, leptoquarks, the present limits are
in the few-hundred-GeV range. With $2~\rm{fb}^{-1}$ these searches
will be sensitive close to the 1 TeV range. Indirect searches as
exemplified by the measurement of the Drell-Yan, lepton pair cross
section and the dijet mass spectrum, are sensitive, through possible
contact terms to the 5 TeV range.
\begin{figure}[]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 3.3 truein \epsfbox{monttechnicolor.ps} }
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-technicolor}
\small Mass spectra expected for technicolor signals for the $\pi_{T}$ and the $\rho_{T}$ .}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Technicolor}
A longstanding candidate to explain the origin of electroweak
symmetry breaking is a new strong interaction, technicolor, analogous
to QCD. Such a strong interaction would lead to massive electroweak
bosons in a manner analogous to the way the masses of the pion and
$\rho$ meson are generated by QCD. There are complications with the
simplest forms of such a theory but
variations\cite{technicolorsummary} of the original scheme continue
to be explored.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Mass ranges covered for a $5\sigma$ discovery in SUSY models.}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|cc}
Model & SUSY Particle & Run I( 0.1 $fb^{-1}$ & Run II(2.0 $fb^{-1}$\\
& & Mass Limit(GeV) & Mass Limit(GeV) \\
\tableline
SUGRA &&\\
\tableline
& $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ & 70\tablenote{95\% CL.} & 210 \\
& $\tilde{g}$ & 270\tablenote{95\% CL.} & 390 \\
& $\tilde{t}_{1}(\rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$& & 170 \\
\tableline
GMSB&&\\
\tableline
& $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$ & & 265 \\
& $\tilde{\tau}$ & & 120 \
\label{table-susy}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The production cross section for the some of the states can be quite
substantial\cite{womestilane}. Analysis of Monte Carlo simulations of
technicolor signals using a basic signature of a $W$, seen through its
leptonic decay, along with two jets gives a dijet mass spectrum as
shown in the upper plot of Fig.~\ref{fig-technicolor}. Some
topological requirements are then applied and a $b$-quark tag is
requested. This leads to the middle of the three plots. The dijet
spectrum clearly shows an excess which corresponds to the technipion
decaying to two $b$-quark jets. In the bottom plot, the mass of the
combined $W$ boson and the two-jet system shows a peak over background
corresponding to the technirho. Once again the importance of $b$-quark
tagging techniques is demonstrated.
\subsubsection{SUSY}
The mainstream of theoretical thinking with respect to the physics of
electroweak symmetry breaking and the physics above 100 GeV is
dominated by those who consider that supersymmetry, SUSY, should play
a strong role. SUSY comes in may guises but always leads to a
proliferation of postulated particles differing in spin by one half
unit with respect to the ``standard particles''. Thus there is a
spin-one-half gluino, the partner of the gluon, a spin-one-half
photino, the partner of the photon and a host of squarks and
sleptons. The simplest assumption is that these sparticles can only
be produced in pairs, a restriction that is usually formulated as
conservation of a quantum number R-parity.
Given R-parity conservation there is always a stable lightest
supersymmetric partner(LSP) which is neutral in most theories. This
leads to the presence of missing transverse energy as the most
generic of SUSY indicators. As with technicolor, the use of $b$-quark
tagging also can be a useful discriminator against background. Since
we have not seen supersymmetric partners with the same masses as the
ordinary particles, SUSY, if it exists must be a broken symmetry. The
mechanism by which it is broken at very high mass scales
distinguishes different models. Very commonly considered is the super
gravity(SUGRA) class. In the last few years, alternatives such as
gauge mediated models(GMSB) have been prominent. The latter are
characterised by the gravitino($\tilde{G}$) being the LSP and
cascades of decays such as $\chi_{1}^{0}\rightarrow \gamma\tilde{G}$
which generate final states with one or more photons and missing
transverse energy.
As indicated in Table~\ref{table-susy}, the present limits for
different sparticles range up to a couple of hundred GeV for some but
around 100 GeV for others. The afficionados of SUSY tend to expect
that it would appear with sparticle masses in the range below 1 TeV
if it is to be relevant to the electroweak symmetry breaking
problem. The recent studies\cite{susy_summary}, also summarised in
Table~\ref{table-susy} suggest that with 2 $\rm{fb^{-1}}$ of integrated
luminosity, these ranges can be considerably extended to cover a
large fraction of the ``interesting'' region.
\subsection{ The Higgs Boson}
Without looking beyond the physics of the standard model, it is
necessary to postulate some mechanism to break the electroweak
symmetry and to give mass to the $W$ and $Z$ bosons. The simplest
thing to do is to assume a single complex Higgs field which in turn
leads to a single neutral Higgs boson. As we have seen earlier the
mass of such an object is predicted through the radiative corrections
to the electroweak parameters and with the mass of the top quark and
that of the W boson measured we should find the Higgs boson at the
appropriate place.
The search for the standard-model Higgs boson is the most widely used
benchmark for the potential of planned collider experiments. Recent
studies\cite{susyrun2} have put the estimates for the Tevatron
Collider experiments, D\O\ and CDF, on a more solid footing. While
gluon-gluon fusion has the highest Higgs production cross section,
the associated , $WH$ and $ZH$, production channels offer distinctive
experimental signatures through the leptonic decays of the bosons and
have received much attention. The $b\overline{b}$ decay of the Higgs
also adds powerful discrimination especially at low masses, below
about 130 GeV, where that decay dominates. A more thorough study of
the channels involving $b$-quark tagging was conducted. Further, the
use of the $WW$ decay modes in conjunction with the dominant
gluon-gluon fusion has been reconsidered\cite{turcothan}. The
branching fractions for the latter rise strongly, see
Fig.~\ref{fig-higgsbr}, with increasing Higgs mass and also are
distinctive experimentally.
The combined sensitivity for all channels and two experiments is shown
in Fig.\ref{fig-higgsensitivity}. The figure shows the required
luminosity to obtains a signal at different levels of significance,
$5~\sigma$, $3~\sigma$, and the 95\% exclusion limit, as a function of
Higgs mass. We see that with both experiments and 30 $fb^{-1}$ of
luminosity for each experiment the sensitivity extends up to Higgs
massses of 190 GeV. If the Higgs does not exist in this mass region,
with 10 $fb^{-1}$ this whole region could be excluded experimentally
at the 90\% C.L.
\begin{figure}[]
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\centerline{\epsfxsize 2.43 truein \epsfbox{montsm_higgs_xsec.ps} \epsfxsize 2.2 truein \epsfbox{monthbr_ffbar.ps}\epsfxsize 2.2 truein \epsfbox{monthbr_bosons.ps} }
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-higgsbr}
\small Higgs-boson production cross sections and branching fractions for fermions and bosons as a function of Higgs-boson mass.}
\end{figure}
Other studies concentrated on the extensions of the Higgs sector, in
particular the SUSY-Higgs two-doublet model. There are three neutral
and two charged Higgs states and, depending on the value of the ratio
of the vacuum expectation values of the two doublets, very strong
coupling of the Higgs to the $b$-quark may be expected. Again the
r$\rm{\hat{o}}$le of the $b$-quark tagging is important and similar
sensitivities to the SUSY Higgs are achieved as in the
standard-model-Higgs case.
As we discussed earlier, an integrated luminosity of 20-30 $fb^{-1}$
before the startup of the LHC is anticipated. There is a
considerable challenge for the experiments but even the fierce
conditions may be mitigated by operating the machine in such a way as
to maintain the instantaneous luminosity at or less than $5. \times
{10^{32}} cm^{2} sec^{-1} $.
It is clear that maximizing the exploitation of the Tevatron Collider
to search for the Higgs and other new high-mass physics should be one
of the highest priorities of the U.S. high energy physics program.
\begin{figure}[]
\centerline{\epsfxsize 3.0 truein \epsfbox{montmh_cmbned_prel.ps}}
\vskip 0 cm
\caption[]{
\label{fig-higgsensitivity}
\small Luminosity required as a function of Higgs mass to achieve different levels of sensitivity to the standard-model Higgs boson.From the upper curve corresponds to a $5~\sigma$ discovery, the middle a $3~\sigma$ signal and the lower a 95\% exclusion limit. These limits require two experiments, Bayesian statistics are used to combine the channels and include the improved sensitivity which would come from multivariate analysis techniques.}
\end{figure}
\section{The Experimental Program}
We have seen in the above discussion that the physics reach of the
accelerator complex which we label with its newest component, The
Fermilab Main Injector, is phenomenal and diverse. Full exploitation
of every aspect could swallow resources in excess of what appears to
be available. The attempts to construct a realistic program has so
far left the various components in states of varying certitude. While
some pieces are well on their way to completion of construction
others remain glints in the eyes of the proponents. In order to give
a sense of perspective, I have chosen to give the briefest of
summaries of the status of each of the components of the Main
Injector physics program.
\begin{itemize}
\item The Main Injector: the commissioning of the machine is well
advanced; the ancillary Recycler storage ring will be completed in
the coming months.
\item The Tevatron Collider and the CDF and D\O\ Detectors: the
Tevatron will operate in fixed target mode during 1999 and will
convert to collider operations for early 2000. The upgrades of the two
detectors CDF and D\O\ are in the middle of construction and
completion and roll-in is expected in 2000.
\item The NuMI Project: the project has approval from the appropriate
authorities and a baseline for the scope, cost, funding and schedule
has been approved by a Department of Energy review with funds for
civil construction allocated.
\item The mini-BooNe Experiment: this initial phase of a potentially
longer program is an approved experiment expected to run in 2002.
\item The Kaon-CP Violation experiments: these experiments, labelled,
CKM, CPT and KaMI, have submitted proposals or letters of intent to
the laboratory; research and development projects associated with
different aspects of them have been established.
\item The dedicated collider-B Experiment, BTeV: a letter of intent
has been submitted and an experimental hall has been constructed; a
research and development program is under way.
\item A 120 GeV QCD Program: a number of groups have submitted
proposals\cite{meson120} in response to the potential offered by
extracted hadron beams from the the Main Injector. The primary thrust
of such a program would be to emphasize QCD studies. Thus far there
is no action on these proposals.
\end{itemize}
\section{Conclusions}
The Main Injector enables a phenomenally broad and imposing array of
physics and we, the field, must be wise in choosing which pieces to
emphasize. Many physicists are determined to exploit the
potential of this program. I am very excited to be among those
physicists.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The talk and this paper could not have been produced with out the
help many. Included among those people are Franco Bedeschi, Ed
Blucher, Amber Boehnlein, Greg Bock, Janet Conrad, Peter Cooper,
Marcel Demarteau, Gene Fisk, Al Goshaw, Paul Grannis, Steve Holmes,
Zoltan Ligeti, John Marriner, Shekhar Mishra, Meenakshi Narain, Adam
Para, Ron Ray, Maria Roco, Ken Stanfield, Gordon Thomson, Andre
Turcot, Harry Weerts, Bruce Winstein, Stan Wojcicki and John
Womersley who were kind enough to provide input and/or to read a
draft version of the paper. To them should go the credit for the
content, to me the blame for errors. This work was supported by the
U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-76CHO3000.
|
\section{Introduction}
Since faint nebulosity around quasars was discovered (Matthews \& Sandage 1963; Sandage \& Miller 1966),
morphological studies of QSO host galaxies
have revealed
the evolutionary
link between the formation of QSO hosts and the activation of QSO nucleus
(Hutchings et al. 1982;
Malkan 1984;
Margon, Downes, \& Chanan 1984;
Smith et al. 1986;
Heckman et al. 1991).
Photometric and spectroscopic studies of QSO hosts furthermore
provided valuable clues to the nature of stellar populations of QSO host
(MacKenty \& Stockton 1984; Boronson, Perrson, \& Oke 1985;
Stockton \& Rigeway 1991; Dunlop et al. 1993; McLeod \& Rieke 1994).
One of the most remarkable observational evidences is
that galaxy interaction and merging can trigger the nuclear activities
of QSOs (Stockton 1982; Hutchings \& Campbell 1983; Stockton \& Mackenty1983;
Hutchings \& Neff 1992; Bahcall et al. 1997).
In particular, the recent high-resolution morphological studies of
QSO host galaxies by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
and large grand-based ones found
that a sizable fraction of QSO hosts have close companion galaxies
likely to be interacting or merging with the hosts (Bahcall et al. 1995; Disney et al 1995).
Although these observational studies strongly suggest that close companion galaxies
in QSO hosts play a vital role in triggering QSO activities (Bahcall et al. 1995),
it is still theoretically unclear why QSO host galaxies so frequently have
companions and how QSO activities are physically associated
with the formation and the evolution of such companion galaxies.
In this Letter,
we numerically investigate both gas fueling to
the seed black holes located in the central part of two
disks in a gas-rich merger and the morphological evolution
of the merger in order to
present a plausible interpretation on the origin
of small companion galaxies frequently observed in QSO host galaxies.
We here demonstrate that the observed QSO companion galaxies are
formed in the outer part of strong tidal tails during gas-rich major galaxy merging
and then become self-gravitating compact galaxies orbiting elliptical
galaxies formed by merging.
We furthermore demonstrate that such companion galaxies are located
within a few tens kpc of elliptical galaxies when efficient gas fueling
to the central seed QSO black holes continues.
We thus suggest that both the formation of QSO companion galaxies
and the activation of QSO nucleus
result from one physical process of gas-rich major galaxy merging.
We furthermore discuss whether such companion galaxies formed in QSO hosts
can finally become compact elliptical galaxies that are frequently
observed in the present-day bright massive galaxies.
\section{Model}
We construct models of galaxy mergers between gas-rich
disk galaxies with equal mass by using Fall-Efstathiou model (1980).
The total mass and the size of a progenitor disk are $M_{\rm d}$
and $R_{\rm d}$, respectively.
From now on, all the mass and length are measured in units of
$M_{\rm d}$ and $R_{\rm d}$, respectively, unless specified.
Velocity and time are
measured in units of $v$ = $ (GM_{\rm d}/R_{\rm d})^{1/2}$ and
$t_{\rm dyn}$ = $(R_{\rm d}^{3}/GM_{\rm d})^{1/2}$, respectively,
where $G$ is the gravitational constant and assumed to be 1.0
in the present study.
If we adopt $M_{\rm d}$ = 6.0 $\times$ $10^{10}$ $ \rm M_{\odot}$ and
$R_{\rm d}$ = 17.5 kpc as a fiducial value, then $v$ = 1.21 $\times$
$10^{2}$ km/s and $t_{\rm dyn}$ = 1.41 $\times$ $10^{8}$ yr,
respectively.
In the present model, the rotation curve becomes nearly flat
at 0.35 $R_{\rm d}$ with the maximum rotational velocity $v_{\rm m}$ = 1.8 in
our units.
The corresponding total mass $M_{\rm t}$ and halo mass $M_{\rm h}$
are 5.0 and 4.0 in our units, respectively.
The radial ($R$) and vertical ($Z$) density profile
of a disk are assumed to be
proportional to $\exp (-R/R_{0}) $ with scale length $R_{0}$ = 0.2
and to ${\rm sech}^2 (Z/Z_{0})$ with scale length $Z_{0}$ = 0.04
in our units,
respectively.
The Toomre's parameter (\cite{bt87}) for the initial disks is
set to be 1.2.
The collisional and dissipative nature
of the interstellar medium is modeled by the sticky particle method
(\cite{sch81}).
Star formation
is modeled by converting the collisional
gas particles
into collisionless new stellar particles according to
the Schmidt law (Schmidt 1959)
with the exponent of 2.0.
The initial gas mass fraction ($f_{\rm g}$) is considered to be a free parameter ranging
from 0.1 (corresponding to a gas poor disk) to 0.5 (a very gas-rich one).
We here present the result of the model with $f_{\rm g}=0.5$, because
this model most clearly shows the typical behavior of QSO companion formation.
The dependence of the details of QSO companion formation on $f_{\rm g}$ will be
described by our future paper (Bekki 1999).
The orbital plane of a galaxy merger is assumed to be the same as $xy$ plane
and the initial distance between the center of mass of merger progenitor
disks is 8.0 in our units (140 kpc).
Two disks in the merger are assumed to encounter each other parabolically
with the pericentric distance of 1.0 in our units (17.5 kpc).
The intrinsic spin vector of one galaxy in a merger is exactly parallel with $z$ axis
whereas that of the other is tilted by ${30}^{\circ}$ from $z$ axis.
The present study describes the QSO companion formation
only for a nearly prograde-retrograde merger in which only
one intrinsic spin vector of a merger progenitor galaxy is nearly parallel with orbital
spin vector of the merger.
The dependence of the details of QSO companion formation processes on the initial
orbital configurations of galaxy mergers will be given by Bekki (1999).
The number of particles used in a simulation
is 20000 for dark halo components, 20000 for stellar ones,
and 20000 for gaseous ones.
All the calculations including the dissipative and dissipationless
dynamics and star formation
have been carried out on the GRAPE board
(\cite{sug90})
at Astronomical Institute of Tohoku University.
The parameter of gravitational softening is set to be fixed at 0.03
in all the simulations.
By using this merger model, we firstly investigate
morphological and dynamical evolution of a gas-rich major
galaxy merger with a particular emphasis on the
formation of close small companions (dwarf-like galaxy) in the merger.
Secondly, we investigate when and how QSO activities are triggered
by major galaxy merging by counting total mass of interstellar gas accumulated within
the central 100 pc of a galaxy merger.
In order to estimate the gas mass in a explicitly self-consistent manner,
we initially place a collisionless particle with the mass equal to $3.0 \times {10}^{6}$
in the mass center of a disk and regard this particle as a `seed black hole'.
We then investigate both the time evolution of the orbit of the seed black hole and the total gas mass
transferred to the central 100 pc around the black hole.
Here we hypothetically assume that interstellar gas transferred to the central 100 pc around the seed black hole
can be furthermore fueled to the central sub-pc region where a massive black hole
gravitationally dominates and utilizes gas falling onto the accretion disk for a QSO activity.
The reason for our adopting this assumption is that we regard
a certain mechanism for gas fueling to the sub-pc region, such as the so-called
`bars within bars'
proposed by Shlosman, Frank, \& Begelman (1989), as being occurred
naturally in the high-density self-gravitating central regions of galaxy mergers.
The above two-fold investigation just allows us to address questions as to
when and how galaxy merging not only forms small companions but also triggers QSO nuclear activities.
\placefigure{fig-1}
\placefigure{fig-2}
\section{Result}
Figure 1 describes how a QSO companion galaxy is formed by gas-rich major
galaxy merging. As two gas-rich disks merge to form a tidal tail composed
of gas and stars (the time $T$ = 1.1 Gyr), the stellar components in the tail first collapse to form
a self-gravitating dwarf-like object. Gaseous components are then swept
into the deep gravitational potential well of the dwarf galaxy
to form a massive gaseous clump owing to the enhanced gaseous dissipation in
the shocked region of the tidal tail and the dwarf.
Star formation proceeds very efficiently in the
high density gas clump,
and consequently new stellar components are formed in the dwarf galaxy ($T$ = 1.7 Gyr).
The physical processes of the dwarf galaxy formation in the present star-forming
galaxy merger are essentially the same as those described by Barnes \& Hernquist
(1992).
This self-gravitating dwarf galaxy can then orbit an elliptical galaxy formed by galaxy merging
without significant radial orbital decay due to dynamical friction
between the dwarf and the host elliptical and tidal destruction
by the elliptical ($T$ = 2.3 and 2.8 Gyr).
Total mass in the dwarf at $T$ = 2.3 Gyr is roughly estimated to be
$\sim 2.7 \times {10}^{9} {\rm M}_{\odot}$ corresponding to 4.5 \% of the initial disk
mass. The gas mass fraction of the dwarf is rather large ($\sim 25\%$), which
reflects the fact of the dwarf's being formed in the gas-rich tidal tail.
About 45 \% of stellar components of the dwarf are very young stars formed from gaseous components
of the tidal tail,
which implies that
this dwarf galaxy
can be observed to show very blue colors until its hot and massive stars died out.
Considering that the present gas-rich star-forming merger model also shows efficient
gas fueling to the central seed black holes (as is described later),
we regard the above results as demonstrating clearly that
the dwarf galaxy formed in galaxy merging can be observed as a companion galaxy
in a QSO host galaxy.
Figure 2 shows the star formation history of the merger and the time evolution
of gas mass located within the central 100pc around the seed black holes
of the merger.
Star formation rate becomes maximum ($\sim 378 \rm M_{\odot}/\rm yr$) at $T$ = 1.3 Gyr,
when two disks finally merge to form an elliptical galaxy
and the efficient redistribution of angular momentum and gaseous dissipation
by cloud-cloud collisions cooperate to form the extremely high-density gaseous regions
in the central part of the merger.
After the intense secondary starburst, the star formation
then rapidly declines owing to the efficient gas consumption by the starburst.
Gas fueling to the central seed black holes becomes maximum
($6.5 \times {10}^{8} \rm M_{\odot}$) at $T$ = 1.3 Gyr,
which is the same as the maximum starburst of the merger.
Gas supply for the seed black holes is greatly controlled by the rapid gas
consumption by star formation,
and consequently gas fueling gradually declines
after the completion of the secondary starburst.
The gas fueling in the present study
tends to be more efficient in the late phase of galaxy merging ($ T > 1.3 $ Gyr)
than in the early one ($ T < 1.3 $ Gyr).
Assuming that all of the gas transferred to the central 100pc
around the seed black holes
can be directly accreted onto
the accretion disk of the black holes,
we can estimate that the mean accretion rate in the merger late phase (1.3 Gyr $<T<$ 2.3 Gyr)
is $6.3 \rm M_{\odot}/\rm yr$.
The derived accretion rate is sufficient enough to trigger the typical magnitude of QSO activity
(e.g., Rees 1984).
These results imply that secondary massive starburst and QSO nuclear activity (AGN) can be observed to coexist
in a QSO host galaxy, which is consistent with the observational evidence
that some of QSO host galaxies show very bluer colors and spectroscopic properties indicative
of the past starburst (MacKenty \& Stockton 1984; Boronson, Perrson, \& Oke 1985;
Stockton \& Rigeway 1991).
Thus Figure 1 and 2 clearly demonstrate that gas-rich major galaxy merging
not only contributes to the formation of a companion galaxy orbiting a merger remnant
but also triggers QSO nuclear activities.
Accordingly our numerical study
can naturally explain why QSO host galaxies, some of which are actually observed to be ongoing
mergers and elliptical galaxies (e.g., Bahcall et al. 1997),
are more likely to have close small companion galaxies;
This is essentially because both QSO host galaxies with pronounced nuclear activities
and their companions
result from $one$ physical process of major galaxy merging.
Our numerical studies furthermore provide the following three predictions
on physical properties of QSO companions and hosts.
First prediction is that the luminosity of a QSO companion galaxy
is roughly proportional to that of the QSO host,
principally because the mass of tidal debris that is a progenitor of a QSO companion
depends strongly on the initial mass of a galaxy merger.
Second is that a QSO companion has very young stellar population formed in secondary
starburst of galaxy merging and thus shows photometric and spectroscopic properties
indicative of starburst or post-starburst.
Third is that not all of galaxy mergers can create QSO companions galaxies,
essentially because nearly retrograde-retrograde mergers can not produce
strong tidal tails indispensable for the formation of companion galaxies
because of the weaker tidal perturbation of the mergers (The details of
the physical conditions required for the formation of QSO companions
will be described in Bekki (1999)).
We suggest that future observational studies on the dependence of the luminosity-ratio
of QSO hosts to QSO companions on QSO host luminosity,
age and metallicity distribution of stellar populations of QSO companions,
and the probability that QSO host galaxies have companion galaxies physically associated
with them can
verify the above three predictions and thereby can determine whether
major galaxy merging is a really plausible model of QSO companion formation.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
The fate of QSO companion galaxies is an interesting problem of the present
merger scenario of QSO companion formation.
We here propose that some of the companions finally evolve into compact
elliptical galaxies (cE) that have typical blue magnitude
$M_{\rm B}$ ranging from -18 mag to -14 mag, truncated de Vaucouleurs luminosity profile,
color-magnitude relation of giant ellipticals, typically solar-metallicity,
and higher degree of global rotation (Faber 1973; Wirth \& Gallagher 1984;
Nieto \& Prugniel 1987; Freedman 1989; Bender \& Nieto 1990;
Burkert 1994).
The essential reason of this proposal is described as follows.
Burkert (1994) numerically investigated the dynamical evolution of proto-galaxies
experiencing an initial strong starburst
and the subsequent violent relaxation in the tidal external gravitational field
of a massive elliptical galaxy
and revealed that the observed peculiar properties of cEs are due to the external
tidal field around progenitor proto-galaxies of cEs.
Burkert (1994) accordingly proposed a scenario in which satellite
proto-galaxies revolving initially around a bright elliptical
galaxy eventually form cEs after violent cold collapse and strong starburst around the galaxy.
Although his model of cE formation is not directly related to physical processes
of gas-rich major galaxy merging,
the physical environment of cE formation in his model is very similar to
that of gas-rich galaxy merging; Tidal debris collapses to form a self-gravitating small galaxy
in the rapidly changing external gravitational field of two merging disk galaxies
in the present study.
Accordingly it is not unreasonable to consider that some of companion galaxies created
in tidal tails finally become cEs orbiting elliptical galaxies formed by major
galaxy merging.
The observational fact that cEs exist almost exclusively as satellites of bright
massive galaxies
(Faber 1973; Burkert 1994) strengthens the validity of the proposed evolutionary link between
QSO companions and cEs.
Furthermore,
the larger degree of global rotation in kinematics observed in cEs (e.g., Bender \& Nieto 1990)
seems to be consistent with the proposed scenario, since QSO companions
are created in the tidal debris of rotationally supported disk galaxies in the scenario.
The present numerical study unfortunately cannot investigate in detail structural and kinematical
properties of companion galaxies formed in galaxy mergers because of very small particle
number of the simulated companion ($\sim 800$).
Our future high resolution simulations with the total particle number of $\sim {10}^{7}$
will enable us to compare the numerical results of structural, kinematical, and chemical
properties of QSO companions formed in major mergers with observational
ones of cEs located near giant ellipticals in an explicitly self-consistent manner
and thereby answer the question as to
the evolutionary link between intermediate and high redshift
QSO companions and the present-day cEs.
The most important observational test to assess
the validity of the proposed formation scenario of QSO companion galaxies
is to investigate whether a QSO companion galaxy
has younger stellar populations formed by secondary starburst
and thus shows photometric and spectroscopic properties indicative of starburst or post-starburst.
Canalizo \& Stockton (1997)
recently investigated spectroscopic properties
of companion galaxies in three QSOs (3CR 323.1, PG 1700+518, PKS 2135-147)
and found that the spectra of a companion galaxy in QSO PG 1700+518
shows both strong Balmer absorption lines from a relatively young stellar
population and Mg I $b$ absorption feature
and the 4000 $ \rm \AA $
break from an old stelar population.
Stockton, Canalizo, \& Close (1998)
furthermore demonstrated that the time that has elapsed since the end of the
most recent major starburst event in the companion of QSO PG 1700+518
is roughly 0.085 Gyr, based
on the spectral energy distribution derived from adaptive-optics image
in $J$ and $H$ band.
These observational results on the post-starburst signature of QSO companions are
consistent reasonably well with the proposed scenario
which predicts that a QSO companion galaxy contains both relatively
old stellar populations previously located in merger progenitor disks
and very younger stellar populations formed in gas-rich tidal tails.
Detailed spectroscopic studies of QSO companion galaxies, such as Canalizo \& Stockton (1997)
and Stockton, Canalizo, \& Close (1998),
have not been yet so accumulated.
Future extensive spectroscopic studies of companions in each of intermediate and high
redshift QSOs
will clarify the age distribution of stellar populations
of the companions and thus determine whether most of QSO companions
are really formed in major galaxy mergers.
We conclude that gas-rich major galaxy merging can naturally explain the prevalence
of small companion galaxies in QSO hosts; The essential reason for the origin of QSO companions
is that strong tidal
gravitational field of major galaxy merging both triggers the formation of companions
and provides efficient fuel for QSO nuclear activities.
This explanation of QSO companion formation is consistent reasonably well with
the observational fact that QSO nucleus are already activated though the companions
are still located in the vicinity of the QSO hosts ($\sim$ a few tens kpc from the center of the hosts).
Our numerical simulations accordingly suggest that the observed companion galaxies in QSO
hosts are not the direct $cause$ of QSO nuclear activities but the $result$ of gas-rich major galaxy merging.
Although minor galaxy merging between small companion galaxies and giant elliptical galaxies or disk ones
is demonstrated to be closely associated with secondary massive starburst in disks (Mihos \& Hernquist 1995)
and strong starburst in shell galaxies (Hernquist \& Weil 1992), the present study
implies that this minor merging is probably
less important in the activation of QSO nucleus and the formation of QSO companions.
The present study provides only one scenario of QSO companion formation,
thus we lastly stress that physical processes related to
the companion formation are likely to be more variously different and
complicated than is described in the present study.
\acknowledgments
K.B. thank to the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS)
Research Fellowships for Young Scientist.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The discovery of kilohertz quasiperiodic oscillations (QPO's) in the low
mass X-ray neutron star (NS) binaries
(Strohmayer {\it et al.\/} 1996; Van der Klis {\it et al.\/} 1996 and Zhang {\it et al.\/} 1996)
has stimulated both theoretical and observational studies of these sources.
In the upper part of the spectrum (400- 1200 Hz) for most of these
sources, two frequencies $\nu_k$ and $\nu_h$ have been seen.
Initially, the fact that for some sources, the peak separation frequency
$\Delta \nu=\nu_h-\nu_k$ does not change much led to the beat frequency
interpretation (Strohmayer {\it et al.\/} 1996; Van der Klis 1998) which was presented
as a concept for the first time in the paper by Alpar \& Shaham (1985).
Beat-frequency models, where the peak separation is identified with the
NS spin rate have been challenged by observations: for Sco X-1,
$\Delta\nu$ varies by 40\% (van der Klis {\it et al.\/} 1997 hereafter VK97) and
for source 4U 1608-52, $\Delta\nu$ varies by 26\% (Mendez {\it et al.\/} 1998).
Mounting observational
evidence that $\Delta\nu$ is not constant demands a new theoretical
approach. For Sco X-1, in the lower part of the spectrum, VK97
identified two branches (presumably the first and second
harmonics) with frequencies 45 and 90 Hz which slowly increase in
frequency when $\nu_k$ and $\nu_h$ increase. Furthermore, in the spectra
observed by Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) for 4U 1728-34, Ford and
van der Klis (1998, herein FV98) found low frequency Lorentzian (LFL)
oscillations with frequencies between 10 and 50 Hz.
These frequencies as well as break frequency, $\nu_{break}$
of the power spectrum density (PSD) for the same
source were shown to be correlated with $\nu_k$ and $\nu_h$.
It is clear that the low and high parts of the PSD of the kHz QPO sources
should be related within the framework of the same theory. Difficulties which
the beat frequency model faces are amplified by the requirement of
relating the observed low frequency features, described above, with
$\nu_k$ and $\nu_h$.
Recently, a different approach to this problem has been suggested:
kHz QPO's in the NS binaries have been modeled by
Osherovich \& Titarchuk (1999) as Keplerian oscillations in a rotating
frame of reference. In this new model the fundamental frequency is the
Keplerian frequency $\nu_k$ (the lower frequency of two kHz QPO's)
\begin{equation}
\nu_k={{1}\over{2\pi}}\left({{GM}\over{R^3}}\right)^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where G is the gravitational constant, M is the NS mass,
and R is the radius of the corresponding Keplerian orbit.
The high QPO frequency $\nu_h$ is interpreted as the upper hybrid frequency
of the Keplerian oscillator under the influence of the Coriolis force
\begin{equation}
\nu_h=[\nu_k^2+(\Omega/\pi)^2]^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is the angular rotational frequency of the NS magnetosphere.
For three sources (Sco X-1, 4U 1608-52 and 4U 1702-429), we demonstrated
that the solid body rotation ($\Omega=\Omega_0=const$) is a good first
order approximation. Slow variation of $\Omega$ as a function of $\nu_k$
within the second order approximation is related to the differential
rotation of the magnetosphere controlled by a frozen-in magnetic
structure. This model allows us to address the relation between
the high and low frequency features in the PSD of the neutron systems.
We interpreted the $\sim 45$ and $90$ Hz oscillations as 1st and 2nd
harmonics of the lower branch of the Keplerian oscillations in the rotating
frame of reference:
\begin{equation}
\nu_L=(\Omega/\pi)(\nu_k/\nu_h)\sin\delta,
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the angle between ${\bf \Omega}$ and the vector normal
to the plane of the Keplerian oscillations. For Sco X-1, we found that the
angle $\delta=5.5^o$ fits the observations.
In this Letter we include the LFL oscillations and related break frequency
phenomenon in our classification.
We attribute LFL oscillations to radial oscillations in
the viscous boundary layer surrounding a neutron star. According to the
model of Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973, hereafter SS73),
the innermost part of the Keplerian
disk adjusts itself to the rotating central object (i.e. neutron star).
The recent modelling by Titarchuk, Lapidus \& Muslimov (1998, hereafter TLM)
led to the determination of the characteristic thickness of the viscous
boundary layer $L$. In the following section, we present the extension
of this work to relate the frequency of the viscous oscillations $\nu_v$
and $\nu_{break}$ with $\nu_k$. Comparison with the observations is carried
out for 4U 1728-34. The last section of this Letter contains our
theoretical classification of kHz QPO's and related low
frequency phenomena.
\section{Radial Oscillations and Diffusion in the Viscous Boundary Layer}
We define the boundary layer as a transition region confined between the
NS surface and the first Keplerian orbit.
The radial motion in the disk is controlled by the friction and the angular
momentum exchange between adjacent layers resulting in the loss of the
initial angular momentum by an accreting matter. The corresponding radial
transport of the angular momentum in a disk is described by the equation
(e.g. SS73):
\begin{equation}
\dot M {d\over {dR}}(\omega R^2) =
2\pi {d\over {dR}} (W_{r\varphi}R^2),
\end{equation}
where $\dot{M}$ is the accretion rate, and $ W_{r\varphi}$ is
the component of a viscous stress tensor which is related to the gradient
of the rotational frequency $\omega$, namely
\begin{equation}
W_{r\varphi}=-2\eta HR{{d\omega}\over{dR}},
\end{equation}
where $H$ is a half-thickness of a disk, and $\eta$ is the turbulent
viscosity. The nondimensional parameter which is essential for
equation (4) is the Reynolds number for the accretion flow
\begin{equation}
\gamma={{\dot M}\over{4\pi\eta H}}={{3R v_r}\over {{\it v}_t{\it l}_t}},
\end{equation}
which is the inverse $\alpha-$parameter in the SS73-model;
$v_r$ is a characteristic velocity, $v_t$ and $l_t$ are a turbulent velocity
and related turbulent scale respectively.
Equations $\rm \omega=\omega_0~{\rm~at}~R=R_0$ (NS radius) and
${\rm \omega=\omega_K~at~R=R_{out}}$ (radius where the boundary layer
adjusts to the Keplerian motion),
and $\rm {{d\omega}\over{dr}}={{d\omega_k}\over{dr}}~
at~\rm R=R_{out}$ were assumed by TLM as boundary conditions.
Thus the profile $\omega(R)$ and the outer radius of the viscous
boundary layer $R_{out}$ are uniquely determined by these boundary
conditions.
Presenting $\omega(R)$ in terms of dimensionless
variables: namely
angular velocity $\theta=\omega/\omega_0$, radius $ r=R/R_0$
($ R_0=x_0R_s$, $ R_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius), and mass
$ m=M/M_{\odot}$, we express Keplerian angular
velocity as
\begin{equation}
\theta_K={{6}/(a_K r^{3/2}}),
\end{equation}
where $a_K=m(x_0/3)^{3/2}(\nu_0/363~{\rm Hz})$
and the NS rotational frequency $\nu_0$ has a particular value
for each star.
The particular coefficient, 6, presented in formula (7) is obtained
for the frequency of nearly coherent (burst) oscillations for 4U 1728-34,
i.e. for $\nu_0=363$ Hz.
The solution of equations (4-5 ) satisfying the above
boundary conditions is
\begin{equation}
\theta(r)=D_1 r^{-\gamma} + (1-D_1) r^{-2},
\end{equation}
where $D_1=(\theta_{out}-r_{out}^{-2})/(r_{out}^{-\gamma}
-r_{out}^{-2})$ and $\theta_{out}=\theta_K(r_{out})$.
Equation $\theta^{\prime}(r_{out})=\theta_K^{\prime}(r_{out})$ determines
$r_{out}$:
\begin{equation}
{3\over2} \theta_{out}=D_1 \gamma r_{out}^{-\gamma}+2(1-D_1)r_{out}^{-2}.
\end{equation}
The solution of equations (4-5) subject to the
inner sub-Keplerian boundary condition has a
regime corresponding to the super-Keplerian rotation (TLM).
For such a regime matter piles up in the
vertical direction thus disturbing the hydrostatic equilibrium.
The vertical component of the gravitational
force prevents this matter from further accumulation in a vertical
direction and drives relaxation oscillations. The radiation drag
force, which is proportional to the vertical velocity,
determines the characteristic decay time of the vertical oscillations
(TLM).
The characteristic time $t_r$, over which the matter moves inward through
this region, bounded between the innermost disk and relaxation
oscillations zone is
\begin{equation}
t_r\sim {L\over v_r},
\end{equation}
where $L=R_{out}-R_0$ is the characteristic thickness of this region.
Even though the specific mechanism providing the modulation of the
observed X-ray flux over this timescale needs to be
understood, this timescale apparently ``controls'' the supply of
accreting matter into the innermost region of the accretion disk.
Any local perturbation in the transition region would
propagate diffusively outward over a timescale
\begin{equation}
t_{diff}\sim \left({L\over {l_{fp}}}\right)^2 {{l_{fp}}\over v_r},
\end{equation}
where $l_{fp}$ is the mean free path of a particle.
Note, that the $\gamma-$parameter is proportional to the accretion rate
(see Eq. 6), and therefore $v_r\propto \gamma$. Using this
relationship, we can exclude $v_r$ from the above equations and
get the relations for the corresponding inverse timescales (frequencies).
For the frequency of viscous oscillations
\begin{equation}
\nu_{v}\propto {\gamma\over {r_{out}-r_0}},
\end{equation}
and for the break frequency, related to the diffusion
\begin{equation}
\nu_{break}\propto{\gamma\over {(r_{out}-r_0)^2}}.
\end{equation}
In the following section, we compare the predictions of this model with
the observations and also establish the theoretical relation between
$\nu_v$ and $\nu_{break}$.
\section{Comparisons with Observations}
The results of FV98 for the low frequency
Lorentzian in the X-ray binary 4U 1728-34 are presented in Figure 1 and
for the break frequency $\nu_{break}$ in Figure 2.
In Figure 1, crosses represent the frequencies
(with the appropriate error bars) observed during four days.
Data collected on February 16 (open circles) are situated
apart from the rest of observations and they are not included
in the empirical power law fit which is suggested by FV98.
In the work discussed above, the authors plotted the observed low
frequencies versus high-frequency QPO which for all days, except
February 16 was
$\nu_k$ and apparently for February 16 it was $\nu_h$. Our theoretical
curve for $\nu_v$ versus $\nu_k$ is based on equation (12).
The $\chi^2$ dependence
on this parameter is rather strong: the parabola
$\chi^2=38024-73076\cdot a_k+35732\cdot a_k^2$ has a minimum at
$a_k=1.03$, which determines the best fit.
Using $\Omega/2\pi=340$ Hz in the upper hybrid relation (2),
we calculate $\nu_k$
for the points observed on February 16 and show that they belong to the set
of frequencies modeled by our theoretical curve for the viscous radial
oscillations (closed circles).
Identification of the observed
$\nu_{break}$ with the inverse diffusion time (formulas 11 and 13) is
illustrated by theoretical curves in Figure 2. It is worth noting that
these two correlations with kHz frequencies are fit by two theoretical
curves using {\it only one parameter $a_k$}. The
$\chi^2-$ dependence on $a_k$ is obtained with inclusion of
all data points for the break and low frequency correlations (75 data points).
The theoretical dependences of $\nu_k$ and $r_{out}$ on $\gamma-$parameter
are calculated numerically using equations (7) and (9) and employed here for
calculations of the theoretical curves in Figures 2 and 3 using equations
(12) and (13).
We were unable to interpret data for $\nu_{break}$ collected in February 16
(open circles). Neither $\nu_v$ nor $\nu_{break}$ in our theory have a power
law relation with $\nu_k$. However, the theoretical relation between
$\nu_{break}$ and $\nu_v$, shown in Figure 3 by a solid curve, is close
to the straight line (in log-log diagram), suggesting an approximate power law
\begin{equation}
\nu_{break}=0.041\nu_v^{1.61}.
\end{equation}
This relation is derived from the theoretical dependence
for the best fit parameter $a_k=1.03$.
Observations of FV98 (except February 16) are also presented in the Figure 3.
\centerline {\bf 4. Discussion and Conclusions}
We present a model for the radial oscillations and diffusion in the
viscous boundary layer surrounding the neutron star. Our dimensional
analysis has identified the corresponding frequencies $\nu_v$ and
$\nu_{break}$ which are consistent with
the low Lorentzian and break frequencies for 4U 1728-34. and
predicted values for $\nu_{break}$ related to the diffusion
in the boundary layer are consistent with the break
frequency observed for the same source. Both
oscillations (Keplerian and radial) and diffusion in the viscous boundary
layer are controlled by the same parameter - Reynolds number $\gamma$
which in turn is related to the accretion rate.
It is shown in TLM that $\nu_k$ is a monotonic function of $\gamma$.
Therefore, the observed range of $\nu_k$, (350-900 Hz) corresponds to
the range $1<\gamma<5$ (or $0.2<\alpha<1$).
The results in this Letter extend the classification of kHz QPO's and the
related low frequency phenomena suggested by Osherovich \& Titarchuk
1999. Figure 4 summarizes the new classification. Solid lines represent our
theoretical curves and open circles observations for Sco X-1
(from VK97). As one can see, formulas (2) and (3),
for the Keplerian oscillator under the influence of the Coriolis force,
reproduce the observations well. Indeed, $\Delta\nu=\nu_h-\nu_k$ is not
constant, as observed (see OT99 for details of comparisons of the data
with the theory). Effectively, the main viscous frequency $\nu_v$ and the
diffusive $\nu_{break}$ introduce the second oscillator with
two new branches in the lower part of the spectra.
The unifying characteristic of spectra for both oscillators is the strong
dependence on $\nu_k$. This common dependence on $\nu_k$ can be viewed as a
result of the interaction between Keplerian oscillator and the viscous
oscillator which share the common boundary at the outer edge of the viscous
transition layer.
Our parametric study indicates
that the power law index 1.6 in Eq. (14) should be the same
for different neutron stars. We expect a similar relation for black holes
but with a distinctly different index.
The found value of $a_k$ leads ultimately to independent
constraints in the determination of mass and radius for the neutron star
(Haberl \& Titarchuk 1995).
LT thanks NASA for support under grants NAS-5-32484 and
RXTE Guest Observing Program. The authors acknowledge discussions
with Alex Muslimov, Jean Swank, Lorella Angelini, Will Zhang,
Joe Fainberg and fruitful suggestions by the referee.
Particularly, we are grateful to Eric Ford, and Michiel van der Klis,
for the data which enable us to make comparisons with the data
in detail.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
This paper deals with phase space parameterizations of one-dimensional
{\em billiard map} eigenfunctions for polygonal
enclosures. Specifically, we shall deal with the Bargman-Husimi
representation and study the distribution of its zeroes for regular,
irregular and bouncing ball modes. Such a study has been carried out
before for integrable and chaotic billiards \cite{tualle_voros,leb_vor_95}
and these systems are now reasonably well understood in the sense that the
distribution reflects a correspondence with the underlying classical
dynamics. As with most other objects of interest in generic polygonal
(pseudo-integrable) billiards, the distribution of zeroes is
interesting if only to explore the existence of such a correspondence
with the classical system.
Of all possible Hamiltonian systems, billiards are perhaps the best
understood category and exhibit the entire gamut of classical dynamics
depending on the shape of the enclosure. Of these, polygonal
billiards form an important sub-category and apart from the rectangle
and the triangles $(\pi/3,\pi/3,\pi/3)$, $(\pi/2,\pi/3,\pi/6)$,
$(\pi/2,\pi/4,\pi/4)$, all other polygonal enclosures are
non-integrable \cite{pjr_mvb}. Further, the ones with rational
interior angles are pseudo-integrable; they have two constants of
motion as in integrable systems and yet their invariant surface in
phase space has a genus, $g > 1$. One of the simplest examples of a
pseudo-integrable system is the $\pi/3$ enclosure for which $g = 2$
{\it i.e. the invariant surface is a double torus}. Here, as in other
pseudo-integrable billiards, an initial (parallel) beam of
trajectories splits after successive encounters with the $2\pi/3$ (in
general $m\pi/n, m > 1$) vertex and traverse different paths.
There are several important consequences of pseudo-integrability at
the classical level that are now known. However, as far as
semiclassics is concerned, pseudo-integrable billiards are still
rather poorly understood. When the dynamics is integrable, an EBK
ansatz for the wavefunction \cite{keller}
\begin{equation}
\psi (q) \sim \sum_{j=1}^N A_j\exp(i S_j/\hbar)
\label{eq:EBK}
\end{equation}
\noindent
works well at least in the limit $\hbar \rightarrow 0$. In the above,
$S_j$ are the (finitely many) branches of the classical action at
energy $E$ and $A_j$ are constant amplitudes for integrable
polygons. Such an ansatz however does not work for pseudo-integrable
billiards even though the number of sheets that constitute the
invariant surface is still finite. We shall not discuss the reasons
for its breakdown here but merely remark that no definite behaviour
for pseudo-integrable eigenfunctions is known. For classically chaotic
systems on the other hand, the Schnirelman theorem \cite{schnirel}
(suitable phase-space measures constructed from the eigenfunctions
must tend towards the classical phase-space ergodic measure as $\hbar
\to 0$) does provide a semiclassical constraint albeit in a measure
theoretic sense. Besides, there exist results on the amplitude
distribution and spatial correlation function which have been subject
to tests \cite{mcdonald88}.
Despite the absence of any such result for pseudo-integrable polygons,
numerical studies \cite{db90} such as those for the amplitude
distribution or nodal plots suggest that typical eigenfunctions are
irregular and broadly speaking, there is little to distinguish them
from the eigenfunctions in chaotic systems. In the present paper, we
shall try to refine this existing body of knowledge and will employ
for this purpose a phase-space representation of quantum mechanics,
which is known to highlight certain semiclassical features for
integrable and chaotic systems. Our results are empirical, based on
extensive numerical studies and can be simply expressed as follows :
the eigenfunctions of polygonal billiard as viewed in the Husimi
representation tend to be irregular {\em but nevertheless contain a
subtle signature of classical pseudo-integrability}.
The paper is organized along the following lines.
In section~\ref{sec:Formalism}, we briefly review the Husimi - Bargman
representations and the results on random analytic functions.
We introduce the systems that we shall study and the quantum
map under consideration in section~\ref{sec:models}.
This is followed by our numerical results on the Husmini function and
the density of zeroes in section~\ref{sec:numerics}. Finally,
correlations are discussed in section~\ref{sec:correlations}
and our conclusions are summarized in section~\ref{sec:Conclusions}.
\section{Phase Space Representations}
\label{sec:Formalism}
Phase space representations of quantum wavefunctions are best suited
in semiclassical studies since the quantum dynamics (Heisenberg
equation) then appears as an explicit deformation of the classical
dynamics (Liouville equation) by shifting the analysis onto the
density operator $\rho = | \psi > < \psi |$. In quantum mechanics
however, the phase space representation of a state is not unique
since operators ($\hat{q}, \hat{p} $ for instance ) may
be ordered in various ways while having the same classical analog.
A general expression for a quasi-probability distribution function may
be expressed as \cite{ZFG}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{(\Omega )}(q,p,t) = {1\over (2\pi)^2}\int~d^2\xi~e^{i(\xi^*z^*
+ \xi z) \hbar }~{\rm Tr}~[ \Omega\{e^{-i\xi^*\hat{a}\dagger}
e^{-i\xi\hat{a}} \} \hat{\rho} ] \label{eq:basic}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\Omega$ refers to the ordering that is chosen. The Wigner
distribution follows from a symmetric ordering of ($\hat{q}, \hat{p} $)
which implies
\begin{equation}
\Omega\{e^{-i\xi^*\hat{a}\dagger}
e^{-i\xi\hat{a}} \} = e^{-i\xi^*\hat{a}\dagger - i\xi\hat{a}}
\label{eq:weyl}
\end{equation}
\noindent
while the Husimi function is a result of anti-normal ordering
\begin{equation}
\Omega\{e^{-i\xi^*\hat{a}\dagger}
e^{-i\xi\hat{a}} \} = e^{-i\xi\hat{a}}e^{-i\xi^*\hat{a}\dagger}
\label{eq:antinormal} .
\end{equation}
\noindent
Using Eqns.~(\ref{eq:basic}) and (\ref{eq:weyl}),
the distribution function in the Wigner representation,
$\rho_w(q,p;\hbar)$, for a pure state can be explicitly written
as :
\begin{equation}
\rho_w(q,p;\hbar) = {1\over (2\pi\hbar)^d} \int
< q - \eta / 2 | \psi > < \psi | q + \eta / 2 >
e^{ip.\eta/\hbar} d\eta
\label{eq:wigner}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $d$ is the degree of freedom of a dynamical system. Thus, the
expectation of a dynamical variable $\hat{A}$ is represented as
\begin{equation}
{\rm Tr}~[~\hat{A}~| \psi > < \psi |~] = \int A_w(q,p) \rho_w(q,p)~dqdp
\label{eq:trace}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{equation}
A_w(q,p) = \int < q - \eta / 2 |~\hat{A}~| q + \eta / 2 >
e^{ip.\eta/\hbar} d\eta
\end{equation}
The Wigner function however takes positive as well as {\em negative}
values and oscillates violently with a wavelength $\hbar$ in phase
space. A coarse grained distribution function is thus preferred
and the Husimi function,
\begin{equation}
\rho_h(q,p;\hbar) = {1\over (\pi\hbar)^d} \int \rho_w(q',p';\hbar)
e^{-\sum_{i=1}^{N}[{(q_i-q'_i)^2 \over 2(\Delta q_i)^2} +
{(p_i-p'_i)^2] \over 2(\Delta p_i)^2}]} dp'dq'
\label{eq:husimi}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is one such example which can be expressed as a smoothened Wigner
function. In this case, the smoothening is achieved through the
Gaussian centred at a phase space
point $(q,p)$. In Eq.~(\ref{eq:husimi}) above,
\begin{equation}
\Delta q_i = \sqrt{ {\hbar \over 2} } \sigma_i,~~~~~\Delta p_i = \sqrt{ {\hbar \over 2} } {1 \over \sigma_i}
\label{eq:uncertain}
\end{equation}
\noindent
are the uncertainties in $q$ and $p$ respectively. Note that $\rho_h$
is merely a minimum-uncertainty (m.u.) state decomposition of the
wavefunction $\psi$ and can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\rho_h(q,p;\hbar) = { | < z | \psi > |^2 \over 2\pi\hbar }
\label{eq:husimi_coh}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{equation}
| z > = e^{ {-|z|^2\over 2}} \sum_{n=0}^\infty
{z^n\over \sqrt{n!}} | n >
\end{equation}
\noindent
$ \{ | n > \} $ are the harmonic oscillator number states,
$a^\dagger = (\sigma^{-1/2} \hat{q} - \imath \sigma^{1/2} \hat{p})/
(\sqrt{2\hbar})$ and $ z = (\sigma^{-1/2} q - \imath \sigma^{1/2} p)/
(\sqrt{2\hbar})$ with $\sigma > 0$.
Note that $ < z | z > = 1 $ while $ < z | z' > \neq 0 $.
Written explicitly for $1~-$ degree of freedom,
\begin{equation}
<x|z> = \left ( {1\over 2\pi (\Delta q)^2} \right )^{1/4} e^{ipx~-~
{(x - q)^2 \over 4 (\Delta q)^2}}
\end{equation}
\noindent
which is the minimum uncertainty wavepacket whose Wigner transform is
the Gaussian used in Eq.~(\ref{eq:husimi}).
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:husimi_coh}), it is evident that
$\rho_h$ takes only positive values. The minimum wavepackets, $ | z >
$ and $ < z | $ are eigenfunctions of $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^\dagger$
respectively with eigenvalues $z$ and $z^*$.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:husimi_coh}) follows directly from eqns.~(\ref{eq:basic})
and (\ref{eq:antinormal})
using the expansion of the identity operator
\begin{equation}
\hat{{\rm I}} = \int d\mu(z)~|z><z|
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $d\mu(z) = dqdp/(2\pi\hbar)$.
If the system under consideration is ergodic, the Husimi density $
\{\rho_h^{n}\} $, corresponding to a sequence of eigenstates $
\{\psi_n(q)\} $ with eigenvalues $ E_n \rightarrow E$, almost always
converges to the classical Liouville measure $\mu_E$ over the energy
surface $\Sigma_E$. Thus, if $f(q,p)$ is any smooth observable,
\begin{equation}
\int~f(q,p)~\rho_h^{n}~dqdp \rightarrow \int_{\Sigma_E}~f(q,p)~
d\mu_E~~~{\rm as}~~~E \rightarrow E_n.
\label{eq:ergodic}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Schnirelman's theorem however allows an occasional exception
(e.g. scarred state) and for this reason, a more appropriate
description of non-integrable eigenfunctions is desirable.
In 1990, Leboeuf and Voros \cite{le_vo_jphys_a_90} proposed that
the zeroes of the Husimi function provide a minimal
description of quantum states \cite{more_recent}. The first step in this
direction is the coherent state ($\sigma = 1$) or Bargman representation,
$ < z | \psi > $ of a state $ | \psi > $ which
maps unitarily the standard Hilbert space onto the space of
{\em entire} functions with finite Bargman norm
\begin{equation}
\parallel \psi \parallel = {1 \over 2\pi\hbar} \int_{R^2} | \psi(z) |^2
e^{-|z|^2 } dq dp.
\label{eq:barg_norm}
\end{equation}
\noindent
One can thus consider $\psi(z)$ as a phase phase representation of the
wavevector $ | \psi >$. Note that the zeroes of the Bargman and
Husimi functions are identical. The Bargman function however contains
information about the phase (of the wavefunction) as well and is hence
a more fundamental object.
For the standard case when the phase space is a plane
(the Weyl - Heisenberg group, $W_1$),
\begin{equation}
\psi(z) = e^{ {-|z|^2\over 2}} \sum_{n=0}^\infty {a_n\over
\sqrt{n!}}~z^n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(W_1) \label{eq:W_1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $a_n$ are the expansion coefficients of $ | \psi > $ in
terms of the harmonic oscillator number states. Similar results
can be written down for the sphere (~$SU(2)$~) and the pseudo-sphere
(~$SU(1,1)$~) \cite{perelomov,leboeuf_recent} though unlike the
case of $W_1$ or $SU(1,1)$, the Bargman representation
of $| \psi >$ for $SU(2)$ is finite reflecting the compactness
of phase space. For Hamiltonian systems however, energy conservation
does ensure that the manifold is compact so that Eq.~(\ref{eq:W_1})
has, in practice, only a finite number of terms. Clearly then, the
Husimi-Bargman zeroes specify a state completely.
It is evident that the distribution of the Husimi-Bargman zeroes
depends on the distribution of the expansion coefficients $\vec{a}
= (a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n)$.
For chaotic systems, it is natural to expect that the choice of an
arbitrary basis (harmonic oscillator in this case) makes $\vec{a}$
point in any direction of Hilbert space with equal probability
\cite{leboeuf_recent}. The only constraint then comes from
normalization so that $\sum a_n^2 = 1$. For purposes of computing
the distribution of zeroes, this is equivalent to the
assumption that the coefficients are drawn from a Gaussian
distribution \cite{kac}
\begin{equation}
D(\vec{a}) = {1\over (2\pi)^N}~e^
{- \sum_i {|a_i|^2 \over 2} }
\label{eq:gauss}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Eq.~(\ref{eq:W_1}) with the above distribution
is referred to as a {\em random analytic function}.
Random analytic functions (RAF) for various groups have
been studied in some detail when the coefficients are
complex \cite{leboeuf_recent,bogo_bohi_lebo,
leb_shukla,hannay} corresponding to systems without time
reversal symmetry. The results point to a universal behaviour.
Thus, the density of zeroes is uniform with spacings of
the order of $1/\sqrt N$ and the 2-point
correlation has a simple form \cite{hannay,hannay_all}
independent of the location
of the zeores. Importantly, random analytic functions do seem
to model chaotic systems very well \cite{leb_shukla,shukla}.
For RAF with real coefficients (systems
with time reversal symmetry), Prosen \cite{prosen} has
studied the density and the k-point correlations. The density
in this case is non-uniform due to the presence of zeroes
on the symmetry axis (the real line). Away from the real
axis however, the density becomes uniform and in this region,
correlations tend towards the case with complex coefficients.
There are few numerical studies however on chaotic systems
with time reversal symmetry though it might be expected
that RAF with real coefficients do model them rather
well.
In contrast, it is known \cite{voros_pra} that for integrable systems,
eigenfunctions follow a WKB-type Ansatz (see eq.~\ref{eq:EBK} ) in the
Bargmann representation too, from which it follows that the zeroes lie
on fixed curves which are anti-Stokes lines of the complex classical
action in the $z$ variable, along which the zeros are equi-spaced with
the separation of order $1/N$.
For the sake of completeness, it may also be noted that
a random polynomial
\begin{equation}
\psi(z) = a_0 + a_1z + a_2Z^2 + \ldots + a_Nz^N
\label{eq:ranpoly}
\end{equation}
\noindent
with coefficients distributed according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:gauss}),
has zeroes which tend to accumulate around the unit circle
\cite{bogo_bohi_lebo}.
With this background, we shall explore the distribution of Husimi
zeroes for polygonal billiard eigenfunctions in the following
sections. Unless otherwise stated, we shall consider enclosures with
unit perimeter and $\sigma = 1$ (coherent state). We shall also
consider the energy, $E = 1$ and instead quantize $\hbar$ so that
$\hbar = 1/k$. The $\hbar \rightarrow 0$ then corresponds to the
classical dynamics at $E = 1$.
\section{Polygonal Billiards and the Quantum Map}
\label{sec:models}
Classical billiards are enclosures within which a point particle
undergoes specular reflection. The dynamics thus depends on its
shape. For rational polygonal enclosures, the dynamics is constrained
by two constants of motion such that the invariant surface is
two-dimensional. For the rectangle and the integrable triangles, this
is a torus for which $g=1$. For all other rational polygons, the
invariant surface is topologically equivalent to a sphere with
multiple holes ($g > 1$). The simplest example is a double torus (g =
2) which corresponds to enclosures such as the $\pi/3$ rhombus or the
L-shaped billiard. In general, the genus of any rational polygon can
be calculated from its interior angles. Thus, if $m_i\pi/n_i$ are the
interior angles of a rational polygon,
\begin{equation}
g = 1 + {N\over 2} \sum_i {m_i - 1\over n_i}
\label{eq:genus}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $N$ is the least common multiple of $n_i$ so that the number of
sheets that constitute the invariant surface is $2N$. Thus various
sets of internal angles may have the same genus but with different $N$
such that the number of distinct momenta spanned by a generic
trajectory varies from enclosure to enclosure.
While the genus does affect certain classical features of the
system \cite{db_pramana},
its influence on quantum states is not known for certain. Studies on
irrational and rational rhombus billiards show that there is little
difference between the morphologies of generic eigenfunctions or their
Husimi densities \cite{shudo_shimizu_95}. Shudo and Shimizu
\cite{shudo_shimizu_95} even note
that ``~\ldots the difference between random features of
eigenfunctions of quantum polygonal and the desymmetrized dispersing
system are minute \ldots ''. The only difference, they noted, was the
occurrence of bouncing ball states though these can be observed in
other chaotic systems such as the Stadium billiard.
Our investigation of polygonal billiard eigenfunctions lies in this
backdrop. Instead of the Husimi densities themselves, we shall study
their zeroes following Tualle and Voros \cite{tualle_voros}.
The systems we choose
are triangles and rhombus billiards and for all practical purposes,
these can be treated as pseudo-integrable systems irrespective of the
internal angle \cite{see_hobson,high_genus}.
The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions can be obtained by solving the
Helmholtz equation
\begin{equation}
(\nabla^2 + E) \Psi(q) = 0
\label{eq:helm}
\end{equation}
\noindent
with $\Psi(q) = 0$ on the boundary. The problem can however be reduced
to an eigenvalue problem for an integral operator $K$ or a {\em
Quantum Poincare Map} in various ways \cite{boasman} :
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(s) & = & \oint ds' \psi(s') K_D(s,s';k) \\
K_D(s,s';k) & = & - {\imath k \over 2} \cos \theta(s,s') H_1^{(1)}
(k|\vec{s} - \vec{s'}|) \\
\cos \theta(s,s') & = & \hat{n}(\vec{s}).\hat{\rho}(s,s')
\label{eq:bim}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $E = k^2$, $\hat{\rho}(s,s') =
(\vec{s} - \vec{s'})/|\vec{s} - \vec{s'}|$
and $ \hat{n}(\vec{s})$ is the outward normal at the point $\vec{s}$.
The unknown function is now the normal derivative
on the boundary
\begin{equation}
\psi(s) = \hat{n}(\vec{s}).\nabla \Psi(\vec{s})
\label{eq:psi_Psi}
\end{equation}
\noindent
and the full interior eigenfunction can be recovered through the
mapping
\begin{equation}
\Psi(q) = - {\imath \over 4} \oint ds H_0^{(1)}(k|\vec{s} - \vec{s'}|) \psi(s)
\label{eq:Psi_psi}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Thus, the essential dynamical information lies within the reduced
$1-d$ function $\psi(q)$ and we shall use this to study phase space
representations and look at their zeroes.
For an enclosure of unit perimeter (which we
shall assume from now on) $ \psi(q + 1) = \psi(q)$. The Bargman
transform, $\psi(z)$ thus obeys a quasi-periodicity condition as well
\cite{tualle_voros} :
\begin{equation}
\psi(z + 1) = e^{{i \over \hbar}p}~\psi(z)
\end{equation}
\noindent
and the norm-finiteness condition becomes :
\begin{equation}
\parallel \psi \parallel = {1 \over 2\pi\hbar} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
~dp \int_0^1~dq~|\psi(z)|^2 e^{-|z|^2}~~<~~\infty
\end{equation}
\section{Husimi Zeroes in Polygons - Results}
\label{sec:numerics}
The distribution of Husimi-Bargman zeroes in polygonal
billiards has not been investigated before and as remarked earlier,
the only properties known about the eigenfunctions are from numerical
studies. The lack of concrete results leaves us with little
expectation and perhaps the only conjecture that can be made is that
the distribution of Husimi zeroes of polygonal billiards should differ
from the regularly spaced zeroes along fixed curves typical of
integrable systems.
Note that classical Poincare section plots in suitable (Birkhoff)
co-ordinates do not immediately reveal the dramatic difference between
integrable and pseudo-integrable polygons. In both cases, the points
lie along a finite number of $\sin \theta = {\rm constant}$ lines
where $\theta$ is the angle between the ray and the inward normal at
the boundary point $q$. Thus there is little difference between the
Poincare sections of the equilateral triangle and the $\pi/3$
rhombus. With increasing genus however, the number of such lines
generally increase as the trajectory explores larger number of
momentum directions.
Semiclassically, the Husimi eigen-distribution function is known to be
localized near the torus for integrable systems \cite{takahashi} while
its zeroes distribute themselves along curves maximally distant from
the invariant curves (anti-Stokes lines). As an example, we first
consider the equilateral triangle billiard. Fig.~1 shows the Husimi
distribution of a typical eigenstate with quantum number $(m,n) =
(26,81)$ while Fig.~2 is a plot of its zeroes. Clearly, the Husimi
distribution is peaked on the corresponding torus as evident from
Fig.~3 while the zeroes lie on lines located away from the
torus. Further, the zeroes are equispaced on each line though the
spacings typically do vary from line to line.
The zeroes do not always distribute themselves along
straight lines in all integrable polygons and the equilateral triangle
with its high symmetry is a rather special case. In fact, the
distribution of zeroes of an
equilateral state viewed in another enclosure (~related by symmetry -
for instance the ($\pi/6,\pi/3,\pi/2$) triangle or the $\pi/3$
rhombus~) looks very different. Fig.~4 is an example where the
fixed curves are not always straight lines though the zeroes are
equi-spaced along each curve.
As examples of pseudo-integrable polygons, we shall consider rhombus
and triangle billiards. Since the choice of enclosure plays an
important role in determining the distribution of zeroes, we shall use
the $\pi/3$ rhombus to compare the regular and irregular states. Note
that the regular states in this case correspond to equilateral
triangle modes which vanish on the shorter diagonal and they comprise
approximately half the total number of states in the $\pi/3$
enclosure (fig.~4 is an exmaple).
The irregular states on the other hand are ``pure rhombus''
modes \cite{db90} which do not vanish on the shorter diagonal. Barring
the bouncing-ball modes, ``pure rhombus'' modes display features
typical of irregular wavefunctions. We shall look for the differences
in the distribution of zeroes between (i) regular and irregular modes
and (ii) bouncing-ball and non-bouncing-ball ``pure rhombus'' modes.
Fig.~5 displays the zeroes of a
typical irregular ``pure rhombus'' mode. The zeroes are no longer
distributed along curves and they tend to diffuse all over the phase
space. Note that there is a reflection symmetry in this case about the
$q=0.25, 0.5$ and $0.75$ lines so the zeroes need only be viewed in a
quarter of the phase space. Clearly, they are more or less randomly
distributed with no clear alignment along any curve barring some
exceptions where two or more zeroes are distributed around some $p =
{\rm constant}$ line. These observations are in sharp contrast to the
distribution of zeroes for integrable polygons.
We next look at the zeroes of a neighbouring bouncing ball
state. Studies on the stadium billiard have shown that the Husimi
zeroes of bouncing ball modes are distributed randomly over the entire
phase space as in case of irregular modes - an observation that may
seem counter-intuitive keeping in mind the existence of approximate
quantum numbers in the description of such states
\cite{bai_hose_etal}. Fig.~6 shows the Husimi zeroes of a typical
bouncing ball mode in the $\pi/3$ rhombus. The distribution is no
different from the earlier case with few zeroes distributed around $p
= {\rm constant}$ lines and the other zeroes distributed randomly.
The symmetry of the rhombus leads to redundant zeroes and hence poor
statistics as compared to an unsymmetric polygon at the same
energy. However, it does show that the Husimi zeroes do not align
themselves along fixed curves but rather tend to diffuse over phase
space with some amount of clustering around a few $p =$ constant
lines. As further evidence, we display the Husimi zeroes of a typical
state in the ($\pi/4,\pi/5$) triangle in Fig.~7. They are indeed
distributed over the entire classical phase space while the dashed
lines indicate a tendency to cluster around certain momenta. This
effect however seems to be pronounced only in systems with low
genus. Thus for the triangle with internal angles
($97\pi/301,79\pi/501$), there seems to be little or no
clustering (see Fig.~8) and the zeroes seem to be genuinely
distributed over the entire phase space as in chaotic billiards.
Fig.~9 shows a set of four histograms which illustrate this
difference in clustering. The $x$ axis of the histograms give the
momenta value and the $y$ axis shows the fraction of zeros occurring in
a bin. The peaked distribution at specific $p$
values for the low genus ($\pi/4,\pi/5$) triangle indicates a
clustering of its zeros. In contrast the high genus case shows an
almost uniform distribution of zeros away from the real axis
marked by a nearly flat histogram (barring the enhanced
density around $p=0$).
Thus, eigenstates of generic \cite{high_genus}
pseudo-integrable billiards tend to behave like
their chaotic counterparts insofar as the distribution of zeroes is
concerned. This suggests that there is no obvious semiclassical
correspondence in non-integrable polygonal billiards. In integrable
polygons however, the correspondence is clear at least when $ \Delta
q_i = \Delta p_i = \sqrt{\hbar/2} $ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:uncertain}).
However, when this not so (the minimum uncertainty state is not a
coherent state \cite{coherent}), the zeroes tend to move with
$\sigma$. As an example, we display here the zeroes of an equilateral
triangle mode for two values of $\sigma$ in Fig.~10. When $\sigma =
\sqrt{\hbar/2}$, the zeroes are equi-spaced and lie on a
line. However, as $\sigma$ is reduced, the zeroes move outwards and
realign themselves on a curve as shown in the figure. Finally, as
$\sigma$ is reduced further, the zeroes start moving out of the
classical phase space
\section{Correlations}
\label{sec:correlations}
In the previous section, we found that the zeroes in non-integrable
polygonal enclosures are uniformly distributed away from the real
axis and hence are like those of random analytic functions with
real coefficients which presumably model chaotic systems with time
reversal symmetry. To ascertain how close the distributions are,
we shall study here the nearest neighbour spacings distribution, $P(s)$
and the 2-point correlation, $R_2(r)$.
\subsection{Nearest Neighbour Distribution}
The nearest neighbour spacings distribution is the simplest
statistic to perform though there exists no analytic predictions
for RAF with real or complex coefficients. The curve in Fig.~11
for random analytic function is thus determined numerically.
A total of approximately 25,000 zeroes from 50 eigenstates
of three different non-integrable triangles has been used
for computing the nearest neighbour distribution of generic
polygons. The zeroes have been unfolded such that
$\int~s~P(s)~ds = 1$
Fig.~11 shows a plot of the integrated spacings distribution,
$I(s) = \int_0^s~P(s') ds'$ for polygons and a comparison with
random analytic function having real coefficients. The agreement
is fair but there are deviations indicating perhaps that the
underlying assumption about the distribution of coefficients
(see Eq.~(\ref{eq:gauss}) is not fully justified.
Remarkably however, the Ginibre ensemble \cite{mehta,haake}
of complex random matrices shows much better agreement as evident from
fig.~11. In this case, the integrated spacings distribution \cite{haake},
$I_G(s) = i(<s> s)$ where $<s> =
\int_0^\infty ds [ 1 - i(s) ] = 1.142929$ and
\begin{equation}
i(s) = 1 - \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \prod_{n=1}^{N-1}~[ e_n(s^2)~e^{-s^2} ]
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{equation}
e_n(x) = 1 + {x \over 1!} + {x^2 \over 2!} + \ldots + {x^n \over n!}
\end{equation}
\noindent
At small values of $s$, $I_G(s) \sim s^4$ and hence $P(s) \sim s^3$.
In comparison, the nearest neighbour spacing distribution
for uncorrelated points thrown at random on the plane
exhibits no level repulsion.
\subsection{Two-point correlation}
For $SU(2)$ random analytic functions with complex coefficients,
the k-point correlation function has been computed by
Hannay analytically. In particular, the 2-point function,
$R_2({\bf r_1},{\bf r_2}) = <~\rho({\bf r_1})~\rho({\bf r_2})~>$
depends only on the relative distance $r$ between points
${\bf r_1}$ and ${\bf r_2}$ since the density if uniform.
In the asymptotic (number of zeroes, $N \rightarrow \infty$)
limit
\begin{equation}
R_2(r) \simeq { (~\sinh^2~v + v^2~)~\cosh~v - 2v~\sinh~v \over
\sinh^3~v } \label{eq:R_2_complex}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $v = \pi r^2/2$ and $r$ is measured in terms of the
mean spacing ( $\sqrt{4\pi/N}$ for the sphere ). This result holds for other
phase space topologies as well when $N \rightarrow \infty$
and the coefficients are complex.
For systems with time reversal symmetry (real coefficients),
the density is not uniform everywhere and hence
$R_2({\bf r_1},{\bf r_2})$
is sensitive to the location of the zeroes. Away from the real
axis however, $R_2$ has the limiting behaviour given by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:R_2_complex}).
For the Ginibre ensemble of complex random matrices, the density
is uniform and the two
point correlation (in unfolded units)
\begin{equation}
R_2({\bf r_1},{\bf r_2}) = 1 - \exp(- \pi\left| r_1 - r_2 \right|^2)
\label{eq:R_2_ginibre}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is a function of the distance between the two zeroes.
Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:R_2_ginibre}) does not have the
characteristic hump at $r \simeq 1$ associated with random
analytic functions.
In Fig.~12, we present results for three different triangles. The
close agreement
suggests that there is possibly a universality in the
distribution of zeroes of non-integrable polygons (corroborated
by similar studies on the nearest neighbour).
We next compare the average of the combined data with the
predictions for the Ginibre ensemble (~see Eq.~(\ref{eq:R_2_ginibre})~)
and Eq.~(\ref{eq:R_2_complex}). The deviations from the RAF
predictions~\cite{fnote_r2}
are evident while the Ginibre ensemble result agrees with our
data very well.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
We have studied the distribution of Husimi zeroes in polygonal
billiards in this paper and our observations can be summarized as
follows :
\vskip 0.1 in
$\bullet$
In integrable enclosures, the Husimi density is peaked on the
classical torus and the zeroes lie equi-spaced on fixed curves that
are located away from the torus when the minimum uncertainty state is
a coherent state.
\vskip 0.1 in
$\bullet$
The zeroes tend to move as the uncertainties in position and momentum
are varied even as they obey the minimum uncertainty relation. Thus,
coherent states ($\Delta p = \Delta q = \sqrt{\hbar/2} $ ) are the
most classical of all minimum uncertainty states.
\vskip 0.1 in $\bullet$ A weak signature of pseudo-integrability can
be associated with the clustering of some zeroes around a few lines as
observed in some low-genus polygons.
\vskip 0.1 in
$\bullet$
For generic pseudointegrable enclosures, the zeroes tend to be randomly
distributed over the entire phase space as in chaotic billiards
or random analytic functions with real coefficients. This
is especially true for polygons with high genus.
\vskip 0.1 in
$\bullet$
The nearest neighbour spacings distribution of zeroes and the
two point correlation, $R_2(r)$, suggests
that for pseudo-integrable billiards,
the correlations are very well described by the
Ginibre ensemble of complex random matrices. It
is however not clear why this is so and a proper understanding
is desirable.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge stimulating discussions with
Prof. A.~Voros and thank Dr. Pragya Shukla for valuable help in
our studies on correlations. D.B also acknowledges several
useful discussions on quasi probabilty distributions with
Dr. R.~R.~Puri.
|
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-.15cm}
An important part of the $B$ factory program at SLAC and KEK will be to
search for CP violation in the mixing and decay of neutral $B$ mesons.
In close analogy with the kaon system, the weak interaction allows
mixing of the $B^0$ and the $\overline{B}^0$ through a second-order
$\Delta B=2$ transition. The CP violation in this picture results
from the interference between the amplitude for the decay
$B^0 \rightarrow f$ to some CP eigenstate $f$ and the amplitude for
mixing to occur first and then the decay, $B^0 \Rightarrow
\overline{B}^0 \rightarrow f$. When the two amplitudes have a
relative weak phase, CP violation
results. Such weak phases arise in the Standard Model because of the complex
CKM matrix \cite{CKM}.
In the Wolfenstein parameterization of the CKM matrix\cite{Wolfenstein}, the phase
of $V_{ub}$ is $\tan^{-1}(\eta/\rho)$ and both the CKM elements $V_{ub}$ and $V_{td}$
are expected to have large phases. Thus it is hoped CP violation may be observed in
the $B$ system. Figure 1 shows schematically the current
experimental bounds\cite{stone} on the CKM phase $(\rho,\eta)$ from
$B_d^0$ mixing, from
measurements of $V_{ub}/V_{cb}$ and from limits on $B_s$ mixing. Also
shown is the bound from measurements of $\varepsilon_{\mbox{K}}$ in
neutral kaons. Overlaid on the figure is a triangle whose sides are
related to products of CKM elements that results from the requirement
that the CKM matrix is unitary~\cite{jarlskog}:
$V_{ub}V^*_{ud}+ V_{cb}V^*_{cd}+ V_{tb}V^*_{td} \approx V_{ub}+
\lambda V_{cb}+ V^*_{td} = 0$ The angles $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$
are all, in principal, measurable from decays of $B$ mesons.
The phenomonon of $B^0$ mixing is described in a similar way to the
mixing of the neutral kaons: Initially pure $|B^0 \rangle$ and $|\overline{B}^0 \rangle$
states are written as orthogonal mixtures of heavy and light $B$ states.
Because the heavy and light states each evolve with their own time-
dependences, there is a quantum-mechanical oscillation of an initially
pure $B^0$ or $\overline{B}^0$. The weak (CKM) phases in the mixing as well as in
the decay amplitudes cause
a CP asymmetry in the mixing and decay of initially pure neutral
$B$'s as they time-evolve:
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{equation}
A_f(t) =\frac{\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow f) -
\Gamma(\overline{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow f)} {\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t)
\rightarrow f) +
\Gamma(\overline{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow f)}
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
In the $B$ system it is possible to cleanly extract the weak phases from such
asymmetries, in contrast with the situation in kaon mixing. In the Standard Model
the asymmetry for $B_d^0$ mixing reduces to \cite{quinn,ali}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\begin{equation}
A_f(t) = - \mbox{Im} \alpha_f \sin(\Delta m_B t) \\
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
where
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\begin{equation}
\alpha_f = \eta_{CP} \left(\frac{q}{p}\right)_B
\frac{\langle f|H_{weak}|\overline{B}_q^0 \rangle}{\langle f|H_{weak}
|B_q^0 \rangle} \left(\frac{q}{p}\right)_K
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
and $\eta_{CP}=\pm 1$ is the CP sign of the final state $f$. The factor $(q/p)_B$
describes the weak phases in the $B$ mixing, and the factor
$(q/p)_K$ appears whenever the final state $f$ has a $K_{\mbox{S}}$ or
$K_{\mbox{L}}$ to account for kaon mixing in addition to $B$ mixing
phases. The parameter $\Delta m_B$ is the $B_q^0-\overline{B}_q^0$ mass
difference (for either neutral $B_s^0$ or $B_d^0$ mesons).
For $B_d^0$ mesons, the phase
$(q/p)_{B_d} = \mbox{arg}(V_{td}/V^{*}_{td})$ from the presence of intermediate top
quarks in the box diagram describing $B_d-\overline{B}_d$ mixing.\cite{quinn,ali} The
phase of the decay amplitudes depends upon the quark to which the $b$
decays. For $b\rightarrow c$ decays, there is no weak phase since $V_{cb}$ is
almost real.\cite{frank2} Thus $b \rightarrow c$ decays in $B_d^0$
mixing gives us
\vspace{-.25cm}
\begin{center}
$\alpha_f = \eta_{CP} \mbox{arg} \left( \frac{V_{td}}{V^*_{td}} \right)$,
$A_f (t) = - \eta_{CP} \sin(2 \beta) \sin(\Delta m_B t)$
\end{center}
\vspace{-.25cm}
It should be noted that in extracting the value of $\sin (2\beta)$ from the mixing
asymmetry, there is a four-fold ambiguity in the actual value of $\beta$ that is
inferred from this measurement. In principle, present data, as shown in Figure 1,
along with recent indications from the CDF experiment\cite{lewis}, indicate that
$\mbox{sign}[\sin(2\beta)]>0$. It may be further possible\cite{babar} to
furthermore remove the last two-fold ambiguity, as mentioned in Section VIII.
In this paper I review several branching ratio measurements of $b \rightarrow c$
transitions of $B_d^0$ mesons that are
relevant to future $B$ factories in measuring $\sin(2 \beta)$. The
modes discussed are:
$\begin{array}{lll}
B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{S}} & B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{L}} &
B^0 \rightarrow \psi(\mbox{2S}) K_{\mbox{S}} \\
B^0 \rightarrow \psi \eta & B^0 \rightarrow \chi_{\mbox{c}1} K_{\mbox{S}} &
B^0 \rightarrow \psi \pi^0 \\
B^0 \rightarrow \psi K^{*0} & B^0 \rightarrow \psi(\mbox{2S}) K^{*0} &
B^0 \rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-} \\
\end{array}$
The above
branching ratios were measured by the CLEO experiment running at the
symmetric $e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \Upsilon\mbox{(4S)} \rightarrow
B\overline{B}$ CESR collider at Cornell Unversity.\cite{urheim} The
goal in studying these decays is to see how many events may be used for
studying CP violation above and beyond the so-called ''gold-plated''
mode of $\psi K_{\mbox{S}}$. The last three decay modes are of course not CP
eigenstates, but may still be used for studying CP violation, as is
discussed below.
The observation of CP violation in $B^0$ mixing and decay is a powerful
first step toward proving CP violation is not simply a feature inherent
to neutral kaons. The observation of this kind of CP violation
will be an important confirmation of the CKM model\cite{frank}.
\section{Data Sample}
\vspace{-.15cm}
Most of the studies presented in this paper represent the yield of 6.3
fb$^{-1}$ of data, which amounts to $\approx$ 6
million $B\overline{B}$ pairs. An additional 3 fb$^{-1}$ was taken 60
MeV below the $\Upsilon$(4S) to study backgrounds from continuum
$e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow q \overline{q}$ light quark production.
At the $\Upsilon$(4S), it is convenient to use two kinematic
constraints in reconstructing $B$ mesons from their daughter particles.
Noting that the $B$ energy is exactly the $e^{\pm}$ beam energy, we
form the invariant mass of $B$ candidates from $m_B^2 =
\sqrt{E_{beam}^2 - (\Sigma {\bf p}_{i}^2)}$ since the beam energy is very
well measured. Furthermore, we calculate the total energy $E_B$ of our
$B$ candidates and form the variable $\Delta E = E_B-E_{beam}$ which
should peak at zero for true signal. Resolutions on these quantities
are $\sigma(m_B)\sim 2\mbox{--}3$ MeV and $\sigma(\Delta E)\sim
10\mbox{--}20$ MeV.
While the analyses which identify final-state $\psi$ mesons differ
slightly in their selection criteria, all of these studies were done by
first selecting events where the $\psi$ decays to $ee$ or $\mu\mu$
pairs, which comprise just 12\% of the $\psi$ branching ratio.
For these analyses, lepton selection criteria were imposed for both the
daughter leptons in the $\psi$ decays, so the efficiencies for
reconstructing the $\psi$ are typically $\sim 40\%$. In future $B$ factory experiments
it may be possible to relax such selection criteria and thereby increase the
reconstruction efficiencies for these decays.\cite{schuh}
To suppress the $\psi$'s which come from
continuum $e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow c \overline{c}$, a cut of $P_{\psi} <
2.0 \mbox{GeV}/c$ was imposed. Thus, unless explictely mentioned
otherwise, the backgrounds to the modes considered here
from $B\rightarrow \psi
X$ decays. CLEO has previously measured the inclusive $B\rightarrow
\psi$ momentum distribution\cite{psipaper}, and our Monte Carlo model
of $B$ decays, which includes several different exclusive $\psi$ modes,
reproduces very well the observed $\psi$ momentum distribution.
Therefore, many of the background estimates, which
rely heavily on our Monte Carlo, are well modelled.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{S}}$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
The decay $B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{S}}$ with $K_{\mbox{S}}
\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ is a so-called ''gold-plated'' CP eigenstate
because the distinctive signature of two leptons from the $\psi$ and two
charged tracks emanating from a point detached from the collision point.
With efficiencies of $\sim 40\%$ for the $\psi$ and $\sim 75\%$ for
reconstructing the $K_{\mbox{S}} \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, we observe 75
events in 6.3 fb$^{-1}$, as shown in Figure 2(a). In
Figure 2(a), we plot the $\Delta E$ of our $\psi K_{\mbox{S}}$
candidates {\it vs.} their mass. All quantities are plot in units of
the experimental resolution (see Section 2), so signal
is expected to lie in a region $\pm 3$ units from the expected values.
Using our $B^0 \rightarrow \psi X$ MC, we expect $\leq 0.1$ events background
in the sample. The branching ratio measured is $\mathcal{B}$$ (B^0 \rightarrow
\psi K_{\mbox{S}}) = (4.6 \pm 0.06 \; \mbox{stat.} \pm 0.06 \; \mbox{sys.})
\times 10^{-4}$, where the first uncertainty is due to statistics and the
second due to systematic uncertainties
(in reconstruction efficiencies and the total number of
$B\overline{B}$ in the sample from which these candidates were selected).
It is hoped we can add to this 75 events using the other decay modes below.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{S}}$, $K_{\mbox{S}} \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
To identify $K_{\mbox{S}} \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0$ decays, we search for
pairs of photons in the CsI calorimeter which are consistent with the
$\pi^0$ mass using very mass cuts. When two such pairs are found,
then the vector defined by the primary collision point and the center-
of-energy of the four photons in the calorimeter is used to define the
$K_{\mbox{S}}$ flight direction. The hypothesized $K_{\mbox{S}}$
flight distance before decaying is then varied until the two $\pi^0$
pairings give the best $\pi^0$ masses. The $K_{\mbox{S}}$ is not used
in the constraint, but it is found that the $K_{\mbox{S}}$ mass
resolution improves from $\sim 20$ MeV to $\sim 6$ MeV with this
procedure. The $K_{\mbox{S}} \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0$ reconstruction
efficiency is 25\%, which, combined with the $\psi$ reconstruction efficiency,
yields an overall efficiency of about 10\%. At an asymmetric $B$ factory one
benefits from an additional constraint of matching the $K^0$ origin to
the $B^0$ decay point as measured by the $\psi$ decay.
We observe
a signal of 15 events, with an expected background of just 0.7 events
from what is believed to be random photons incorrectly paired with a
$\psi$ from $B$ decays. However, we are investigating the possible
contamination to the sample from $B^0 \rightarrow \psi K^{*}$ decays,
since these can readily lend some photons and since the $\psi K^{*0}$
decay mode has a strong CP component. This yield, when combined with the
reconstruction efficiency above, yields a branching ratio of
$\mathcal{B}$$(B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{S}}) = (6.1 \pm 1.6 \;
\mbox{stat.} \pm 0.13 \; \mbox{sys.})
\times 10^{-4}$ (see Table 1), consistent with our
result in Section III. More importantly, this decay mode adds 15 more events to our
sample of 75 for studying CP violation.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{L}}$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
The $\psi K_{\mbox{L}}$ mode is interesting because in principle it
presents the same (large) number of events for studying CP asymmetries
as does $\psi K_{\mbox{S}}$, but the $\psi K_{\mbox{L}}$ has the
opposite CP. It should therefore exhibit an asymmetry equal in magnitude but
opposite in sign as the gold-plated mode. The difficulty is that the $K_{\mbox{L}}
$ flight path is $\sim 1 \mbox{--} 2$ m, so it doesn't decay within the CLEO
tracking volume. It is still plausible to detect the $K_{\mbox{L}}$'s, however, because
the CLEO CsI calorimeter is 0.81 $\lambda_{\mbox{int}}$ in length,
hence approximately 65\% of the $K_{\mbox{L}}$ interact
in the calorimeter and initiate a shower that exceeds 100 MeV in
energy. Thus, the signature for the $B^0 \rightarrow \psi
K_{\mbox{L}}$ decay is the lepton pair from the $\psi$ plus a small
calorimeter shower from the $K_{\mbox{L}}$.
The $K_{\mbox{L}}$ shower is a nuclear interaction, is
quite broad in comparison to showers from $\gamma$'s. In fact, often
additional nearby showers are created as
nuclear fragments travel some distance. Such shape distinctions are
used in the selection to successfully reject over 90\% of $\gamma$
showers. In fact, of the 66 $\psi K_{\mbox{L}}$ candidates found, only
10 have showers that are due to random photons incorrectly paired with
a $\psi$; all the rest are real $K_{\mbox{L}}$.
The $K_{\mbox{L}}$ defines its direction, but not its energy. We use
$E_{\psi}$ and ${\bf p}_{\psi}$ along
with the $K_{\mbox{L}}$ direction to reconstruct $m_B$, but loose the
$\Delta E$ constraint. To suppress backgrounds from $B^- \rightarrow
\psi K^{(*)-}$ we reject events which have an additional track that
makes a mass $\geq 5$ GeV. Furthermore, we veto events where the
$K_{\mbox{L}}$ candidate shower makes the $\pi^0$ mass when paired with
any other photon in the event in order to reject backgrounds from $B^0
\rightarrow \psi K_{\mbox{S}}$.
Figure 2(b) shows the results of this search: 66 events are
found in 6.7 fb$^{-1}$ of data, where 35 are expected to be from
signal, 31 from backgrounds. As stated earlier, most of these
backgrounds are from real $K_{\mbox{L}}$'s from $\chi_{\mbox{c1}} K_{\mbox{L}}$,
$\psi K^{*0}$, and $\psi K^{*+}$. The CP dilution of these backgrounds is
15 events.
We have not studied reconstruction efficiencies for this decay mode, although they can
be inferred from the yield of 35 events in 6.6 fb$^{-1}$ and the known branching ratio
for $\psi K_{\mbox{S}}$.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow \psi \pi^{0}$ / $\psi \eta$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
The $\psi \pi^{0}$ mode has the same CP and tests a similar Feynman diagram
to the often-cited decay mode $B^0 \rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}$.\cite{babar}
It is color-suppressed relative to $D^+D^-$, but perhaps $\psi \pi^0$ will yield
more net events because the $D^+D^-$ channel has few subsequent decay modes which
can be reconstructed. The $\psi \pi^0$ mode would presumably exhibit a
asymmetry of $+ \sin(2\beta)$. Because it is the Cabibbo-suppressed
version of the $\psi K^0$, we can predict the
branching ratio will be
$\mathcal{B}$$(B^0 \rightarrow \psi \pi^{0}) = (f_{\pi}/f_K)^2 \tan^2\theta_C$
$\mathcal{B}$$(B^0 \rightarrow \psi K^{0}) \sim 6 \times 10^{-5}$
or, by isospin conservation, $\mathcal{B}$$(\psi\pi^0) = 0.5\times$$\mathcal{B}$
$(\psi \pi^-) \sim (2.5\pm1.5)\times 10^{-5}$, where I've used the previously
published CLEO result\cite{psipi} for $\psi \pi^-$.
We reconstruct $\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ decays in the CsI calorimeter,
which has an efficiency of $\sim 60\%$. We observe 7 candidate events with the
background expected to be 0.7 events. The background comes predominantly
from real $\psi$'s from $B$ decay paired with random $\gamma$'s in the event
which accidentally form the $\pi^0$ mass. With a net detection efficiency of 24.3\%, we
obtain a branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}$$(B^0 \rightarrow \psi \pi^0) = (0.34 \pm 0.16 \;
\mbox{stat.} \pm 0.04 \; \mbox{sys.})\times 10^{-4}$.
We used the procedure of Feldman and Cousins \cite{feldman} to obtain the 68\% C.L.
intervals for the Poisson signal mean.
The $\psi \eta$ decay has the same CP as $\psi\pi^0$, so should exhibit
the same asymmetry. By isospin, we might expect that $\mathcal{B}$$(\psi \eta) =
\frac{1}{3} \times $$\mathcal{B}$$(\psi\pi^0)$. We searched for this mode using $\eta
\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decays ($BR = 39\%$). In 6.3 fb$^{-1}$ no
events were seen.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow \chi_{\mbox{c1}} K_{\mbox{S}}$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
This final state has the same CP as the $\psi K_{\mbox{S}}$, so should
have the same sign asymmetry. We select this decay mode by searching
for $\chi_{\mbox{c1}} \rightarrow \psi \gamma$, $\psi \rightarrow ll$,
and $ K_{\mbox{S}} \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ decays. In 6.3 fb$^{-1}$ 6
events were seen on a background of 0.6 events. The net detector efficiency
is 16\%, giving a branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}$$(B^0 \rightarrow \chi_{\mbox{c1}}
K^0) = (4.5^{+2.8}_{-1.8} \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-4}$. Again, the prescription of
Feldman and Cousins \cite{feldman} was used. The background
is expected to consist of random combinations of $\psi$'s and
$\gamma$'s. We are investigating the explicit contribution from $\psi K^*$.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow \psi(2\mbox{S}) K^{(*)0}$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
The $\psi(2\mbox{S}) K_{\mbox{S}}$ mode is a CP
eigenstate and the branching ratio is reported here for the first time.
The $\psi(2\mbox{S}) K^{*0}$ mode has previously been observed by
CDF\cite{cdfpsiprime} and is not a CP eigenstate: because the two
vector particles originate from a spin-0 $B^0$, there is an additional
factor of $(-1)^l = \pm 1$ in the final state CP due to orbital angular
momentum between the particles. Even though the $\psi(2\mbox{S})
K^{*0}$ mode is a superposition of two CP eigenstates, it is hoped that
a single CP state may dominate as with the decay $B^0 \rightarrow \psi
K^{*0}$ earlier observed by CLEO and CDF.\cite{psikstar} Even if both
CP states are prominent, however, Dunietz has suggested that an angular
analysis may be used to separate the two CP components.\cite{dunietz}
In this case, one must look at an angular distribution asymmetry that
develops with proper decay time of the $B^0$ instead of just a decay
rate asymmetry, so this analysis would require substantially more data.
The $\psi$(2S) is reconstructed through its $l^+l^-$ ($BR = 12\%$) and
$\psi \pi^+\pi^-$ ($BR = 32\%$) decays, and both $K^{*0} \rightarrow
K^+\pi^-$ ($BR = 67\%$) and $K^{*0} \rightarrow K_{\mbox{S}}\pi^0$ ($BR
= 17\%$) decays are considered. In this particular analysis the lepton
identification was somewhat more stringent than the previous analyses,
hence the efficiencies are somewhat lower (see Table 1).
In the case of the $\psi(2\mbox{S}) K^{*0}$ mode, the systematic
uncertainties are somewhat larger due to our knowledge of the unknown
helicity amplitudes in this channel (we assume
$\Gamma_{\mbox{L}}/\Gamma = 0.5$, and theoretically 0.5 - 0.7 is
expected. Note that CDF and CLEO measure $\Gamma_{\mbox{L}}/\Gamma =
0.52 \pm 0.08$ for $\psi K^{*0}$ decays\cite{psikstar}).
A total of 15 $\psi(2\mbox{S}) K_{\mbox{S}}$ and 21 $\psi(2\mbox{S})
K^{*0}$ candidates are observed (see Table 1). The backgrounds, totalling
$0.4 \pm 0.2$ and $1.9 \pm 0.6$ events, respectively, are predominantly due to
random combinatorics, but also from $B^- \rightarrow \psi(2\mbox{S})
K^{(*)-}$ decays. The relative yields of different $\psi$(2S) and $K^*$
decay modes is consistent with the different detection
efficiencies and branching ratios.
In addition to being a possible avenue for extracting $\sin(2\beta)$, the
$\psi(\mbox{2S}) K^{*0}$ mode presented here and the $\psi K^{*0}$ earlier
measured by CLEO\cite{psikstar} may help resolve two of the four-fold ambiguities
in the extracted value of $\beta$. The time-development of $B^0\rightarrow
\psi^{(')}K^{*0}$ decays contains additional terms due to the interference between
the CP=+1 and CP=-1 components. This additional interference results in additional
terms proportional to $cos(\beta)\sin(\Delta m_B t)$, hence a detailed measurement
of this decay amplitude may eventually resolve the sign of $\cos(\beta)$ and
remove two of the ambiguities for $\beta$. Unfortunately, the
$K^{*0}\rightarrow K_{\mbox{S}}\pi^0$ decay mode has a quarter of the decay rate
and less than half of the efficiency of the $K^+\pi^-$ mode, so gives a factor
9 fewer events in our sample; thus, such a resolution will not come concurrently
with a measurement of $\sin(2 \beta)$.
\section{$B^0 \rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$}
\vspace{-.15cm}
Like the yet unobserved decay mode $B^0 \rightarrow D^+D^-$, this decay
mode is not expected to be color-suppressed (as is $\psi \pi^0$), but
it is expected to be Cabibbo-suppressed relative to the more prevalent
and previously observed decay $B^0 \rightarrow D_{\mbox{s}}^{*+}D^{*-
}$.\cite{dsdpaper} So, we might expect a branching ratio for
$D^{*+}D^{*-}$ of approximately 0.1\%. Like the case of the
$\psi^{(')}K^{*0}$, this mode
is mixture of (+) and (-) CP eigenstates, so a mixing
analysis works if one of the amplitudes dominates or one does a
time-dependent measurement of an angular asymmetry\cite{dunietz}.
A more complete description of this analysis has recently been
published.\cite{jaffe} Here a brief description is given. To
reconstruct this mode, both $D^{*+} \rightarrow D^0 \pi^+$ ($BR=67\%$)
and $D^{*+} \rightarrow D^+ \pi^0$ ($BR = 33\%$) are used, although for
background reasons only $B^0 \rightarrow (D^0\pi^+)(\overline{D}^0\pi^-
)$ and $B^0 \rightarrow (D^+\pi^-)(\overline{D}^0\pi^-)$ modes were
considered. A total of five $D^0$ and six $D^+$ decay modes were
considered.
To suppress background, two techniques were employed. The first was
kinematic, in which a $\chi^2$ variable was constructed to compare the
reconstructed $D$ and $D^*$ masses for candidates within a given event
with the known values.\cite{pdg} The combinations of particles within
an event with the best $\chi^2$ was chosen, and this combination had to
have a $\chi^2<20$ (xx\% efficient for signal while xx\% efficient for random
$B\overline{B}$ and $c\overline{c}$ backgrounds). The second technique
was topological, requiring the flight distance between the $D$ and
$\overline{D}$ decay vertices, as measured by the silicon vertex
detector, to be inconsistent with zero given our experimental
resolutions.\cite{svx} This cut was used for events where there was a
slow $\pi^0$ from the $D^*$ decay.
The results of the search are shown in Figure 3: 4 candidates were
found. The background, expected to be 0.4 events, is due to
$e^+e^- \rightarrow c\overline{c}$ continuum and to
$B\rightarrow D+X$ decays, where a $D$ and a random $\pi$ are
incorrectly paired to make a $D^*$. The probability of 0.4 events
expected background fluctuating to 4 observed events is $1.1 \times
10^{-4}$.
The branching ratio is determined to be $(6.2^{+4.0}_{-2.9}\pm1.0) \times
10^{-4}$, consistent with our expectations and actually quite
comparable to the $\psi K_{\mbox{S}}$ mode. Unfortunately, the
reconstruction efficiency is quite small here, just $\sim
10^{-3}$, which is in part due to the 8\% from all the branching ratios
of the $D$'s and $D^*$'s, but also to the 1\% efficiency for
reconstructing these high multiplicity decays. We are currently
investigating the possibility of only partially reconstructing one of
the $D^*$'s in this decay, and it is furthermore possible that the
reconstruction efficiency will be higher at an asymmetric $B$ factory
due to the Lorentz boost of the $B$.
\section{Summary}
\vspace{-.15cm}
Table 1 shows the yields for the CP eigenstates summarized in this paper. In 6.6
fb$^{-1}$, 140 events are found amongst all the modes after dilutions are accounted
for. Thus, in a 30 fb$^{-1}$ dataset which might be accumulated by one of the $B$
factories in one year's run, one could anticipate 640 events for studying
$\sin (2\beta)$. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 2, some of the selection
criteria in these various searches have not been optimized for CP studies,
hence the efficiencies might be increased by another factor of $\sim 1.6$, giving
an anticipated number of events (after dilution) to just over 1000 when all
modes are included. Furthermore, one can hope for additional background rejection
when working at an asymmetric collider. Even ignoring such gains,
however, one should be able to measure $\sin(2\beta)$ with an error of $\pm 0.1$.
The fact that the 3-generation Standard Model with a single Higgs multiplet has just one independent CP-violating phase makes all the CP-violating effects all very strongly constrained. It will be of great interest to see whether the pattern of CP violation in $B$ decays agrees with the prediction of the CKM model, or whether new physics will have to be invoked to understand the (hopefully many!) manifestations of CP violation observed in the next few years.
\section{Acknowledgements}
\vspace{-.15cm}
It is a pleasure to thank my many CLEO colleagues for the opportunity
to represent them at the Division of Particles and Fields conference.
The January Los Angeles climate is a pleasant departure from Upstate
New York. In particular, I thank Alexey Ershov, Alex Undrus, Andy
Foland, and David Jaffe, whose work is represented here. I also
thank Sheldon Stone and Silvia Schuh for helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent advances in infrared and X-ray array technologies have greatly increased
the spatial coverage and resolutions in near-IR and X-ray
observations, providing powerful tools to compare high-resolution
radio, IR and X-ray images of the complex region of the Galactic
center. Sgr A$^*$ is a bright compact radio source
which is considered to be the strongest candidate
for a 2.5$\times10^6$ \msol black hole at the
dynamical center of the Galaxy (Eckart and Genzel 1997; Ghez et al. 1998).
This source is surrounded by diffuse ionized gas as well as clusters
of hot and cool stars seen in near-IR wavelengths.
Detailed comparison of radio and near-IR images
was recently made with a new approach by
Menten et al. (1997), who detected a number of SiO (0.7 cm) and H$_2$O
(1.3 cm) masers associated with known compact stellar sources seen in
the diffraction limited 2.2 $\mu$m infrared images.
Astrometric measurements between radio and 2 $\mu$m images of this region
were used to determine the position of Sgr A$^*$ with respect to other
well-known near-IR sources.
Although the relative position of Sgr A$^*$
is accurately measured within 30 mas in this technique, the absolute position of
Sgr A$^*$ was known with an accuracy of 0.2$''$.
A more accurate position of this source and its subsequent X-ray counterpart
in future sub-arcsecond observations has important implications on the nature of
high energy activity predicted from models of this source (Melia 1994;
Narayan et al. 1995).
The absolute positions of radio sources are routinely obtained to an
accuracy of a few milliarcseconds using centimeter wavelength VLBI
techniques.
However, the large scattering diameter of Sgr A$^*$ (Yusef-Zadeh et
al. 1994) makes the application of centimeter wavelength VLBI less
feasible, as the source is completely resolved on longer baselines.
Thus, shorter baseline arrays and/or shorter wavelengths are needed
resulting in reduced positional accuracy.
The most recent measurements of the location of Sgr A$^*$ with the
smallest error bar is given as $\alpha$, $\delta$[ 1950 ] = $17^{\rm
h} 42^{\rm m}$ 29\dsec314$\pm0.010$,
$-28^\circ 59^\prime 18.3\pm0.2^{\prime\prime}$
(Rogers et al. 1994).
This position is determined with respect to the reference source NRAO 530
using VLBI techniques at 3mm.
To improve the absolute position of Sgr A$^*$, we obtained archival
VLA data sets at a number of frequencies taken over the last 13 years.
By averaging the position of Sgr A$^*$ at different frequencies and
at different epochs, the new
position of Sgr A$^*$ is determined with an accuracy of an order of
magnitude better than earlier measurements.
The averaging of the data over such a long span of time and frequency
can be justified.
The proper motion measurements of this source is too small with
respect to reference extragalactic radio sources (Reid et al. 1998;
Backer 1996) to affect individual measurement.
Also, the change in the position of Sgr A$^*$ as a function of frequency is
too small to be significant compared to other systematic errors.
The frequency dependence of the size of Sgr A$^*$ due
to scattering of radio waves will not change the centroid of the
position of Sgr A$^*$ as a function of frequency (Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1994).
It is worth mentioning
that the detection of frequency dependence of the position of Sgr A$^*$
at a milliarcsecond level, due to its intrinsic radio emission,
has the potential to support the asymmetrical Bondi-Hoyle accretion model
(Melia 1994).
\section{Observations}
Table 1 shows the list of 15 data sets that were based on
continuum observations
made with the Very Large Array of the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory\footnote{The National Radio Astronomy
Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated
under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.} at
6 (5 GHz), 3.6 (8.4 GHz), 2 (15 GHz), 1.2 (20 GHz), and 0.7 cm (44
GHz) between 1986 and 1999.
All had a bandwidth ranging between 2 $\times$ 50 and 2 $\times$ 12.5
MHz in each right and left
circular polarization.
Each of these original data sets had relatively good {uv} coverage
and none were done in snapshot mode with less than one hour of
integration time on the source.
With the exception of 0.7 cm data which was taken in the C configuration,
all the observations were done in either
the A or the B
configurations of the VLA to obtain the highest resolution images of
Sgr A$^*$ with minimal contamination or confusion by ionized features
in the vicinity of Sgr A$^*$.
The low resolution images of Sgr A$^*$ at 20 and 90 cm suffer from
this source confusion as well as optical depth effects due to
intervening thermal and nonthermal continuum sources.
Thus, 20 and 90cm observations were not used.
In all observations, NRAO530 and 3C286 were chosen as the phase
(astrometric) and flux (photometric) calibrators, respectively.
All processing was done using the NRAO AIPS analysis package; the
standard calibration was applied and the field around Sgr A$^*$ was
imaged.
Since the observations were all made in the B1950 coordinate system,
the data were analyzed in this system. The VLA calibrator B1950
coordinate system is referred to epoch 1979.5.
No self--calibration was done on any of the data as this procedure
loses the absolute position of a source in order to minimize
atmospheric phase errors.
Prior to self-calibration, no significant emission from Sgr A$^*$ was
detected at 0.7 cm in the A and B configurations, so these data were
excluded.
VLA continuum data consists of two independent frequency bands.
The final images based on combining these two frequency bands were
used to determine the position of Sgr A$^*$ with AIPS routine JMFIT
by fitting a Gaussian to the source.
Fits done using images from the individual frequency bands showed no
significant positional shift.
At short wavelengths, the phase fluctuations degrading the positional
accuracy are due mainly to variable refraction in the troposphere; at
longer wavelengths the ionosphere adds increasingly important
contributions.
Variable ionospheric refraction is particularly significant for
observations made at 6 cm during the day when the ionosphere is
densest.
Solar heating of the troposphere also increases the variations in
refraction.
So, we have assigned weights of 1 and 2 to day-- and night-time
observations, respectively.
For observations that were carried out between night and day, the
assigned weight was 1.5.
The atmospheric effects are aggravated by the low declination of the source
and the
calibrator and the resultant low elevation angles of the observations.
These effects are minimized by restricting the {\it uv} data
to near transit.
The data sets selected within one to three hours
of the highest elevation
improved considerably the dispersion in measured position of Sgr
A$^*$ among the different epochs.
Errors in atmospheric refraction affect mainly the measurements of
the declination of Sgr A$^*$.
The astrometric calibrator used, NRAO530, is about 15$^\circ$ north of
Sgr A$^*$.
Since the observations were restricted to those near transit,
this corresponds to a difference primarily in elevation.
Corrections to the atmospheric refraction model are determined from
the calibrator observations which is at a significantly higher
elevation than Sgr A$^*$ (i.e. at lower air mass); any unmodeled
differences in atmospheric refraction between the calibrator and Sgr
A$^*$ will appear primarily as errors in declination.
A further potential source of systematic error is the assumed position of
the calibrator, NRAO530. Our measurements are of position relative to
that of the calibrator whose absolute position is known; any errors in the
assumed position of NRAO530 will directly affect the derived position of
Sgr A$^*$. In all our measurements, the position of NRAO530 was constant
and was assumed to be at (B1950 epoch 1979.5) $\alpha$, $\delta$ =
$17^{\rm h} 30^{\rm m} 13\dsec5352$, $-13^\circ 02^\prime
45.837^{\prime\prime}$. This position is consistent to within 5 mas of the
VLBI source position given by Johnston et al. (1995) and by
US Naval Observatory's (USNO) astrometry
list (ftp://casa.usno.navy.mil/navnet/n9798.sor) after the correction
between the VLA and USNO frames is made.
The position of NRAO530 assumed is an absolute position measured by
VLBI techniques which are insensitive to structure larger than a few
tens of milliarcseconds.
NRAO530 is suspected of having structure on the scale of several
hundred milliarcseconds which would not affect the VLBI measurements
but will cause an apparent shift of the position when viewed with the
lower VLA resolution.
Any difference between the centroid of the position of NRAO530 at
VLBI and VLA resolutions will appear as an error in the derived
position of Sgr A$^*$.
\section{Results}
Table 1 lists 15 data sets, three of which at 1.3 cm, four at
2 cm, five at 3.6 cm, two at 6 cm, and one at 0.7 cm.
The date of each observation, the Gaussian fitted position with 1
$\sigma$ error, duration of the observation
and the corresponding weight in the final averaging
are also given.
The errors of the fitted positions depend on the signal-to-noise
ratio and are much less than the errors introduced
by the atmosphere. The rms scatter within the data set, as described
below, is about ten times the fitted noise, thus we have not
used the errors of the fitted positions in any of our
analysis.
The mean position of Sgr A$^*$, both weighted and unweighted,
as well as the position determined by Rogers et al. 1994 are also
listed at the bottom of the table. The most descripant point
at 1.3 cm was not included in the final averaging.
The rms scatter of the individual measurements in Table 1
(either weighted or
unweighted) is about 0.035$''$ in Right ascension and 0.055" in
declination. This is consistent with the assumption that the errors
are dominated by uncertainties in atmospheric refraction which should
produce a larger scatter in declination. This is further supported by
the two pairs of positions measured on the same day, in which the
declinations differed by about 0.030", or nearly half of the day-to-day
scatter. The one sigma errors in the mean position are taken to be the
rms scatter of the sample divided by the square root of the number of
observations minus one.
Figure 1 shows the Right ascension and declination of Sgr A$^*$ with
one sigma error given by Rogers et al. (1994) against
15 positions determined from our measurements.
All the new positions fall to the SW quadrant of the
position derived by Rogers et al.
The weighted position of Sgr A$^*$ with the weighted
mean epoch of our observation being 1992.4 is \hfill\break
(B1950) $\alpha$, $\delta$ =
$17^{\rm h} 42^{\rm m}$ 29\dsec3076$\pm0.0007$, $-28^\circ 59^\prime
18.484\pm0.014^{\prime\prime}$ or \hfill\break
(J2000) $\alpha$, $\delta$ =
$17^{\rm h} 45^{\rm m}$ 40\dsec0383$\pm0.0007$, $-29^\circ 00^\prime
28.069\pm0.014^{\prime\prime}$. \hfill\break
These measurements are in good agreement with the less precise measurement
of Rogers et al. 1994 as well as with the
position of Sgr A$^*$ determined from recent VLBI measurements (Reid et
al. 1999).
|
\section{Introduction}
Toy models in physics play an important role in
understanding the basic features of more involved theories
and phenomena. In particular, models in one dimensional
quantum mechanics, illustrating analogous situations in
a field theoretic context have been quite useful for
advanced researchers as well as beginning graduate
students. Among many such models, those which
illustrate non--perturbative aspects of field theory
through an analysis of instanton solutions and
bounces have been looked at in diverse contexts.
The $x^{2}-x^{4}$ potential and the quantum pendulum
have been discussed and analyzed in great detail
in the past. Apart from aspects which emerge out
of solutions and their analysis, it is also important
to relate the toy model with different
realistic models by mapping rules/dimensional extensions
etc. We shall, in this article, try to analyze a
novel toy model which has applications
in different situations and is also exactly
solvable to some extent. In particular, we discuss the
problem of {\em Particle
on a Rotating Circle} (henceforth referred to as PORC) in the presence of
gravitational/
magnetic field (a charged particle in the case of magnetic
field).
Before we indulge into analyzing the salient features of this model,
let us first explore the existing literature on it. For a
undergraduate/graduate student, a first
encounter with this model is likely to occur
while doing a course in classical mechanics.
The model appears as a problem in the second chapter of
Goldstein's book on classical mechanics{\cite{gold:cm}}.
It is also elaborately
discussed in Arnold {\cite{gold:cm}}. There exists a host of
other articles on it, in this journal too {\cite{porc:ajp}},
the most recent one being published a couple of years ago {\cite{flet:ajp97}}.
The major directions along which this model has been
viewed are (i) as an example of spontaneous symmetry
breaking (ii) as a mechanical model for second order
phase transitions (iii) as an example in quantum mechanics
where instanton solutions are obtainable {\cite{sk:pla92}}(iv) as a
lower dimensional analog of certain higher dimensional
field theories.
In this article, we shall see that this model (PORC) has the following
intriguing features :
\begin{itemize}
\item{The classical mechanics of the model is exactly
solvable in a way similar to that of the pendulum problem }
\item{When extended to full
real line (instead of circle $S^{1}$)\
the model has intimate connections with several
field theoretic and statistical mechanical models (for details see Section III).}
\item{The model in the presence of a uniform gravitational
or magnetic field has non-perturbative
solutions such as instantons/bounces and the corresponding
tunneling/decay rates can be written down and
analyzed (for a discussion on the theory of instantons, bounces and their
contribution to tunneling/decay rates can be found in \cite{gen:inst}, \cite
{gen1:inst}, \cite{kleinert:pi} ).}
\item {A formal analysis of the Schr\"odinger equation can be performed
and exact solutions obtained. However the full expressions for the eigenvalues
and eigenfunctions are encoded in certain continued fractions which we do not
discuss in further detail.}
\item{In the presence of a uniform magnetic field the quantum problem is
quasi-exactly solvable--we can get at least a few energy
eigenstates and eigenvalues
analytically \cite{hks} \cite{km} by extending the method due to Razavy
{\cite{raz:ajp}}.}
\end{itemize}
\section{The model}
Let us first introduce the model in some detail. We have a
point particle of mass $m$ (and charge $q$ if we
are looking at the problem in the presence of a magnetic field)
constrained to move on a
circle ($S^{1}$). The circle is located vertically and
is rotating at an angular frequency $\omega$ about the
vertical axis of symmetry. Two special cases will
be analyzed -- (i) the system in the presence of a
uniform gravitational field (ii) the system in the
presence of a uniform magnetic field. Specifications
about the directions and magnitudes of each of these uniform
fields are given below. Note that this problem is a
generalisation ($\omega \neq 0$) of the usual pendulum
problem ($\omega =0$) whose quantum mechanics is discussed
in {\cite{kp:ajp}}
A generic Lagrangian for the such a system can be given as :
\begin{equation}\label{2.1}
L_{generic} = \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}{\dot \theta}^{2} - A\cos \theta
- B\cos 2\theta \, ,
\end{equation}
where A and B are constants depending on the various parameters in
the model.
We can in principle have four cases depending upon the signs of A and B.
These are :
\centerline{(i) $A>0, B>0 $ (ii) $A>0, B<0$ (iii) $A<0,B>0$ (iv) $A<0, B<0$}
Note that with a proper redefinition of $\theta$ (more precisely
$\theta \rightarrow \pi - \theta$) we can relate the
models (i) and (iii) as well as (ii) and (iv). Therefore, in essence we
have only two models to discuss. The two special cases given below
exemplify these two cases.
{\bf Case 1 : System in a uniform gravitational field}
\begin{equation}
L_{grav} = \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}\dot \theta^{2} - \bigg (mgr \cos \theta -
\frac{1}{2} mr^{2}
\omega^{2}\sin^{2}\theta \bigg ) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the generalized coordinate required to
describe the system.
Thus the effective one--dimensional potential is :
\begin{equation}
V(\theta) =
mgr\cos\theta +\frac{1}{4}mr^{2}\omega^{2}\cos 2\theta - \frac{1}{4}
mr^{2}\omega^{2} \, .
\end{equation}
Note that this system falls in the $A>0,B>0$ class mentioned above.
The location of the extrema of the effective potential are as follows :
{\bf Minima :}
(i) $\omega > \omega_{0}$ : $\theta = \cos^{-1}{(-a)} \, ,
2\pi - \cos^{-1}(-a) \, .$
$V(\theta_{min}) = V(2\pi - \theta_{min}) = -mr^2 \omega_0^2 (a^2+1)/a \, .$
(ii) $\omega <\omega_{0}$ : $\theta =\pi$ \hspace{.1in} ; \hspace{.1in}
$V(\theta_{min}) =
-mr^2 \omega_0^2 \, .$
{\bf Maxima :}
(i) $\omega >\omega_{0}$ : $\theta = 0(2\pi)$, $\theta =\pi$ \hspace{.1in} ;
\hspace{.1in}
$V(0) = V(2\pi) = mr^2 \omega_0^2 \, ; \ V(\pi) = -mr^2\omega_0^2 \, .$
(ii) $\omega <\omega_{0}$ : $\theta = 0 (2\pi) \, .$
Thus for $\omega > \omega_0$ one has degenerate minima and maxima as well as a
local maxima while for $\omega < \omega_0$ there is no local maxima.
The potentials are shown in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) for the $\omega>\omega_{0}$ and $\omega<\omega_{0}$
cases respectively. Here $\omega_0 = \sqrt{g/r}$ while $a = \omega_0^2/\omega^2$.
{\bf Case 2 : System in a uniform magnetic field}
\begin{equation}
L_{mag} = \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}{\dot\theta}^{2} + \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}\omega^{2}
\sin^{2}\theta + q {\bf A . v} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $q$ denotes the charge of the particle.
Since $\bf B$ is constant we have ${\bf A}= -\frac{1}{2} {\bf r \times B}$.
Assuming that the components of $\bf B$ are $(B_{r}, B_{\theta},0)$ we find
that the vector potential $\bf A$ has the components $(0,0,A_{\phi})$ where
$A_{\phi} = -\frac{1}{2} r B_{\theta}$. Since ${\bf v}$ has components
$(0,r\dot\theta,
\omega r \sin \theta)$ we find that the Lagrangian takes the form :
\begin{equation}
L_{mag} = \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}{\dot \theta}^{2} - \left ( \frac{qBr^{2}\omega}{2} \sin
\theta - \frac{1}{2} mr^{2}\omega^{2} \sin^{2} \theta \right ) \, .
\end{equation}
Thus the effective one dimensional potential is
\begin{equation}
V (\theta ) = \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}\omega^{2}
\left ( \frac{\omega_{c}}{\omega} \sin \theta -\sin^{2}\theta \right ) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{c} = \frac{qB}{m}$.
With a straightforward redefinition of $\theta$ ($\theta \rightarrow
\theta - \frac{\pi}{2}$) we see that this model belongs
to the other class ($A>0,B<0$).
The extrema of the effective potential
are as follows :
{\bf Minima :}
(i) $\omega > \omega_c/2 : \theta = \frac{\pi}{2} \, , \frac{3\pi}{2} \, ,$
$V (\frac{\pi}{2})
= \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}\omega^{2} \left ( \frac{\omega_{c}}{\omega} - 1 \right )
\quad ; \quad V (\frac{3\pi}{2}) = -\frac{1}{2}mr^{2}\omega^{2}
\left ( \frac{\omega_{c}}{\omega} + 1 \right )$
(ii) $\omega < \omega_c/2 : \theta = {3\pi\over 2} \quad ;
\quad V(3\pi/2) = - {1\over 2} mr^2 \omega^2 ({\omega_c \over \omega} +1)$
{\bf Maxima :}
(i) $\omega > \omega_c/2 : \theta = \sin^{-1}\frac{\omega_{c}}{2\omega},
\ \pi - \sin^{-1}\frac{\omega_{c}
}{2\omega} \quad ; \quad V (\theta_{max}) = \frac{1}{8}mr^{2} \omega_{c}
^{2}$ \, .
(ii) $\omega < \omega_c/2 : \theta = {\pi \over 2} \quad ; \quad
V(\pi/2) = {1\over 2} mr^2 \omega^2 ({\omega_c \over \omega} -1)$ \, .
Thus for $\omega > \omega_c /2$ the effective potential represents a
system which has a false
vacuum at $\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}$ and a true vacuum at
$\theta = \frac{3\pi}{2}$ while for $\omega < \omega_c /2$ there is no local
minima.
The two scenarios
are plotted in Fig. 2(a) and 2(b) respectively.
>From the figures for the effective potentials we can conclude
the following -- (i) in the presence of a uniform magnetic field we may have
a true as well as false vacua
while (ii) in a uniform gravitational field we can have a degenerate
double well potential. Additionally, if we generalize the
above over the full (real)
line then we have
a periodic potential for which
the minima are infinite-fold degenerate.
A more general problem is that of a charged particle in a uniform gravitational
plus magnetic (and even electric) field. The most general Lagrangian is given
by
\begin{equation}\label{2.7}
L_{general} = \frac{1}{2}mr^{2}{\dot \theta}^{2} +\frac{1}{2}mr^{2}
\omega^{2} \sin^{2} \theta - mgr\cos\theta -\frac{qBr^{2}\omega}{2}
\sin \theta + q\phi_{elec} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{elec}$ is the electric potential. In general, this problem
cannot be exactly solved in either classical or quantum mechanics even
though a general analysis of the motion in classical mechanics is
possible {\cite{flet:ajp97}}.
However, by suitably choosing
the ratio of the electric and magnetic
fields we can reduce the problem to that of a particle
moving on a rotating circle in uniform gravitational
field alone.
Similarly, by suitably choosing the ratio of the gravitational and
electric fields, one can reduce it to that of a particle moving on a
rotating circle in a uniform magnetic field alone.
Other combinations and their consequences can also be tried out. We leave it
to the reader to figure out the details of these scenarios.
\section{Inter--connections with field theoretic and other models}
The toy models discussed above have remarkable connections
with a wide--ranging variety of field theoretic models. We shall now
briefly summarize some of these interconnections.
To begin with, note that there exists a correspondence between the toy
models discussed above and $1+1$ dimensional double-- sine--Gordon (DSG)
field theory defined by the Lagrangian density :
\begin{equation}\label{3.1}
{\cal L} = {1\over 2}{\partial_{\mu} \phi} {\partial^{\nu}\phi} + Acos \phi
+ B cos 2\phi \, ,
\end{equation}
in that the potential is
formally the same in both the cases.
Here A and B could be positive or negative.
The field equation that follows
from a first variation is
\begin{equation}\label{3.2}
{\partial^2 \phi \over \partial t^2} - {\partial^2 \phi \over \partial x^2} = A \sin \phi + 2B \sin 2\phi \, .
\end{equation}
Hence the equation for static (i.e.
$\phi$ independent of time) solutions is
\begin{equation}\label{3.3}
{d^2 \phi \over dx^2} = -\left ( A sin \theta + 2B sin 2\theta \right ) \, .
\end{equation}
It may be noted that this equation also
follows from our toy model Lagrangian as given by eq. (\ref{2.1}) but for
an overall sign. In fact if we go to the Euclidean time i.e. let $t = i\tau$
, then the classical equation of motion in the toy model takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{3.4}
{d^2 \theta \over d\tau^2} = - (A sin \theta + 2B sin \theta) \, ,
\end{equation}
which is identical to the static field equation as given by eq. (\ref{3.3}).
Now it is well known {\cite{gen1:inst}} that the finite Euclidean
action solutions of the
Euclidean equations of motion (\ref{3.4}) for any system are nothing but the
instantons, whose mere existence is due to the presence of degenerate
minima in the potential appearing in the theory. Further, once one has
obtained
these instanton solutions and
the corresponding Euclidean actions, the tunneling
amplitude for the transition
between the degenerate vacua can easily be computed in the dilute
(non-interacting) instanton gas
approximation. We thus notice that the static finite energy solutions of
the DSG equation as given by (\ref{3.3}) are the same as the finite
(Euclidean) action instanton solutions of our Toy model (with the obvious
replacement of $\phi$ with $\theta$ and $x$ with $\tau$).
Since the DSG
equation has been extensively studied in the literature
{\cite{leu,ptk,boc,cgm,det}},
we can immediately write down the corresponding
instanton solutions of our toy model.
It may be added here that the DSG field equation
occurs quite naturally in several
physically important situations. For example, it appears
quite naturally in the study of spin waves in the B-phase of super-fluid $^3 He$
\cite{mat,buc}, in the problem of self-induced transparency
\cite{dbc} and in nonlinear excitations in a compressible chain of XY dipoles
under
conditions of piezoelectric coupling \cite{rem}. Further, a model based on
the DSG theory
has been proposed \cite{hls} to describe the poling process in the
B-phase of the
polymer polyvinylidene fluoride ($PVF_2$). Additionally, the DSG theory
has been investigated as a
model of a nonlinear system which can support more than one
kind of soliton.
The sine-Gordon equation, in turn, is related to
the massive Thirring Model \cite{col} while a specific form of DSG has been
shown to be equivalent to a generalized massive Thirring model \cite{bha}.
Thus, any new results obtained in any of these models will immediately have
relevance in various other related models.
Finally, we may add that the DSG equation is also related to the
anisotropic Heisenberg chain in an applied
magnetic field. In particular, by treating spins classically, Leung \cite{leu}
as well as
Pandit et al. \cite{ptk} have shown that the
classical spin dynamics is approximately governed by the generalized double
sine Gordon (DSG) model as given by eq. (\ref{2.7}).
\section{Classical Solutions}
We now move on towards analyzing the real time solutions i.e. the
classical mechanics of the above problem.
Defining $E=T+V-V_{min}$ so that $E \ge 0$,
we integrate the corresponding quadrature
and then analyze the various cases separately.
{\bf 1. System in a gravitational field}
For the gravitational case, for the two domains of
$\omega$ we have the following results..
{\underline{\sf $\omega <\omega_{0}$}}
Here $V_{min}=-mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}$. Using $\theta = 2\phi$ and
then $\tan \phi = y$ we obtain the following generic form of integral which we
need to analyze :
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{dy}{\sqrt{y^{4} + 2y^{2}\left (1-\alpha -\beta \right )
+ \left (1-2\alpha\right )}} = \sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}} \left ( t-t_{0}\right )
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\alpha = {m\omega_0^2 r^2\over E} \quad ; \quad
\beta = {m\omega^2 r^2 \over E} \, .
\end{equation}
Recall that $V_{max}=2mgr=2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}$. We can therefore
have two possibilities $E<V_{max}$ and $E>V_{max}$ which we discuss one by one.
{\sf (a) $E<V_{max}$}
In this energy range we have the following
two alternatives depending on the sign of the quadratic term
in the denominator of the elliptic integral. These are :
(i) $0<E<mr^{2}\left (\omega_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2} \right )$
In this case the solution is \cite{gr}
\begin{equation}
\tan \frac{\theta}{2} = b \frac{dn(X,k)}{\kappa^{\prime}sn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
where $X=\frac{b}{\kappa^{\prime}}\sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}}(t-t_{0})$,
$a^{2}b^{2}=2\alpha -1$, $ b^{2}-a^{2} = 2 (\alpha -\beta -1)$ \, .
Here cn(X,k), sn(X,k) and dn(X,k) are Jacobi elliptic functions of real
elliptic modulus parameter $k$.
(ii) $mr^{2}\left (\omega_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2} \right ) < E <V_{max}$
In this case the solution is
\begin{equation}
\tan {\frac{\theta}{2}} = \frac{a dn(X,k)}{\kappa sn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
where $X=\frac{a}{\kappa}\sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}}(t-t_{0})$, $ \frac{a}{a^{2}+b^{2}}
=\kappa$, $\kappa^{\prime} = \sqrt{1-\kappa^{2}}$,
$a^{2}b^{2} = 2\alpha -1$, $a^{2}-b^{2}=2(1-\alpha+\beta)$.
{\sf (b) $E>V_{max}$}
The exact solution here is :
\begin{equation}
\tan \frac{\theta}{2} = a cn(X,k)/sn(X,k)
\end{equation}
where $X= a\sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}}(t-t_{0})$, $\frac{\sqrt{a^{2}-b^{2}}}{a}
=\kappa$,
$a^{2}b^{2}=1-2\alpha$, $a^{2}+b^{2}=2(1-\alpha+\beta)$.
Note also that as $b\rightarrow 0$, $a^{2}=1+\frac{\omega^{2}}{\omega_{0}^{2}}$
, which implies $E=2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}$.
{\underline{\sf $\omega >\omega_{0}$}}
In this domain of $\omega$ we note that $V_{min}=
-\frac{mr^{2}}{2\omega_{0}^{2}} \left (\omega_{0}^{4} +\omega^{4} \right )
$. As before, using $\theta = 2\phi$, $\tan \phi = y$ we get :
\begin{eqnarray}
\int \frac{dy}{\sqrt{y^{4} \left ( E-V_{max} + 2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2} \right )
+ 2y^{2} \left ( E + mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2} + mr^{2}\omega^{2}
-V_{max} \right ) + \left ( E-V_{max} \right ) }} \nonumber \\
= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2mr^{2}}}
\left (t-t_{0} \right ) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_{max} = \frac{m r^2}{2 \omega^2} \left (\omega_{0}^{2} + \omega^{2}
\right )^{2}$. The exact solutions in the various sub-cases are analyzed below.
{\sf (a) $E<V_{max}$}
In a way similar to the $\omega<\omega_{0}$ case we once again have two
possibilities depending on the signs of the coefficients of the various
terms appearing in the elliptic integral.
(i) $0<E<\frac{mr^{2}}{2\omega^{2}}\left (\omega^{2}-\omega_{0}^{2}
\right )^{2}$
The solution for this case is :
\begin{equation}
\tan \frac{\theta}{2} = \frac{1}{a dn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
where $X= a\sqrt{\frac{V_{max}-E}{2mr^{2}}} (t-t_{0})$, $a^{2}b^{2} =
\frac{V_{max} - E - 2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}}{V_{max} - E}$,
$a^{2} + b^{2} = 2\frac{E-V_{max}+mr^{2}(\omega^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2})}
{V_{max} - E}$.
(ii) $\frac{mr^{2}}{2\omega^{2}}\left (\omega^{2}-\omega_{0}^{2}
\right )^{2}< E <V_{max}$
Within these bounds of energy, the solution turns out to be
\begin{equation}
\tan {\frac{\theta}{2}}= \frac{a}{\kappa} \frac{dn(X,k)}{sn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
with $X= \frac{a}{\kappa} \sqrt{\frac{E+2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2} - V_{max}}
{2mr^{2}}} (t-t_{0})$, $a^{2}b^{2} = \frac{V_{max}-E}{E+2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}
-V_{max}}$, $a^{2}-b^{2} = \frac{E+mr^{2}(\omega^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2})-V_{max}}
{E+2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2} -V_{max}}$.
{\sf (b) $E>V_{max}$}
The solution here is given by:
\begin{equation}
\tan{\frac{\theta}{2}} = a\frac{cn(X,k)}{sn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
where $X=a\sqrt{\frac{E-V_{max} +2mr^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}}{2mr^{2}}} (t-t_{0})$.
{\bf 2. System in a magnetic field :}
In the magnetic case, we follow the same procedure as above.
The only major difference is that, unlike the gravitational case, $V_{min} =
-\frac{1}{2} mr^{2}\omega^{2} \left ( 1 +\frac{\omega_{c}}{\omega} \right )$
is the same irrespective of whether
$\omega>\frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$ or $\omega < \frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$.
Using $\theta = \phi -\frac{\pi}{2}$, $\frac{\phi}{2} = \eta$ and $\tan \eta
=y$ we find that we have to handle the following integral :
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{dy}{\sqrt{\left [ \left (1-\alpha\right ) y^{4} + \left (2-\alpha
-\beta \right ) y^{2} + 1 \right ]}} = (t-t_0) \sqrt{E\over 2mr^2} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = {mr^2 \omega \omega_c \over E}, \beta = {2mr^2 \omega^2
\over E}$.
It is convenient to make another transformation $y=\frac{1}{u}$ and then
analyse the resulting integral, which is, generically, of the form
\begin{equation}
-\int \frac{du}{\left [ u^{4} + u^{2} \left ( 2-\alpha -\beta \right)
+ \left ( 1-\alpha \right
) \right ]^{\frac{1}{2}}} =
\left (t-t_{0}\right ) \sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}} \, .
\end{equation}
The various cases are now analyzed below.
{\underline{\sf $\omega < \frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$}}
{\sf (a) $E<V_{max}$}
Here, depending on the signs of the various coefficients we will have
two cases :
(i) $\frac{mr^{2}\omega\omega_{c}}{2}\left (1+\frac{2\omega}{\omega_{c}}
\right ) < E < V_{max}$
The solution here is :
\begin{equation}
\tan \left (\frac{\theta}{2}
+\frac{\pi}{4} \right )
= \frac{k}{a} \frac{sn (X,k)}{dn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa = \frac{a}{\sqrt{a^{2}+b^{2}}}$, $a^{2}b^{2}=\alpha-1$,
$a^{2}-b^{2}=2-\alpha-\beta$ and $X= \frac{a}{\kappa}\sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}}
(t-t_{0})$.
(ii) $0<E<\frac{mr^{2}\omega\omega_{c}}{2}\left (1+\frac{2\omega}{\omega_{c}}
\right )$
The solution here is the same as before except that now
$a^{2}<b^{2}$ and therefore
one may obtain it from the previous solution by just interchanging
$a$ and $b$.
{\sf (b) $E > V_{max}$}
\begin{equation}
\tan \left ( \frac{\theta}{2} +\frac{\pi}{4} \right ) = \frac{sn(
X,k)}{acn(X,k)}
\end{equation}
where $ X=a{\sqrt{E \over 2mr^{2}}} (t-t_0)$,
$a^2 b^2 = 1-\alpha$, $a^2+b^2 =2-\alpha-\beta$ \, .
{\underline{\sf $\omega > \frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$}}
{\sf (a) $E<V_{max}$}
The two cases depending on the signs of the various coefficients are :
(i) $0<E<mr^{2}\omega\omega_{c}$
Here the solution is :
\begin{equation}
\tan \left (\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{\pi}{4} \right )
= \frac{k'^2}{b} \frac{sn(X,k)}{dn(X,k)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $a^{2}b^{2} = \alpha - 1$, $b^{2}-a^{2}=\alpha +\beta -2$, $\kappa
=\frac{a}{\sqrt{a^{2}+b^{2}}}$ and of course $k'^2+k^2 =1$.
(ii) $mr^{2}\omega\omega_{c}<E<V_{max}$
The solution is
\begin{equation}
\tan \left (\frac{\theta}{2} + \frac{\pi}{4} \right ) = \frac{1}{a}
sn [a\sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}} (t-t_{0} )] \, .
\end{equation}
{\sf (b) $E>V_{max}$}
The two cases are given below :
(i) $V_{max} < E < mr^{2}\left (\omega^{2}+\frac{\omega\omega_{c}}{2}\right )$
The solution is
\begin{equation}
\tan \left (\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{\pi}{4} \right ) = \frac{1}{a}
sn(X,k) \, .
\end{equation}
(ii) $E>mr^{2}\left (\omega^{2} + \frac{\omega\omega_{c}}{2} \right )$
The solution is
\begin{equation}
\tan \left (\frac{\theta}{2} + \frac{\pi}{4} \right ) = \frac{1}{a}
\frac{sn(X,k)}{cn(X,k)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where in both the above solutions $X=a\sqrt{\frac{E}{2mr^{2}}} (t-t_{0})$.
Before concluding this section, we briefly discuss
a couple of special cases in which the solution can be written in terms of
the well known trigonometric and hyperbolic functions.
{\underline{\sf Special solutions in the gravitational case}
For $\omega < \omega_{0}$ if we choose $E= 2mr^{2}\omega_0^{2}$ then we
obtain the following special solution
\begin{equation}
\tan \frac{\theta}{2} = \pm\frac{1}{a} cosech \left (\sqrt{\omega_{0}^{2}
+ \omega^{2}} (t-t_0)\right ) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $a^2 = \frac{\omega_{0}^{2}}{\omega^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2}}$.
This is known as the `sticking' solution--i.e. as $t\rightarrow \pm \infty,$
$\theta \rightarrow 0$ (maxima), while for $t\rightarrow t_{0},$
$\theta \rightarrow \pi$ (minima).
If $\omega> \omega_{0}$, the same solution holds (with the same form of $a$)
but at $E = V_{max} = {mr^2 \over 2\omega^2} (\omega^2 +\omega_0^2)^2$.
It is also a sticking solution but it goes from local to absolute maxima
as $t$ goes from $t_0$ to $\pm \infty$.
It is the {\em value} of $\omega$ which makes the two solutions functionally
different.
{\underline{\sf Special solutions in the magnetic case}
Here, for $\omega<\frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$ and $E = V_{max}
=mr^{2}\omega\omega_{c}$
we find the following solution :
\begin{equation}
\tan ({\frac{\theta}{2} +\frac{\pi}{4}}) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-\frac{2\omega}
{\omega_{c}}}} \sinh \left (\sqrt{\frac{\omega\omega_{c}}{2}
\left (1-\frac{2\omega}{\omega_{c}} \right ) }(t-t_0)\right )
\end{equation}
This is once again the so--called `sticking' solution--the particle
reaches the maxima ($\pi /2$) as $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$ while it is at the
minimum ($3\pi /2$) as $t\rightarrow t_0$.
Another solution for $\omega<\frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$ is obtained
at $ E=\frac{mr^{2}}{8} \left (\omega_{c} + 2\omega \right )^{2}
> V_{max}$.
This is given by
\begin{equation}
\tan \left ( \frac{\theta}{2} +\frac{\pi}{4} \right ) = \sqrt{\frac{
\omega_{c} +2\omega}{\omega_{c} - 2\omega}}
\tan \left (\sqrt{1-\frac{4\omega^{2}}{\omega_{c}^{2}}} \frac{\omega_{c}}{4}
(t-t_0) \right ) \, .
\end{equation}
This solution oscillates around the minima at $\theta =\frac
{3\pi}{2}$.
For $\omega>\frac{\omega_{c}}{2}$ and $E=mr^{2}\omega\omega_{c} <
V_{max}$ we have
a solution which oscillates around the minimum at $\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$.
This is given by
\begin{equation}
y=\tan \left (\frac{\theta}{2} + \frac{\pi}{4} \right ) =
\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{c}}{2\omega-\omega_{c}}} \sin \left (\sqrt{1-
\frac{\omega_{c}}{2\omega}} \omega (t-t_{0}) \right ) \, .
\end{equation}
Finally, for $\omega > {\omega_c\over 2}$ and $E = {mr^2 \over 8}
(\omega_c +2\omega)^2 = V_{max}$ we have the solution
\begin{equation}
\tan \left ( \frac{\theta}{2} +\frac{\pi}{4} \right ) = \sqrt{\frac{
2\omega +\omega_{c}}{2\omega - \omega_{c}}}
\tanh \left (\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega_{c}^{2}}{4\omega^{2}}} \omega
(t-t_0) \right ) \, .
\end{equation}
This is again a sticking solution which goes from the absolute minimum to
the maximum as $t$ goes from $t_0$ to $\pm \infty$.
\section{Quantum mechanics of a PORC
in a constant gravitational field--instantons}
In the gravitational case, the potential has
a pair of degenerate minima. Therefore, one has the
possibility of constructing instanton solutions. Since the
two minima are separated by two different barriers there are
two types of instantons. In Appendix we also look at the possibility of
constructing
exact solutions of the Schr\"odinger equation in this case.
\subsection{Instanton solutions}
As mentioned earlier, the effective potential has degenerate
minima and therefore we will obviously have instanton solutions.
Since the minima are separated by two kinds of barriers we will
have two different instantons --one across the barrier at $0 (2\pi)$
and another across the barrier at $\pi$.
It is worth reminding that instantons are the finite Euclidean
action solutions of the Euclidean equations of motion of
any theory. Since we are dealing with particle mechanics we
look at solutions to the Euclideanised Newton's second law.
These solutions have the interpretation in terms of
quantum tunneling. For a particle in a double well potential, classically,
it is not possible to cross the barrier connecting the two
vacua. However, when we Euclideanise the Newton's second law, we are
essentially looking at the motion in Euclidean time in an inverted potential.
These Euclidean solutions (called instantons) begin at one vacuum at
$\tau\rightarrow -\infty$ and end at another at $\tau\rightarrow +\infty$.
In the saddle--point approximation,
the tunneling amplitude goes as
$\exp(\frac{-S_{E}}{\hbar})$.
The instanton solutions and aspects of quantum tunneling in this model
have been worked out in an earlier paper by one of us
\cite{sk:pla92}. We
therefore only summarize these results here and refer the reader to that
article for the relevant details. This section is included
here entirely for the sake of completeness.
Below we write down the instanton solutions and the
corresponding Euclidean actions. To arrive at the instantons
we need to solve the Euclidean equation of motion which is
given by
\begin{equation}
\theta '' = - \omega^{2} (\cos \theta + a) \sin \theta \quad ; \quad
a = {\omega_0^2 \over \omega^2} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the prime denotes differentiation w.r.t. $\tau = -it$ (Euclidean time).
It is easy to convert the above equation into one for
$\theta '$ alone and then integrate the resulting first order
equation.
We first deal with the case of $\omega >\omega_{0}$.
The instanton/anti--instanton and it's Euclidean action across the barrier
at $\theta=2\pi(0)$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{t1}
\theta_{1}(\tau) = \pm 2\tan^{-1}\left ( \sqrt{\frac{1+a}{1-a}}\tanh\left [
\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(1-a^{2})}\omega\tau\right ]\right ) \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
S_{E1}=4mg^{1/2}r^{3/2}\left [ \sqrt{\frac{1-a^{2}}{a}}+2\sqrt{a} \tan^{-1}
\left (\sqrt{\frac{1+a}{1-a}} \right ) \right ] \, .
\end{equation}
The instanton/anti--instanton
and it's Euclidean action across the barrier at $\theta=\pi$ are given by :
\begin{equation}\label{t2}
\theta_{2}(\tau) = \pm 2\tan^{-1}\left ( \sqrt{\frac{1+a}{1-a}}\coth\left [
\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(1-a^{2})}\omega\tau\right ]\right ) \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
S_{E2}=4mg^{1/2}r^{3/2}\left [ \sqrt{\frac{1-a^{2}}{a}}-2\sqrt{a} \tan^{-1}
\left (\sqrt{\frac{1+a}{1-a}} \right ) \right ] \, .
\end{equation}
Notice that for $a\sim 1$ (i.e. $\omega \sim \omega^{0}$)
the second term in each Euclidean action has the larger
value. This implies that the Euclidean action is proportional to
$\pm \frac{4\pi mgr}{\hbar \omega}$ and the tunneling
amplitude will be dominated by the instanton across the $\theta =\pi$
barrier. On the other hand for $a\sim 0$ (i.e. $\omega \sim \infty
$ or $r \rightarrow \infty $--very high frequencies or very large
radius ) the Euclidean action is proportional to $\frac{4m\omega^{2}r}{\bar h
\omega}$ and the contribution to the tunneling probablity from both
the instantons are the same. In the latter case, the effect of
gravity is washed out while in the former gravity predominates.
For the $\omega <\omega_{0}$ case we have a single well in $S^{1}$ but
infinite number of degenerate minima on the full line and the instanton/
anti--instanton as well as it's Euclidean action are given by
\begin{equation}\label{t3}
\theta_{3} (\tau) = \pm 2\tan^{-1}\left ( p \sinh (\omega_0 \tau \over p)
\right ) \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
S_{E3} =4mg^{1/2}r^{3/2}\left [ \sqrt{a}\tan^{-1}\left (\frac{1}{\sqrt{
a-1}} \right ) + \sqrt{\frac{a-1}{a}} \right ]
\end{equation}
with $p =\sqrt{\frac{a}{a-1}}$.
For domains of $a\sim 1$ (when the first term in $S_{E3}$ dominates
) and $a >>1$ (when the second term in $S_{E3}$ gives the largest
contribution) one can see the effects similar to
the ones stated earlier.
\section{Quantum mechanics of a PORC in a constant magnetic field
--bounces, instantons and exact solutions}
\subsection{ Exact Solutions}
We now write down the Schr\"odinger equation for this system and look
for exact solutions \cite{hks} following the method introduced by Razavy for
bistable potentials {\cite{raz:ajp}}.
For this case, the Schr\"odinger equation turns out to be
\begin{equation}\label{se}
\frac{d^{2}\Psi}{dx^{2}} + \left [ \frac{8mr^{2}E}{{\hbar}^{2}} +
\frac{2m^{2}r^{4}\omega^{2}}{{\hbar}^{2}} - \frac{4m^{2}r^{4}\omega
\omega_{c}}{{\hbar}^{2}} \cos 2x + \frac{2m^{2}r^{4} \omega^{2}}
{{\hbar}^{2}} \cos 4x \right ] \Psi = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the following redefinitions $\theta --> \frac{\pi}{2}
- \theta$ and then $\theta --> 2 x$.
We further rewrite the Schr\"odinger equation in the following form :
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2} \Psi}{dx^{2}} + \left [ \bar \epsilon
-(n+1)\xi \cos 2x + \frac{1}{8} \xi^{2} \cos 4 x \right ] \Psi = 0
\end{equation}
where
$ \epsilon = \frac{8mr^{2}E}{\hbar^{2}} \quad ; \quad \bar \epsilon
= \epsilon + \frac{1}{8}\xi^{2} \quad ; \quad
(n+1) = \frac{mr^{2}\omega_{c}}{\hbar} \quad ; \quad
\xi = {4m r^2 \omega \over \hbar}$ .
We shall now write down the exact solutions for different values of
$n$ which, of course, correspond to different Lagrangians/Hamiltonians
with the same functional form. In fact, as is clear from the
definition given above, $n$ is related to the ratio of the {\em critical}
angular momentum $mr^{2}\omega_{c}$ and Planck's constant
$\hbar$.
Following Razavy, we first write down a solution for $n=0$
(and also $\bar \epsilon =0$) and then
define the wave functions for $n>0$ as the product of the $n=0$
solution and an unknown function $\Phi (x)$.
We thus start with the ansatz
\begin{equation}
\Psi (x) = \exp \left ( -\frac{\xi}{4}\cos 2x \right ) \Phi (x) \, .
\end{equation}
The resulting differential equation for $\Phi (x)$ turns out to be
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{''} + \xi \sin 2x \Phi^{'} + \left ( \bar \epsilon + {\xi^2 \over 8}
- n \xi \cos
2x \right ) \Phi = 0
\end{equation}
with the primes denoting differentiation w.r.t. $x$.
It is easily shown that this is a quasi-exactly solvable (QES) system
\cite{km}. In
particular, one can easily show that the above equation is equivalent to
a three term difference equation which is exactly solvable in case $n$ is a
non-negative integer. In particular, for $n= 0,1,2,...$, first $(n+1)$
solutions of period $\pi$ ($2\pi$) are obtained in case $n$ is even (odd).
For example, the solutions for $n= 0,1,2,3$ are
${\bf n = 0 :}$
\centerline{ $ \Phi_{0} = 1 \quad ; \quad $ $E_{0}
= -{1\over2}\hbar \omega \frac{\omega}{\omega_{c}}$} \, .
${\bf n = 1 :}$
\centerline{$\Phi = \sin x \quad ; \quad $ $
E = \frac{1}{16}\hbar \omega_{c} - \frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega
\left ( \frac{1 + 2\omega}{\omega_{c}} \right ) $
} \, .
\centerline{$\Phi = \cos x \quad ; \quad $ $
E = \frac{1}{16}\hbar \omega_{c} + \frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega
\left (1-2\frac{\omega}{\omega_{c}} \right ) $} \, .
${\bf n = 2 :} $
\centerline{ $\Phi_{0} = 2\xi +a_{-} \cos 2x \quad ; \quad $
$ E_{0} = \frac{\hbar \omega_{c}}{12} -\frac{3}{2}
\hbar \omega \frac{\omega}{\omega_{c}} - \frac{\hbar\omega_{c}}{12}
\sqrt{1 + 144\frac{\omega^{2}}{\omega_{c}^{2}}}$
} \, .
\centerline{$\Phi = \sin 2x \quad ; \quad $
$E = \frac{1}{6}\hbar \omega_{c} - \frac{3}{2}
\hbar \omega \frac{\omega}{\omega_{c}}$
} \, .
\centerline{$\Phi = 2\xi +a_{+}\cos 2x \quad ; \quad $
$ E = \frac{\hbar \omega_{c}}{12} -\frac{3}{2}
\hbar \omega \frac{\omega}{\omega_{c}} + \frac{\hbar\omega_{c}}{12}
\sqrt{1 + 144\frac{\omega^{2}}{\omega_{c}^{2}}}$} \, .
$\bf n = 3: $
\centerline{$\Phi = 3\xi \cos x + b_{0}\cos 3x \quad ; \quad $
$E = \frac{\hbar \omega_{c}}{32} \left ( -\frac{1}{4}\xi^{2} + 5
+ \xi -2 \sqrt{\xi^{2} +4 - 2\xi} \right )$} \, .
\centerline{$\Phi = 3\xi \sin x + b_{1}\sin 3x \quad ; \quad $
$E = \frac{\hbar \omega_{c}}{32} \left ( -\frac{1}{4}\xi^{2} + 5
- \xi -2 \sqrt{\xi^{2} +4 + 2\xi} \right )$} \, .
\centerline{$\Phi = 3\xi \cos x + b_{2}\cos 3x \quad ; \quad $
$E = \frac{\hbar \omega_{c}}{32} \left ( -\frac{1}{4}\xi^{2} + 5
+ \xi +2 \sqrt{\xi^{2} +4 - 2\xi} \right )$} \, .
\centerline{$\Phi = 3\xi \sin x + b_{3}\sin 3x \quad ; \quad $
$E = \frac{\hbar \omega_{c}}{32} \left ( -\frac{1}{4}\xi^{2} + 5
- \xi +2 \sqrt{\xi^{2} +4 + 2\xi} \right )$} \, .
where
$a_{\pm} = 2 \pm 2 \sqrt{1+\xi^2}$ \, ; \
$ b_{0,2} = 4-\xi \pm 2\sqrt{\xi^{2}-2\xi + 4} \, ; \
b_{1,3} = 4+\xi \pm 2\sqrt{\xi^{2} + 2\xi + 4}$ \, .
A remark is in order at this stage. Since we are treating the problem
of a point particle on circle $S^{1}$, and since the potential in the
Schr\"odinger eq. (\ref{se}) satisfies the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
V(x+\pi) = V(x) \, ,
\end{equation}
hence physical considerations demand that the corresponding wave
functions must also satisfy the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\psi(x+\pi) = \psi(x) \, .
\end{equation}
In that case, the solutions obtained for $n=1,3$ are unacceptable as
they do not satisfy this boundary condition but rather they change sign
under $x \rightarrow x+\pi$. However, if we are considering it as a
periodic problem on the full line then of course these are acceptable solutions.
We may add that the ground state energies obtained here (for $n = 0,2$)
are useful in
another context. In particular, it has been shown using the transfer
integral method \cite{ssf} that the classical free energy of the soliton
bearing field theories at low temperatures is given by the ground state
energy of the corresponding Schr\"odinger like equation. Thus the ground
state energies obtained here for $n=0,2$ are of direct relevance in the
context of the classical free energy of the corresponding
double sine-Gordon field theory.
\subsection{ Euclidean time solutions--Bounces and Instantons}
Since the effective potential also has a false vacuum, we expect that
`bounce' solutions exist to the classical
equations of motion in Euclidean time. The classical equation
of motion in Euclidean time which we solve is given by
\begin{equation}
{\theta '}^{2} = \omega^{2} \left [ (1-\sin \theta) (1+\sin\theta - a)
\right ] \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have added a constant to the original effective potential
in order to write it in the above form (note that this does not
effect the classical equations of motion which we intend to solve).
Here $a = {\omega_c \over \omega} < 2$.
However, this choice of the effective potential forces us to
confine ourselves to $a<2$. For $a=2$ the equation is meaningless.
A straightforward
integration of the above equation
yields the following solutions :
\begin{equation}\label{t4}
\theta_{1} (\tau) = \frac{\pi}{2} + 2\tan^{-1}\left [ \frac{1}{\alpha}
sech \sqrt{\omega(\omega-\frac{\omega_{c}}{2})} \tau \right ] \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{t5}
\theta_{2} (\tau) = \frac{5\pi}{2} - 2 \tan^{-1}\left [ \frac{1}{\alpha}
sech \sqrt{\omega (\omega-\frac{\omega_{c}}{2})} \tau \right ] \, .
\end{equation}
The first of these is the bounce across the barrier at $\sin^{-1}\frac{\omega
_{c}}{2\omega}$ while the second one is across the barrier at
$\pi - \sin^{-1} \frac{\omega_{c}}{2\omega}$. Note that the
Euclidean actions for both these solutions are the
same--this is because the barrier heights which separate the
false and the true vacua are the same. The expression for the
Euclidean action turns out to be
\begin{equation}
S_{E} = 2mr^{2}\omega_{c}\sqrt{1-\frac{a}{2}} \left [
\frac{2+a}{a} - \sqrt{\frac{2-a}{2}} \sinh^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{2-a}{2}} \right ]
\end{equation}
where $\alpha ^{2}
= \frac{a}{2-a}$.
Using the Euclidean action one can now evaluate the decay rate of the
false vacuum by the formula $\Gamma \sim \exp \left
(-\frac{S_{E}}{\not h}\right )$.
For a periodic potential generalization of the magnetic case problem
one has degenerate absolute minima at ${(2n+1)\pi \over 2}$ and
one can obtain an `instanton' which starts out at, say, $\theta
=-\frac{\pi}{2}$ (as $\tau \rightarrow -\infty$) and crosses the local minimum
at $\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}$ (as $\tau \rightarrow 0$)
to end up at $\theta=\frac
{3\pi}{2}$ (as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$).
To that end, let us first note that by adding a suitable constant
one can also write the classical equation of motion in Euclidean time
in an alternative form as
\begin{equation}
{\theta '}^{2} = \omega^{2} \left [ (1+\sin \theta) (1-\sin\theta + a)
\right ] \, .
\end{equation}
It is now easily shown that
irrespective of whether $\omega >$ or $<\omega_c/2$, the
instanton solution is given by
\begin{equation}\label{t6}
\theta_3 = \frac{\pi}{2} + 2\tan^{-1} \left [ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{2\omega}{
\omega_{c}}}}\sinh \left ( \sqrt{(\omega_{c}+2\omega)2\omega} \frac{\tau}{2}
\right ) \right ] \, ,
\end{equation}
with the corresponding action being
\begin{equation}
S_E = -{1\over 2a^2} + {1\over 4a^3} {(4a^2-1)\over \sqrt{a^2 -1}}
\ln \bigg [ {a+\sqrt{a^2 -1} \over a-\sqrt{a^2-1}} \bigg ] \, .
\end{equation}
where $a = \sqrt{1+{2\omega \over \omega_c}}$.
\section{Small oscillations about instantons and bounces--
qualitative analysis}
In this section we present a qualitative analysis of the problem
of small oscillations about an instanton/bounce solution. We do {\em not}
explicitly solve the corresponding Schr\"odinger-like
equations but discuss qualitatively
the nature of the effective potentials, the possible existence of
negative eigenvalues and bound states. It may however be added that in
all the cases we have been able to reduce the stability equation
to Heun's equation. Additionally, the analysis for the small oscillations
about the DSG kink has been discussed in \cite{osc:ref}.
The equation governing small oscillations is given by:
\begin{equation}
\left (-\partial_{\tau}^{2} + V''(\theta (\tau))\right ) \chi_{n}=
\lambda_{n} \chi_{n} \, .
\end{equation}
This is a `time--independent' Schr\"odinger equation with the potential
$V''(\theta (\tau))$. We therefore need to solve the corresponding
eigenvalue problem and look for the existence of a negative eigenvalue
which will indicate an instability. Below we write down the `potential'
in the two cases of the gravitational and magnetic fields.
{\bf 1. : System in a gravitational field}
Since for $\omega>\omega_{0}$ we have two types of instantons we
need to evaluate $V ''(\theta)$ for each of these cases separately.
(a) Using eq. (ref{t1}), $V''(\theta)$
for the instanton across the $2\pi$ barrier turns out to be
\begin{equation}
V''(\theta_1 (\tau)) = -mr^{2}{\omega}^{2}(1-a^2)\frac{\left [(1-a) + (1+a)
\tanh^{4}{b\omega\tau}-6\tanh^{2}b\omega\tau \right ]}{\left [
(1-a)+(1+a)\tanh^{2}b\omega\tau \right ]^{2}} \, .
\end{equation}
This is shown in Fig 5.
(b) Using eq. (\ref{t2}), $V''(\theta (\tau ))$ for the instanton
across the $\pi$ barrier turns out to be
\begin{equation}
V''(\theta_2 (\tau)) = -mr^{2}{\omega}^{2}(1-a^2)\frac{\left [(1-a) + (1+a)
\coth^{4}{b\omega\tau}-6\coth^{2}b\omega\tau \right ]}{\left [
(1-a)+(1+a)\coth^{2}b\omega\tau \right ]^{2}} \, .
\end{equation}
This is plotted in Fig 6.
A condition for the stability of a given instanton is the existence of
a node-less zero--mode solution (solution with a zero eigenvalue)
to the Schr\"odinger equation governing
small oscillations. The zero mode solution can be written down very
easily-- $\chi_{0}$ is just equal to $\frac{d\theta(\tau)}{d\tau}$
(details are there is [5], [6] and [7]).
For the instanton across $\theta = 2\pi$, using eq. (\ref{t1}), one finds that
\begin{equation}
\chi_0 = \frac{d\theta_{1}(\tau)}{d\tau} =
(1-a^{2}) \omega \frac{1}
{[2\cosh^{2}\beta \tau -(1+a)`]}
\end{equation}
where $\beta = \sqrt{\frac{1-a^{2}}{2}} \omega$.
Note that this solution is node-less which implies that the
corresponding instanton is stable.
On the other hand, it can be readily shown that the instanton across
the $\theta=\pi$ barrier is also stable.
In particular, using eq. (\ref{t2}), the zero--mode solution is given by
\begin{equation}
\chi_{0} = \frac{d\theta_{2}(\tau)}{d\tau} =
-(1-a^{2}) \omega \frac{1}{[(1+a)
+2\sinh^{2}\beta \tau]} \, .
\end{equation}
which is clearly nodeless as well.
In the case of $\omega <\omega_0$ there is only one instanton
and using eq. (\ref{t3}), $V''(\theta)$ turns out to be
\begin{equation}
V''(\theta_3 (\tau)) = mr^2 \omega^2 \frac{\bigg [(a-1)p^4 \sinh^4 y
+6p^2 \sinh^2 y - (a+1) \bigg ]}{(1+p^2 \sinh^2y)} \, ,
\end{equation}
and the corresponding zero-mode solution is given by
\begin{equation}
\chi_0 = \frac{d\theta_{3}(\tau)}{d\tau} = \frac{2\omega_0 \cosh y}
{1+p^2 \sinh^2 y} \, ,
\end{equation}
which is clearly node-less. Here $y = {\omega_0 \tau \over p}$ with
$a= {\omega_0^2 \over \omega^2}$ and $p = \sqrt{{a \over a-1}}$.
{\bf Case 2: System in a magnetic field}
For the bounce solution in the PORC in a magnetic field,
using eq. (\ref{t4}) (or (\ref{t5})),
the potential $V''(\theta)$ in the Schr\"odinger-like
equation turns out to be
\begin{equation}
V''(\theta_{1,2}(\tau)) =
\left (\frac{mr^2{\omega}^2}{2-a} \right )
\frac{\left [-a^2\cosh^{4}\beta \tau +
8a\cosh^{2}\beta \tau - (4-a^2) \right ]}
{(1+ \alpha^2 \cosh^{2}\beta \tau)^2} \, .
\end{equation}
This is plotted in Fig.7.
The corresponding zero-mode solution is given by
\begin{equation}
\chi_0 = \frac{d\theta_{1,2}(\tau)}{d\tau} = \alpha \omega \sqrt{2(2-a)}
\left (\frac{\sinh{y}}{1+ \alpha^2 \cosh^2{y} } \right ) \, ,
\end{equation}
which clearly has a node at $\tau=0$. Here $y = {(2-a)\omega \tau \over 2}$.
On the other hand, corresponding to the instanton solution in a magnetic
field, using eq. (\ref{t6}), $V''(\theta)$
turns out to be
\begin{equation}
V''(\theta_{3}(\tau) = {m r^2 \omega^2 (a+1) \over a}
{\bigg [a(6+a) -2(1+3a) \cosh^2{y} + \cosh^4{y} \bigg ]
\over (a + \cosh^2{y})^2} \, .
\end{equation}
The corresponding zero-mode solution is given by
\begin{equation}
\chi_0 = \frac{d\theta_{3}(\tau)}{d\tau} \propto
\left ({\cosh{y} \over a + \cosh^2{y}} \right ) \, ,
\end{equation}
which clearly is node-less. Here $a = {2\omega \over \omega_c}, \ y =
\sqrt{a(a+1)} {\omega_c \tau \over 2}$.
\section{Summary and outlook}
We have discussed a variety of aspects of the toy model of a particle
on a rotating loop. After defining a generic class of models (via a
choice of a class of trigonometric potentials )
we identified
two specific cases. These included the effects of a (i) uniform gravitational
field and (ii) a uniform magnetic field. The classical mechanics for both
these cases was worked out. Subsequently we dealt with the quantum
mechanical problem in either case from the
(i) exact as well as the (ii) semi-classical
standpoints. For the gravitational case we found exact solutions by
identifying the time--independent Schr\"odinger equation with the
Whittaker--Hill equation. These solutions were {\em formal} in the sense
that the energy eigenvalues remain hidden in the continued fractions.
We have not attempted to arrive at the expressions for the energy
eigenvalues by solving the continued fractions. Hence this discussion
appears in the Appendix to the paper. Apart from the
exact solutions we have also looked at the instantons in this
model. We constructed the instantons and the corresponding Euclidean
actions which gave us a feeling for the quantum tunneling phenomena
in this example. In the magnetic case the potential
also has a false vacuum. Further, for special values of the parameters
we were able to obtain some of the energy eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.
Thereafter,
we constructed the corresponding bounce (instanton)
solutions and their Euclidean
actions to arrive at the decay rate of the false vacuum (feel
for quantum tunneling phenomena). We then
looked into the problem of small oscillations about the instantons and bounces
by investigating the nature of the potential in the Schr\"odinger--type
equation which govern these perturbations. This section is largely
qualitative. Even though we did not solve the relevant Schr\"odinger-like
equation, we have shown that in all the cases the Schr\"odinger equation
reduces to Heuns equation which is known to have four regular singular points.
Further, as expected we have seen that the zero mode is stable (unstable)
depending on whether one is considering an instanton (bounce) solution.
Finally, the connection of these toy examples
with several models in field
theory and statistical mechanics was pointed out.
The aim of the paper has been to point out the diverse aspects of the
problem of a particle on a rotating loop. It is quite illuminating
that a lot of important concepts in field theory can be illustrated
through the study of this simplistic example. We conclude by pointing
out some other aspects which may be dealt with in future.
\begin{itemize}
\item{ Aspects of chaos in PORC with a $\delta$ function kick--the
generalization of the kicked pendulum/kicked rotor}
\item{Investigating what happens at finite temperature by utilizing techniques
of finite temperature quantum mechanics/quantum field theory}
\item{Exact classical and quantum solutions for the model with a gravitational,
an electric and a magnetic field all put in together}
\end{itemize}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
SK thanks IUCAA, Pune for financial support during the period when this
work began.
\newpage
\centerline{{\bf APPENDIX : Exact solutions for PORC in a gravitational field}}
\vspace{.2in}
The time-independent Schr\"{o}dinger
equation for this system is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}\psi}{d\theta^{2}}+\frac{2m}{\hbar^{2}}\left[
E+\frac{1}{4}mr^{2}\omega^{2}-mgr\cos\theta-\frac{1}{4}mr^{2}\omega^{2}
\cos2\theta\right]\psi=0 \, .
\end{equation}
Introducing a new variable $\alpha=\theta/2$ we arrive at the
following equation
\begin{equation}\label{c3}
\frac{d^{2}\psi}{d\alpha^{2}}+\left[\left(\frac{8mE}{\hbar^{2}}+
\frac{2m^{2}r^{2}\omega^{2}}{\hbar^{2}}\right)-
\frac{8m^{2}gr}{\hbar^{2}}\cos2\alpha-\frac{2m^{2}r^{2}\omega^{2}}
{\hbar^{2}}\cos4\alpha\right]\psi=0 \, .
\end{equation}
This equation is the Whittaker-Hill equation.We
now digress briefly to a discussion of the solutions of this
equation.
In the theory of periodic differential equations, the
Whittaker-Hill equation is a special case of the general Hill
equation given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}\psi}{d\theta^{2}}+\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}A_{n}\cos
2n\theta\right)\psi=0 \, .
\end{equation}
Whittaker-Hill equation is a special case of this general Hill equation
and is also known as the three term Hill equation, i.e. we have
only the $n=0,1,2$ terms remaining in the infinite series given above.
Thus we have
\begin{equation}\label{8.1}
\frac{d^{2}\psi}{d\theta^{2}}+\left(A_{0}+A_{1}\cos2\theta+
A_{2}\cos4\theta\right)\psi=0 \, .
\end{equation}
Such equations arise when the Helmholtz equation
$\left(\nabla^{2}+k^{2}\right)
\psi=0$ is separated in a general paraboloidal coordinate system.
We shall be concerned here with the form of equation for which
$A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ are both negative.Following \cite{whe:ref} we define
\begin{equation}
|A_{2}|=\frac{1}{8}\omega^{2},A_{0}=\eta+\frac{1}{8}\beta^{2},
A_{1}=-\rho\beta \, .
\end{equation}
Hence we have
\begin{equation}\label{c4}
\frac{d^{2}\psi}{d\theta^{2}}+\left(\eta+\frac{1}{8}\beta^{2}-
\rho\beta\cos2\theta-\frac{1}{8}\beta^{2}\cos4\theta\right)\psi=0 \, .
\end{equation}
The transformation
$\psi=\phi\exp(-\frac{1}{4}i\beta\cos2\theta)$ reduces (\ref{8.1}) to
Ince's equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}\phi}{d\theta^{2}}+i\beta\sin2\theta\frac{d\phi}{d\theta}
+\left[\eta+\beta(\rho+i)\cos2\theta\right]\phi=0 \, .
\end{equation}
Solutions to the above equation falls into four classes depending on whether
the function $\phi$ is even or odd and has period $\pi$ or
$2\pi$. These solutions are in terms of infinite Fourier series
with the relation between the coefficients of the series given
in terms of three term recurrence relations. The recurrence
relations can be reduced to an infinite continued fraction which
is known as the corresponding characteristic equation for the
relevant function. We shall primarily be concerned with
solutions of period $\pi$. This is because
the equation governing our physical problem is written in terms
of a new variable $\alpha=
\theta/2$. Thus $\pi$ periodic solution in $\alpha$ will turn out to be
$2\pi$ periodic solutions in $\theta$. We now list the even and odd $\pi$
periodic solutions of the Whittaker-Hill equation and the relevant
continued fractions. Details about how these are obtained and a
more thorough treatment of various issues related to periodic
differential equations can be found in
\cite{whe:ref}.
\subsection{Even Solutions of Period $\pi$}
\begin{equation}
\phi(\theta)=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}A_{2r}\cos2r\theta\equiv gc_{2n}(\theta,
\omega,\rho) \, ; \ A_{2r} = X_{2r}B_{2r} \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
X_{2r}=(-\rho+i)(-\rho+3i)\cdots\left[-\rho+(2r-1)i\right] \, ;
r\geq1 \, , \ X_{0}=1 \, ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{B_{2r}}{B_{2r+2}}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\beta}{4r^{2}-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{4}\beta^{2}\{\rho^{2}+(2r+1)^{2}\}}{4(r+1)^{2}-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{4}\beta^{2}\{\rho^{2}+(2r+3)^{2}\}}{4(r+2)^{2}-\eta-}
\cdots \, .
\end{equation}
The Continued fraction for characteristic values is given by
\begin{equation}\label{c1}
-\frac{2\eta}{\beta(\rho^{2}+1)}=\frac{\beta}{4-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{4}\beta^{2}(\rho^{2}+9)}{16-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{4}\beta^{2}(\rho^{2}+25)}{36-\eta-}\cdots \, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Odd Solutions of Period $\pi$}
\begin{equation}
\phi(\theta)=\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}C_{2r}\sin2r\theta\equiv gs_{2n+2}(\theta,
\omega,\rho) \, ; \ C_{2r} = Y_{2r} D_{2r} \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Y_{2r}=(-\rho+3i)(-\rho+5i)\cdots\left[-\rho+(2r-1)i\right] \, , \
r\geq2 \, , \ Y_{2}=1 \, ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{D_{2r}}{D_{2r-2}}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\beta}{4r^{2}-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{2}\beta^{2}\{\rho^{2}+(2r+1)^{2}\}}{4(r+1)^{2}-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{2}\beta^{2}\{\rho^{2}+(2r+3)^{2}\}}{4(r+2)^{2}-\eta-}
\cdots \, .
\end{equation}
The Continued fraction for characteristic values is given by
\begin{equation}\label{c2}
\frac{4-\eta}{\frac{1}{2}\beta(\rho^{2}+9)}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\beta}{16-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{4}\beta^{2}(\rho^{2}+25)}{36-\eta-}
\frac{\frac{1}{4}\beta^{2}(\rho^{2}+49)}{64-\eta-}\cdots \, .
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{c1}) and (\ref{c2}) are the equations which will give us the
energy levels. Comparing eqs. (\ref{c3}) and (\ref{c4}) we find that
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{8mEr^{2}}{\hbar^{2}} \, , \ \frac{1}{8}\beta^{2}
=\frac{2m^{2}r^{4}\omega
^{2}}{\hbar^{2}} \, , \
\rho=\frac{2mgr}{\hbar\omega} \, .
\end{equation}
Fixing $m,r$ and $\omega$ we can evaluate the energy levels of
the system by solving the respective characteristic equations
(for even and odd functions) iteratively.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{}
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, $\CO$ be a dg operad over $k$
and let $A$ be an $\CO$-algebra. In this note we define formal deformations
of $A$, construct the deformation functor
$$\Def_A:\dgar(k)\to\simpl$$
from the category of artinian local dg algebras (see~\ref{notation} for
the precise definition) to the category of simplicial sets. In the case
$\CO$ and $A$ are non-positively graded, we prove that $\Def_A$
is governed by the tangent Lie algebra $T_A$ defined in~\cite{haha}.
A very easy example~\ref{void} shows that the result does not hold
without this condition.
\subsection{}
``Classical'' formal deformation theory over a field of characteristic zero
can be described as follows.
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, $\art(k)$ be the category of
artinian local $k$-algebras with residue field $k$. Let $\CC$ be a category
cofibred over $\art(k)$. Equivalently, this means that a 2-functor
$$ \CC:\art(k)\to \Cat$$
is given, that is a collection of categories $\CC(R),\ R\in\art(k)$,
of functors $f^*:\CC(R)\to\CC(S)$ for each morphism $f:R\to S$ in $\art(k)$
and of isomorphisms $f^*g^*\iso (fg)^*$ satisfying the cocycle condition.
Finally, let an object $A\in\CC(k)$ be given. Then the deformation functor
$$\Def_A:\art(k)\to\Grp$$
assigns to each $R\in\art(k)$ the groupoid whose objects are isomorphisms
$\alpha:\pi^*(B)\to A$ where $\pi:R\to k$ is the natural map, and morphisms are
isomorphisms $B\to B'$ compatible with $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$.
If we are lucky enough (and this is usually the case), one can naturally
assign to $A$ a dg Lie algebra $\fg$ which governs deformation of $A$
in the following sense: there is a natural equivalence of groupoids
$$ \Def_A\to\Del_{\fg}$$
as functors from $\art(k)$ to $\Grp$, where $\Del_{\fg}$ is the Deligne
groupoid of $\fg$ -- see~\cite{gm,ddg}.
As we argued in~\cite{uc}, the existence of dg Lie algebra $\fg$
is equivalent to the existence of formal dg moduli --- given by the
dg coalgebra $\CC(\fg)$. This also means that the functor $\Def_A$ can
be extended to a functor on the category $\dgar(k)$ of non-positively graded
dg commutative artinian algebras with residue field $k$ with values in
$\simpl$.
\subsection{}The category of algebras over a given dg operad $\CO$
is not just a category --- there exist weak equivalences, homotopies and
higher homotopies between the algebras. Therefore, the above
described approach can not produce a reasonable definition of formal
deformations of operad algebras.
Also, we want that deformations of quasi-isomorphic
algebras be equivalent, as well as deformations of algebras over
quasi-isomorphic operads, so we should use a sort of ``derived'' notion
of the deformation groupoid.
\subsubsection{}
Morally, the picture should be the following.
For each $R\in\dgar(k)$ a $\infty$-category of $R\otimes\CO$-algebras
should be defined; denote it $\Alg^{\infty}(\CO,R)$. The collection of
$\Alg^{\infty}(\CO,R)$ should form an $\infty$-category cofibred
over $\dgar(k)$.
Let now $A\in\Alg^{\infty}(\CO,k)$. Then the deformation functor
$$\Def_A:\dgar(k)\to\Grp^{\infty}$$
should be a ($\infty$-) functor to $\infty$-groupoids; its objects are
$\infty$-isomorphisms $\alpha:\pi_*(B)\to A$ and morphisms ---
$\infty$-isomorphisms $B\to B'$ commuting with $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$.
\subsubsection{}
Since we do not know well what an $\infty$-category is and
how to assign an $\infty$-category to the category of operad algebras,
we are looking for an appropriate substitute.
According to ~\cite{haha}, the category $\Alg(\CO,R)$ of
$R\otimes\CO$-algebras admits a simplicial closed model category (SCMC)
structure.
As a substitute to the $\infty$-category $\Alg^{\infty}(\CO,R)$,
we suggest the simplicial category $\Alg^c_*(\CO,R)$ of cofibrant
$R\otimes\CO$-algebras.
This allows us to define a deformation groupoid as a functor
\begin{equation}
\Def_A:\dgar(k)\to\simpl
\label{def-fr-eq}
\end{equation}
to the simplicial sets.
Now, according to the general philosophy of deformation theory, the
functor $\Def_A$ should be equivalent to the nerve of a certain
dg Lie algebra $\fg$ --- see~\cite{uc}, Sect.~8 --- which is ``responsible''
for the deformations of $A$. In~\cite{haha}, Sect.~7, we constructed a
functorial tangent dg Lie algebra $T_A\in\dgl(k)$ as the Lie algebra
$\Der(\widetilde{A},\widetilde{A})$ of derivations of a cofibrant
resolution $\widetilde{A}$ of $A$. The main result of this paper says that
$T_A$ governs the formal deformations of $A$ provided
$\CO$ and $A$ belong to $C^{\leq 0}(k)$. Quite unexpectedly,
there is a very simple counter-example
showing that the last condition is necessary --- see Example~\ref{void}.
\subsection{Content of the Sections}
Throughout the paper we work a lot with simplicial categories and simplicial
groupoids. We collect in the Appendix the necessary information about
the subject. It is mostly well-known or easily imaginable; thus,
the closed model category structure on simplicial categories is a slight
generalization of a result of~\cite{dk}.
In Section~\ref{def-fr} we construct the deformation functor~
(\ref{def-fr-eq}).
To compare it with the nerve of the tangent dg Lie algebra, we provide
in Section~\ref{newnerve} a version of the nerve construction of
~\cite{uc}, Sect. 8, which assigns to a dg Lie algebra $\fg$ and to
a dg artinian algebra $R$ a simplicial groupoid.
Finally, in Section~\ref{final} we prove the main result. It follows easily
from the model category structure of the category of simplicial categories.
\subsection{Notation}
\label{notation}
In what follows we use the following notations for different categories.
$\Ens,\Grp,\Cat$ are the categories of sets, small groupoids and small
categories respectively.
$\Delta$ is the category of ordered sets $[n]=\{0,\ldots,n\}, \ n\geq 0$
and order-preserving maps. For a category $\CC$ we denote by $\Delta^0\CC$
the category of simplicial objects in $\CC$.
A simplicial category (and, in particular, a simplicial groupoid) will be
supposed to have a discrete set of objects, if it is not explicitly
specified otherwise. The category of small simplicial categories is
defined $\sCat$ and that of simplicial groupoids $\sGrp$.
For a fixed field $k$ of characteristic zero $\dgl(k)$ is the category
of dg Lie algebras and $\dgar(k)$ is the category of non-positively graded
commutative artinian dg algebras with residue field $k$.
\subsection{Acknowledgement}This work was made during my stay at the
Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Mathematik at Bonn. I express my gratitude
to the Institute for the hospitality.
\section{Homotopy algebras}
\label{def-fr}
In this Section we define deformations of dg operad algebras.
Let $k$ be a fixed field of characteristic zero, $\CO\in\Op(C(k))$
be a dg operad over $k$, $A\in\Alg(\CO)$ be a $\CO$-algebra.
Let $R$ be a commutative dg $k$-algebra. Componentwise tensoring by $R$
defines a functor on $\Op(C(k))$ (its values can be equally considered
in $\Op(C(k))$ and in $\Op(\Mod(R))$). We define by $\Alg(\CO,R)$ the
category of $R\otimes\CO$-algebras. This category admits a CMC structure
--- see~\cite{haha} with quasi-isomorphisms as weak equivalences and
surjective maps as fibrations. We denote by $\Alg^c(\CO,R)$ the full
subcategory of cofibrant algebras and by $\CW^c(\CO,R)$ the category
of cofibrant $\CO$-$R$-algebras with weak equivalences as arrows.
The category $\Alg(\CO)$ admits also a simplicial structure so that
Quillen's axiom (SM7) is satisfied --- see~\cite{haha}, 4.8. The
simplicial structure is defined by the simplicial path functor
which assigns to an algebra $A\in\Alg(\CO)$ and to a finite simplicial set
$S\in\simpl$ the algebra $A^S=\Omega(S)\otimes A$ where $\Omega(S)$
denotes the dg commutative algebra of polynomial differential forms on $S$.
In the sequel we will add asterisk to denote that we consider the corresponding
simplicial category. Thus, for example, $\CW^c_*(\CO,R)$ is the simplicial
category whose objects are cofibrant $R\otimes\CO$-algebras and whose
$n$-morphisms from $x$ to $y$ consist of quasi-isomorphisms
$x\to \Omega(\Delta^n)\otimes y$.
Recall~\cite{uc} that it is worthwhile to consider artinian local
non-positively graded dg $k$-algebras $(R,\fm)\in\dgar(k)$ as bases
of formal deformations.
\subsection{}
\begin{defn}{dha}Let $A\in\Alg(\CO)$. {\em Deformation functor}
$$\Def_A:\dgar(k)\to\simpl$$
is defined by the formula
\begin{equation}
\Def_A(R)=\hfib_A\left(\CN(\CW^c_*(\CO,R))\to\CN(\CW^c_*(\CO,k))\right).
\label{def-def-functor}
\end{equation}
Here $\CN:\sCat\to\simpl$ is the simplicial nerve functor (see ~\ref{snerve})
and the homotopy fiber $\hfib$ being taken at a point
$\widetilde{A}\in\CW^c_*(\CO,k)$
where $\widetilde{A}\to A$ is a cofibrant resolution of $A$.
\end{defn}
\subsubsection{}Recall (see~\cite{haha}) that for a $\CO$-algebra $A$
its tangent Lie algebra $T_A$ is defined as
$$ T_A=\Der(\widetilde{A},\widetilde{A}).$$
Now we are ready to formulate the main result of this note.
\subsubsection{}
\begin{thm}{main} Let $\CO$ be a dg operad over a field $k$ of characteristic
zero and let $A$ be an $\CO$-algebra. Suppose that both $\CO$
and $A$ are non-positively graded. Then the deformation functor
$\Def_A:\dgar(k)\to\simpl$ is equivalent to the nerve $\Sigma_{\fg}$
of the tangent dg Lie algebra $\fg:=T_A$.
\end{thm}
\Thm{main} will be proven in Section~\ref{final}.
Now we give an elementary example
which shows that the non-positivity condition is necessary.
\subsection{Example}
\label{void}
Let $\CO$ be the trivial operad $\CO(1)=k\cdot 1,\ \CO(i)=0$ for $i\not=0$.
$\CO$-algebras are just complexes and derivations are just all endomorphisms.
Let $A$ be the complex with zero differential with $A^i=k$ for all
$i\in\Bbb{Z}$.
Then $T_A=\Hom(A,A)$ is a complex with zero differential; an element
$f\in(\fm\otimes T_A)^1$ satisfies the Maurer-Cartan equation iff $f^2=0$.
For instance, put $R=k[\epsilon]/\epsilon^2$. Then any element $f$ of degree
one is Maurer-Cartan. The corresponding to $f$ complex of $R$-modules
is $R\otimes A$ as a graded $R$-module, and has $f$ as the differential.
Suppose that all components of $f$ are non-zero. Then $(R\otimes A,f)$ is contractible
and of course can not be thought of being a deformation of $A$.
\section{Simplicial Deligne groupoid}
\label{newnerve}
\subsection{Definition}
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero and $\fg\in\dgl(k)$ be a
nilpotent dg Lie $k$-algebra.
In this Section we construct a simplicial groupoid
$\Gamma(\fg)=\{\Gamma_n(\fg)\}$ whose nerve (see~\ref{snerve}) is naturally
homotopically equivalent to the nerve $\Sigma(\fg)$.
The construction is a generalization (and a simplification) of the one we used
in~\cite{uc}, 9.7.6.
Recall (see~\cite{ddg},\cite{uc}, 8.1.1) that the nerve $\Sigma(\fg)$
of the nilpotent dg Lie algebra $\fg$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_n(\fg)=\MC(\Omega_n\otimes\fg),
\label{nerve}
\end{equation}
$\Omega_n$ being the algebra of polynomial differential forms on the standard
$n$-simplex.
Following~\cite{uc}, Sect. 8, define a simplicial group $G=G(\fg)$
by the formula
\begin{equation}
G_n=\exp(\Omega_n\otimes\fg)^0.
\label{G.}
\end{equation}
Here $\Omega_n\otimes\fg$ is a nilpotent dg Lie algebra, so its zero
component is an honest nilpotent Lie algebra, and therefore its exponent
makes sense.
Define a simplicial groupoid $\Gamma:=\Gamma(\fg)$ (we will call it
{\em simplicial Deligne groupoid} since its zero component is the
conventional Deligne groupoid~\cite{gm}) as follows.
$\Ob\Gamma=\MC(\fg);$
$ \Hom_{\Gamma}(x,y)_n=\{g\in G_n|g(x)=y\}.$
It is useful to have in mind the following easy
\subsubsection{}
\begin{lem}{G-contractible}
The simplicial group $G(\fg)$ is always contractible.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
As a simplicial set, $G$ is isomorphic to the simplicial vector space
$$ n\mapsto (\Omega_n\otimes\fg)^0.$$
The latter is a direct sum of simplicial vector spaces of form
$\Omega_{\bullet}^p$ (each one $\dim\fg^{-p}$ times) which are all
contractible --- see~\cite{l}, p.~44.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Equivalence}
Recall that any simplicial category (and more generally, any
$\CC\in\Delta^0\Cat$)
defines a bisimplicial set whose diagonal is called {\em the nerve}
of $\CC$, denoted by $\CN(\CC)$ --- see~\ref{snerve}.
\subsubsection{}
\begin{prop}{eq.defns}
The nerve $\Sigma(\fg)$ of a nilpotent dg Lie algebra is naturally
homotopically equivalent to $\CN(\Gamma(\fg))$.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}Define $\Gamma'\in\Delta^0\Grp$ (a simplicial groupoid in the wide
sense) by the following formulas.
$ \Ob\Gamma'_n=\MC(\Omega_n\otimes\fg);$
$ \Hom_{\Gamma'}(x,y)_n=\{g\in G_n(\fg)|g(x)=y\}.$
One has a natural fully faithful embedding
$\Gamma(\fg)\to\Gamma'$. According to~\cite{uc},
8.2.5, the map $\Gamma_n(\fg)\to\Gamma'_n$ is an equivalence of groupoids
for each $n$. This implies that the induced map of the nerves
$$\CN(\Gamma)\to\CN(\Gamma')$$
is a homotopy equivalence.
Now we shall compare the nerve $\CN(\Gamma')$ to $\Sigma(\fg)$. Look at
$\Gamma'$ as at a bisimplicial set. One has
$$ \Gamma'_{pq}=\Sigma_p(\fg)\times G_p(\fg)^q.$$
This means that the simplicial set $\Gamma'_{\bullet q}$ is equal to
$\Sigma(\fg)\times G(\fg)^q$.
The simplicial set $G(\fg)$ is contractible by~\Lem{G-contractible}.
Therefore, $\Gamma'_{\bullet q}$ is canonically homotopy equivalent
to $\Sigma(\fg)$. This implies that the nerve $\CN(\Gamma')$ is homotopy
equivalent to $\Sigma(\fg)$.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{}
\begin{rem}{gen}\Prop{eq.defns} generalizes the claim used
in the proof of 9.7.6 of ~\cite{uc}.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection{}
Let now $\fg\in\dgl(k)$. Following the well-known pattern, we define
the functor
$$\Gamma_{\fg}:\dgar(k)\to\sGrp$$
by the formula
$$\Gamma_{\fg}(R)=\Gamma(\fm\otimes\fg)$$
for $(R,\fm)\in\dgar(k)$.
The functor $\Gamma_{\fg}$ is also called the simplicial Deligne groupoid.
\subsection{Properties}
We wish to deduce now some properties of the simplicial Deligne groupoid
functor which are similar to the properties of the nerve $\Sigma(\fg)$ ---
see~\cite{uc}, Sect.~8.
In what follows we use the closed model category (CMC) structure
on the category $\sCat$ --- see~\ref{scat-cmc-ss}.
\subsubsection{}
\begin{prop}{gamma-fib}
Let $f:\fg\to \fh$ be surjective (resp., a surjective quasi-isomorphism).
Then for each $(R,\fm)\in\dgar(k)$ the map
$$f:\Gamma_{\fg}(R)\to \Gamma_{\fh}(R)$$
is a fibration (resp., an acyclic fibration) in $\sCat$.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Note first of all that the similar claim holds for the nerve functor:
according to~\cite{uc}, Prop. 7.2.1, the map
$f:\Sigma_{\fg}(R)\to\Sigma_{\fh}(R)$ is a fibration
(resp., acyclic fibration) provided $f$ is a surjection (resp., a surjective
quasi-isomorphism). This implies that the map
$$f:\Gamma_{\fg}(R)\to \Gamma_{\fh}(R)$$
satisfiest the property (1) of fibrations (resp., of acyclic fibrations) ---
see~\ref{scat-fib},~\ref{scat-af}.
Let us check the property (2). It claims that for any
$x,y\in\Ob\Gamma_{\fg}(R)$ the map of simplicial sets
$$ f:\uhom_{\fg}(x,y)\to\uhom_{\fh}(fx,fy)$$
is a Kan fibration (resp., acyclic Kan fibration) --- here
we write $\uhom_{\fg}(\_,\_)$ instead of $\uhom_{\Gamma_{\fg}(R)}(\_,\_)$.
Denote $G=G(\fg),\ H=G(\fh)$ the simplicial groups corresponding to
$\fg$, $\fh$ as in the formula~\ref{G.}.
A map from a simplicial set $K$ to $\uhom_{\fg}(x,y)$ is given by an
element $g\in G(K)=\Hom(K,G)$ satisfying the condition $g(x)=y$.
Let a commutative diagram in $\simpl$
\begin{center}
$$\begin{CD}
K@>>> \uhom_{\fg}(x,y) \\
@V{\alpha}VV @V{f}VV \\
L@>>> \uhom_{\fh}(fx,fy) \\
\end{CD}$$
\end{center}
be given with $\alpha:K\to L$ being a cofibration of finite simplicial sets.
We suppose also that either $\alpha$ or $f$ is a weak equivalence.
Our aim is to find a map $L\to \uhom_{\fg}(x,y)$ commuting with
the above diagram. Thus, we are given with a compatible pair of
elements $g\in G(K),\ h\in H(L)$ satisfying the groperty
$$ g(x)=y; \ h(fx)=fy.$$
Our aim is to lift this pair to an element $\widetilde{g}\in G(L)$
satisfying the property $\widetilde{g}(x)=y$.
We will do this in two steps. First of all, since $f$ is surjective,
the induced map of simplicial groups $f: G\to H$ is surjective, and,
therefore, fibrant.
Furthermore, since both $G$ and $H$ are contractible by~\Lem{G-contractible},
the map $f:G\to H$ is actually an acyclic fibration, and therefore the pair
of compatible elements $g\in G(K),\ h\in H(L)$ lifts to an element
$g'\in G(L)$. We can not, unfortunately, be sure that $g'(x)=y$. This is why
we need the second step which will correct $g'$ to satisfy this property.
Suppose $g'(x)=y'\in\MC(\Omega(L)\otimes\fm\otimes\fg)$. The elements $y$
and $y'$ of $\MC(\Omega(L)\otimes\fm\otimes\fg)$ have the same images
in both $\MC(\Omega(K)\otimes\fm\otimes\fg)$ and
$\MC(\Omega(L)\otimes\fm\otimes\fh)$. Now, the commutative diagram
\begin{center}
$$\begin{CD}
\Omega(L)\otimes\fg@>>> \Omega(K)\otimes\fg\\
@VVV @VVV \\
\Omega(L)\otimes\fh@>>> \Omega(K)\otimes\fh\\
\end{CD}$$
\end{center}
induces an acyclic fibration
$$ p:\fg_1:=\Omega(L)\otimes\fg\to\Omega(K)\otimes\fg\times
_{\Omega(K)\otimes\fh}\Omega(L)\otimes\fh=:\fg_2$$
of dg Lie algebras. Then
the map $\Sigma_p:\Sigma_{\fg_1}(R)\to \Sigma_{\fg_2}(R)$ is an acyclic
fibration.
Now, we have two elements $y,y'\in\MC(\fm\otimes\fg_1)$
satisfying $p(y)=p(y')\in\MC(\fm\otimes\fg_2)$. Therefore, there
exists an element $z\in \Sigma_{\fg_1}(R)_1$ such that $d_0z=y,d_1z=y'$
and $p(z)=s_0(p(y))$. Using the explicit description of $\Sigma_{\fg}(R)_1$
in~\cite{uc}, 8.2.3, one obtains and element $\gamma\in\exp(\fm\otimes\fg_1)$
satisfying $p(\gamma)=1\in\exp(\fm\otimes\fg_2);\ \gamma(y')=y$.
Then one immediately sees that the element $\widetilde{g}=\gamma g'$ is the one
we need.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{}
\begin{cor}{}
1. For any $\fg\in\dgl(k), R\in\dgar(k), x,y\in\Ob\Gamma_{\fg}(R)$ the
simplicial set $\uhom(x,y)$ is fibrant.
2. Any quasi-isomorphism $f:\fg\to\fh$ induces a weak equivalence
$$ f:\Gamma_{\fg}(R)\to\Gamma_{\fh}(R)$$
for each $R\in\dgar(k)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{pf}
1. Take $\fh=0$ in~\Prop{gamma-fib}.
2. The category $\dgl(k)$ admits a CMC structure with surjections as
fibrations and quasi-isomorphisms as weak equivalences --- see~\cite{haha},
Sect.~4. Using this, present $f=p\circ i$ as a composition of an acyclic
fibration $p$ and an acyclic cofibration $i$. Any acyclic cofibration in
$\dgl(k)$ is left invertible: $q\circ i=\id$. The map $q$ is obviously an
acyclic fibration. Then by~\Prop{gamma-fib} the map
$f:\Gamma_{\fg}(R)\to\Gamma_{\fh}(R)$ is a weak equivalence.
\end{pf}
\section{Final}
\label{final}
\subsection{}
We start with an observation explaining the connection between $T_A$ and
the formal deformations of $A$. Let $B$ be a cofibrant $R\otimes\CO$-algebra
with $(R,\fm)\in\dgar(k)$.
Denote $A=k\otimes_RB$. The algebra $B$ is isomorphic, as a graded
$\CO$-algebra, to $R\otimes A$. Choose a graded isomorphism
$$ \theta: B\to R\otimes A$$
and put
$$ z=\theta\circ d_B\circ\theta^{-1}-1\otimes d_A$$
where $d_B$ (resp., $d_A$) is the differential in $B$ (resp., in $A$).
Then $z$ is a degree one derivation in $\fm\otimes T_A$ satisfying the
Maurer-Cartan equation. A different choice of isomorphism $\theta$
gives rise to a Maurer-Cartan element $z'\in\fm\otimes T_A$ equivalent to
$z$: there exists $g\in\exp(\fm\otimes T_A)^0$ such that $z'=g(z)$.
In what follows we will use a (non-unique) presentation of a
$R\otimes\CO$-algebra $B$ by an element $z\in\MC(\fm\otimes T_{k\otimes_RB})$.
\subsection{Proof of the Theorem}
To simplify the notation, denote $\CW=\CW^c_*(\CO,R),\ol{\CW}=\CW^c_*(\CO,k)$.
\subsubsection{}
\begin{lem}{isafibration}
The natural map $\pi:W\to\ol{W}$ is a fibration in $\sCat$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
1. Let us prove the condition (1) of Definition~\ref{scat-fib}.
It means the following.
Let $f:A\to B$ be a quasi-isomorphism of cofibrant $\CO$-algebras over $k$.
Let one of two elements $a\in\MC(\fm\otimes T_A)$ or $b\in\MC(\fm\otimes T_B)$
be given. We have to check that there exists a choice of the second element
and a map
$$g: (R\otimes A,d+a)\to(R\otimes B,d+b)$$
of $R\otimes\CO$-algebras which lifts $f:A\to B$.
We can consider separately the cases when $f$ is an acyclic fibration or
an acyclic cofibration.
In both cases we will be looking for the map $g$ in the form
$$g=\gamma^{-1}_B\circ (\id_R\otimes f)\circ\gamma_A$$
where $\gamma_A\in\exp(\fm\otimes T_A)^0$ and similarly for $\gamma_B$.
A map $g$ as above should commute with the differentials $d+a$ and $d+b$.
This amounts to the condition
$$ f_*(\gamma_A(a))=f^*(\gamma_B(b)),$$
where the natural maps
$$ T_A\overset{f_*}{\lra}\Der_f(A,B)\overset{f^*}{\lla}T_B$$
are defined as in~\cite{haha}, 8.1.
Recall that we are assuming that $f$ is either acyclic cofibration or an
acyclic fibration.
In both cases there exists a commutative square
\begin{center}
$$\begin{CD}
T_f@>{\alpha}>> T_A \\
@V{\beta}VV @V{f_*}VV \\
T_B@>{f^*}>> \Der_f(A,B)\\
\end{CD}$$
\end{center}
where $T_f$ is a dg Lie algebra and $\alpha,\beta$ are Lie algebra
quasi-isomorphisms --- see~\cite{haha}, 8.2, 8.3.
The maps $\alpha,\beta$ induce bijections
$$ \pi_0(\Sigma_{T_A}(R))\lla\pi_0(\Sigma_{T_f}(R))
\lra\pi_0(\Sigma_{T_A}(R))$$
which prove the assertion.
2. Let us check the condition (2) of~\ref{scat-fib}.
Let $\widetilde{A},\widetilde{B}\in\CW$ and let $A=k\otimes_R\widetilde{A},
B=k\otimes_R\widetilde{B}$. We have to check that the map
\begin{equation}
\uhom(\widetilde{A},\widetilde{B})\to\uhom(A,B)
\label{red}
\end{equation}
is a Kan fibration.
But this results from the SCMC structure on $\Alg(R\otimes\CO)$. In fact,
$\widetilde{A}$ is cofibrant, and the reduction map $\widetilde{B}\to B$
can be considered as a fibration in $\Alg(R\otimes\CO)$. Therefore,
the map
\begin{equation}
\uhom(\widetilde{A},\widetilde{B})\to\uhom(\widetilde{A},B)
\label{red2}
\end{equation}
is a Kan fibration. But the maps~(\ref{red2}) and (\ref{red}) coincide,
so the condition (2) of~\ref{scat-fib} is proven.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{}
Fix now a cofibrant $\CO$-algebra $A$ and denote $\fg=T_A$.
Fix $(R,\fm)\in\dgar(k)$.
Define a map of simplicial categories
$$ \alpha:\Gamma_{\fg}(R)\to W$$
as follows. Let $z\in\MC(\fm\otimes\fg)=\Ob\Gamma_{\fg}(R)$. Put
$$\alpha(z)=(R\otimes A, 1\otimes d+z).$$
Now, any element $g\in G_n=\exp(\Omega_n\otimes\fm\otimes\fg)^0$
defines a graded automorphism of $\Omega_n\otimes R\otimes A$. This
obviously defines an isomorphism of $R\otimes\CO$-algebras
$$ (R\otimes A, 1\otimes d+z)\lra (R\otimes A, 1\otimes d+g(z)).$$
The map $\alpha:\Gamma_{\fg}(R)\to W$ identifies $\Gamma_{\fg}(R)$
with the fibre of $\pi:W\to\ol{W}$ at $A$. Since $\pi$ is
a fibration, this is weakly equivalent to the homotopy fibre of $\pi$.
Now Theorem follows since the nerve functor $\CN$ preserves
fibrations and weak equivalences by~\ref{nerve-exactness}.
\subsection{Concluding remarks}
\subsubsection{}
The formula~(\ref{def-def-functor}) defines a deformation functor for
operad algebras not necessarily concentrated in non-positive degrees.
The definition seems to be correct also in this case, in spite of
the fact that $T_A$ does not govern deformations of $A$ in this case.
It seems that one should find in this case a more clever way to define
the tangent Lie algebra. It might consist of ``tame''
derivations of a cofibrant resolution $\widetilde{A}$ of $A$, the ones
which behave well with respect to a filtration on $\widetilde{A}$.
\subsubsection{}
One can define ``hard'' formal deformations of a $\CO$-algebra $A$ which deform
not only the algebra $A$ itself but also the base operad $\CO$.
Then the universal deformation of $(\CO,A)$ would provide the
tangent Lie algebra $T_A$ with a canonical extra structure.
\section{Appendix: simplicial categories}
In this Section we present a more or less standard information about
simplicial categories. It includes the description~\ref{scat-cmc} of a CMC
structure on the category $\sCat$ of small simplicial categories.
This structure is a slight generalization of the one described in~\cite{dk}.
\subsection{Weak equivalences and fibrations in $\sCat$ }
\label{scat-cmc-ss}
Here we define a closed model category structure on the category $\sCat$
of simplicial categories.
\subsubsection{(Co)limits}
\label{lim}
The category $\sCat$ admits arbitrary limits and colimits.
Inverse limits in $\sCat$ are induced by inverse limits in $\Ens$ in the
obvious sense.
The existence of inductive limits in $\sCat$ follows by a general abstract
nonsense from the existence of inductive limits in $\Ens$.
Note that the functor $\sCat\to\Ens$ assigning to each simplicial category
the set of its objects, commutes with inductive limits. The set of morphisms
of an inductive limit is freely generated by the morphisms of all categories
involved, modulo an obvious equivalence relation.
Note that the existence of direct limits in $\sCat$ allows one to mimic the
procedure of ``adding variables''. We will single out the following cases.
{\em Adding an object.} Given $\CC\in\sCat$, denote $\CC\langle *\rangle$
the coproduct of $\CC$ with the trivial one-object category $*$.
{\em Adding an ingoing arrow.} Given $\CC\in\sCat,\ x\in\Ob\CC$, one defines
$\CC\langle *\to x\rangle$ with the set of objects $\Ob\CC\coprod\{*\}$
and the set of morphisms freely generated by $\Mor\CC$ and by the map
$*\to x$.
{\em Adding an outgoing arrow.} The category $\CC\langle x\to *\rangle$ is
defined similarly to the above.
{\em Adding maps between objects} Given $\CC\in\sCat$, $x,y\in\Ob\CC$
and a map $\alpha:\uhom_{\CC}(x,y)\to H$ of simplicial sets, the simplicial
category $\CC\langle x,y;\alpha\rangle$ has the same objects as $\CC$. Its
set of morphisms is freely generated by $\Mor\CC$ and by $H$.
\subsubsection{}
Define the functor
$$\pi_0:\sCat\to\Cat$$
as follows. For $\CC\in\sCat$ the category $\pi_0(\CC)$ has the same objects
as $\CC$. For $x,y\in\Ob\pi_0(\CC)$
$$\Hom_{\pi_0(\CC)}(x,y)=\pi_0(\Hom_{\CC}(x,y)).$$
\subsubsection{}
\begin{defn}{scat-we}
A map $f:\CC\to\CDD$ in $\sCat$ is called a weak
equivalence if the following properties are satisfied.
(1) The map $\CN(\pi_0(f))$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.
(2) For all $x,x'\in\Ob\CC$ the map $f:\uhom(x,x')\to\uhom(fx,fx')$
is a weak equivalence.
\end{defn}
\subsubsection{}
\begin{defn}{scat-fib}A map $f:\CC\to\CDD$ in $\sCat$ is called a fibration
if it satisfies the following properties
(1) the right lifting property (RLP) with respect to ``adding an ingoing
or an outgoing arrow''
$$\CA\to\CA\langle *\to x\rangle,\ \CA\to\CA\langle x\to *\rangle$$
(see~\ref{lim}).
(2) For all $x,x'\in\Ob\CC$ the map $f:\uhom(x,x')\to\uhom(fx,fx')$
is a Kan fibration. This is equivalent the the RLP with respect to
all maps $\CA\to\CA\langle x,y;\alpha\rangle$ where $\alpha$ is an
acyclic fibration (see~\ref{lim}).
\end{defn}
\subsubsection{}
\begin{thm}{scat-cmc}The category $\sCat$ admits a CMC structure with
weak equivalences described in~\ref{scat-we} and fibrations as
in~\ref{scat-fib}.
\end{thm}
\subsubsection{}
An explicit description of different classes of morphisms in $\sCat$ is given
below. The proof of the Theorem is standard. It is given
in~\ref{pf-scat-cmc}.
\subsubsection{}
A map $f:\CC\to\CDD$ in $\sCat$ is called an
acyclic fibration if it is simultaneously a weak equivalence and a fibration.
\begin{lem}{scat-af}
A map $f:\CC\to\CDD$ is an acyclic fibration iff the following conditions
are satisfied.
(1) the map $\Ob f:\Ob\CC\to\Ob\CDD$ is surjective. In other words,
$f$ satisfies the RLP with respect to ``adding an object map''
$\CA\to\CA\langle *\rangle$.
(2) For all $x,x'\in\Ob\CC$ the map $f:\uhom(x,x')\to\uhom(fx,fx')$
is an acyclic Kan fibration.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}If $f$ satisfies (1), (2), it is clearly an acyclic fibration.
In the other direction, suppose $f$ is an acyclic fibration. Then the
property (2) is clear. We have only to check that $\Ob f$ is surjective.
Since $f$ satisfies the RLP with respect to ingoing and outgoing arrows,
$\CDD$ is a disjoint union of the full subcategories, defined by
the image of $\Ob f$ and by its complement. Since $\pi_0(f)$ is a weak
equivalence, it induces a bijection of the connected components of $\CC$ and
$\CDD$ and this proves the claim.
\end{pf}
\subsubsection{}
\label{sc}
A map $f:\CC\to\CDD$ will be called {\em a standard cofibration} if there is
a collection of maps $f_i:\CC_i\to\CC_{i+1},\ i\in\Bbb{N}$ such that
$\CC=\CC_0,\ \CDD=\dirlim\CC_i$, and each $f_i$ is a coproduct of maps
of one of the following two types:
(1) Adding an object $\CC_i\to\CC_i\langle *\rangle$;
(2) Adding maps between objects $\CC_i\to\CC_i\langle x,y;\alpha\rangle$
with $\alpha$ injective.
By~\ref{scat-af}, standard cofibrations satisfy the LLP with respect to all
acyclic fibrations.
\subsubsection{}
\label{sac}
A map $f:\CC\to\CDD$ will be called {\em a standard acyclic cofibration}
if there is a collection of maps $f_i:\CC_i\to\CC_{i+1},\ i\in\Bbb{N}$
such that $\CC=\CC_0,\ \CDD=\dirlim\CC_i$, and each $f_i$ is a coproduct of
maps of one of the following three types:
(1+) Adding an ingoing arrow $\CC_i\to\CC_i\langle *\to x\rangle$;
(1--) Adding an outgoing arrow $\CC_i\to\CC_i\langle x\to *\rangle$;
(2) Adding maps between objects $\CC_i\to\CC_i\langle x,y;\alpha\rangle$
with $\alpha$ acyclic cofibration.
By~\ref{scat-fib}, standard acyclic cofibrations satisfy the LLP with respect
to all fibrations.
\subsubsection{}
The following description of cofibrations and of acyclic cofibrations
results from the proof of~\Thm{scat-cmc}.
\begin{cor}{c-and-ac}1. Any cofibration in $\sCat$ is a retract of a standard
cofibration.
2. Any acyclic cofibration in $\sCat$ is a retract of a standard acyclic
cofibration.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Proof of~\Thm{scat-cmc}}
\label{pf-scat-cmc}
The axioms (CM 1), (CM 2), (CM 3), (CM 4)(ii) are immediately verified.
(CM 5)(ii) Let $f:X\to Y$ be a map in $\sCat$.
Adding objects to $X$, we can ensure that
the map $f:\Ob(X)\to\Ob(Y)$ is surjective.
Then, adding maps between objects, we can decompose $f$ into a
standard cofibration followed by an acyclic fibration.
This implies, in particular, that any cofibration is a retract of a standard
cofibration.
To check the axiom (CM 5)(i) we need the following
\subsubsection{}
\begin{lem}{sac-is-ac}
Standard acyclic cofibrations are acyclic cofibrations.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}It is enough to prove that a map $\CC\to\CDD$ is a weak equivalence
when $\CDD$ is obtained from $\CC$ by one of the following ways.
(1) adding a number of ingoing arrows;
(2) adding a number of outgoing arrows;
(3) adding (simultaneously) maps between objects $x_i$ and $y_i$ along
acyclic cofibrations $\alpha_i:\uhom(x_i,y_i)\to H_i$.
In the first two cases the map $\CC\to \CDD$ is easily split by an acyclic
fibration.
The shortest way to get the result in the case (3) is to use Proposition 7.2
of~\cite{dk} which claims the existence of CMC structure on the category
of simplicial categories having a fixed set of objects.
\end{pf}
(CM 5)(i) Let $f:X\to Y$ be a map in $\sCat$. Adding ingoing and outgoing
arrows to $X$, we can ensure that the image of $\Ob(X)$ under $f$ consists
of a number of connected components of $\Ob(Y)$. From now on we can
suppose, without loss of generality, that $f$ is surjective on objects.
Then for a decomposition $f=p\circ i$ it is enough to check that $p$
satisfies condition (2) of ~\ref{scat-fib} to ensure $p$ is a fibration.
Now applying step by step the procedure of adding maps between objects
$\CC\to\CC\langle x,y;\alpha\rangle$ along acyclic cofibrations $\alpha$,
we can construct a decomposition $f=p\circ i$ with $p$ fibration and $i$
a standard acyclic cofibration. According to~\Lem{sac-is-ac}, $i$ is an acyclic
cofibration.
Now, applying the proof of (CM 5)(i) to any acyclic cofibration $f$, we deduce
that $f$ is a retract of a standard acyclic cofibration.
(CM 4)(i) By definition, any standard acyclic cofibration satisfies LLP
with respect to all fibrations. Any acyclic fibration is a retract
of a standard acyclic fibration, and therefore satisfies as well LLP
with respect to all fibrations.
Theorem is proven.
\subsection{Simplicial nerve}
\label{snerve}
\subsubsection{}
\label{snerve}
In what follows we identify $\Cat$ with the full subcategory of
$\simpl$. Then every simplicial category (and even every $\CC\in\Delta^0\Cat$)
can be seen as a bisimplicial set; its diagonal will be called {\em
the nerve} of $\CC$ and will be denoted $\CN(\CC)$. If $\CC$ is a ``usual''
category, $\CN(\CC)$ is its ``usual'' nerve.
The functor $\CN:\sCat\to\simpl$ admits a left adjoint functor
$$\SCAT:\simpl\to\sCat$$
defined by the properties
\begin{itemize}
\item{$\Ob\SCAT(\Delta^n)=[n]=\{0,\ldots,n\};$}
\item{$\Mor\SCAT(\Delta^n)\text{ is freely generated by }a_i\in\uhom_n(i-1,i),
\ i=1,\ldots,n;$}
\item{ $\SCAT$ commutes with arbitrary colimits.}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{}
\begin{prop}{nerve-exactness}
The nerve functor $\CN:\sCat\to\simpl$ preserves weak equivalences, fibrations
and cofibrations.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
1. To check that $\CN$ preserves the fibrations, it is enough to prove
that the adjoint functor $\SCAT$ preserves acyclic cofibrations. For this
we have to check that $\SCAT$ transforms any map $\Lambda^n_i\to\Delta^n$
to an acyclic fibration. This is an easy exercise (one should consider the
cases $n=1$ and $n>1$ separately). Note that the same reasoning (even
easier!) proves that $\CN$ preserves acyclic fibrations --- this is because
$\SCAT$ preserves cofibrations.
2. It is clear that $\CN(f)$ is a weak equivalence provided $f$ is a weak
equivalence {\em bijective on objects}. To prove the general claim,
we present $f$ as a composition of an acyclic fibration with an acyclic
cofibration and therefore reduce the problem to the case $f$ is an
acyclic cofibration. Using~\ref{c-and-ac}, we can suppose that $f$ is
of one of the types (1+), (1--), (2) of~\ref{sac}. The type (2) does not
change the set of objects, so we have nothing to prove. The maps of types
(1+), (1--) split, and the splitting map is an acyclic fibration. This
proves the claim.
3. The claim about cofibrations is obvious.
\end{pf}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
We make use of recently proposed parameterizations
\cite{boya} (cf. \cite{zhsl}) --- in terms of squared components of the unit
$(n-1)$-sphere and the $n \times n$ unitary matrices --- of the $n \times n$
density matrices. First (in sec.~\ref{buressection}), we derive (prior)
probability
distributions of particular interest over both the
three-dimensional convex set of two-state quantum
systems and the eight-dimensional convex set of three-state
quantum systems.
These distributions are the normalized volume elements of the corresponding
Bures metrics on these systems. Hall \cite{hall}
(cf. \cite{hall2,stasz,rieffel})
has contended that such distributions correspond
to ``minimal-knowledge'' ensembles, that is
the most {\it random} ensembles of possible states. In particular,
for the two-dimensional quantum systems, he
argues that the Bures metric provides such a minimal-knowledge ensemble,
since it ``corresponds to the surface of a unit four-ball, i. e.,
to the maximally symmetric space of positive curvature \ldots
This space is homogeneous and isotropic, and hence the Bures metric does
not distinguish a preferred location or direction in the space of
density operators'' \cite{hall}. Somewhat contrarily though,
Slater \cite{slaterpla1} has reported results (based on the concept
of comparative noninformativities of priors, first expounded in
\cite{clarke}) that
indicate the Bures metric generates ensembles that are less
noninformative than other (monotone) metrics of interest.
The Bures metric fulfills the role of the
{\it minimal} monotone metric \cite{petzsudar,petzlaa,lesniewski},
and has been the
focus of a considerable number of studies
\cite{hall,slaterpla1,hubner1,hubner2,brauncaves,dittmann1,dittmann2}.
``An infinitesimal statistical distance has to be monotone under stochastic
mappings'' \cite[p. 786]{petzsudar}. All stochastically monotone Riemannian
metrics are characterized by means of operator monotone functions. Among
all
(suitably normalized) operator montone functions $f(t)$ with $f(1)=1$ and $f(t) = t f(t^{-1)}$,
there is a minimal and a maximal one \cite{kubo}.
(The concept of a minimal metric was apparently introduced by Zolotarev in
his extensive paper, ``Metric distances in spaces of random variables
and of their distributions'' \cite[sec. 1.4]{zolotarev}, but it is not
entirely clear
that the meaning there is the same as in the terminology ``minimal monotone
metric''.)
We should bear in mind, though --- as emphasized by Petz and
Sud\'ar \cite{petzsudar} --- that, in strong contrast to the classical
situation, in the quantum domain there is not a unique monotone metric, but
rather a (nondenumerable) multiplicity of them.
Their comparative properties need to be evaluated, before deciding which
specific one to employ for a particular application.
We repeat the concluding remarks of Petz and Sud\'ar:
``Therefore, more than one privileged metric shows up in quantum mechanics.
The exact clarification of this point requires and is worth further studies.''
We have previously reported \cite{slaterjmp}
(in terms of parameterizations other than that
of Boya {\it et al} \cite{boya}) the Bures probability distribution
for the two-state systems, and also \cite{slaterjpa} for an imbedding of these
systems into a four-dimensional convex set of three-state systems, but
the result below (\ref{new}) for the full eight-dimensional convex set of
three-state systems is clearly novel in nature. In fact, in
\cite[sec. II.E]{slatertherm2}
we discussed certain (unsuccessful) efforts in these directions
(although the volume element of the {\it maximal} monotone metric --- which
is
not strictly normalizable --- proved more amenable to analysis there).
In sec.~\ref{bureshallsection}, we determine certain necessary elements
for extending the work reported in sec.~\ref{buressection} to the
higher-dimensional quantum systems ($n >3$).
This involves finding the normalization constant ($C_{n}$), explicitly first
discussed by Hall
\cite[eq. (25)]{hall}, for the {\it marginal} Bures prior probability
distribution over the $(n-1)$-dimensional simplex of the $n$ eigenvalues
of the $n \times n$ density matrices. These constants are found to exhibit
quite remarkable number-theoretic properties. It would, therefore, certainly
be of substantial interest to find a general formula for $C_{n}$.
Knowledge of the value of $C_{n}$, together with that of the invariant
Haar element for $SU(n)$ --- apparently presently available, however, in
suitably parameterized form (cf. \cite{Zycz1,Zycz2}) for
$n \leq 3$ \cite{byrd,byrdsudarshan} --- would allow
one to construct the Bures prior
probability distribution itself for the $n$-level quantum systems.
In an extensive study \cite{kratt}, Krattenthaler and Slater
examined (in the
framework of the {\it two}-state systems) the hypothesis that the normalized
volume element of the Bures metric would function in the quantum domain in
a role parallel to that fulfilled classically by the ``Jeffreys'
prior'' --- that is, the normalized volume element of the unique monotone/Fisher
information metric \cite{kass,kwek}.
In particular, they were interested in \cite{kratt}
in the possibility of extending
certain (classical) seminal results of Clarke and Barron \cite{cb1,cb2}.
They did conclude, however, contrary to their working hypothesis, that
the normalized volume element of the Bures metric does not in fact strictly
fullfill the same role as the Jeffreys' prior (in yielding both the
asymptotic minimax and maximin redundancies for universal
coding/data compression), but it appears to come
remarkably close to doing so
(cf. Fig.~\ref{comparison}).
In sec.~\ref{QUASI}, for the cases $n=2$ and 3, the
``quasi-Bures'' prior probability distributions are presented
that appear to fulfill
this distinguished information-theoretic role.
\section{BURES PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS OVER THE ${n \times n}$ DENSITY
MATRICES} \label{buressection}
Boya {\it et al} \cite{boya} have recently ``shown that the mixed state
density matrices for $n$-state systems can be parameterized in terms of
squared components of an $(n-1)$-sphere and unitary matrices''.
The mixed state density matrix ($\rho$) is represented in the form,
\begin{equation} \label{one}
\rho = U D U^{\dagger} ,
\end{equation}
where $U$ denotes an $SU(n)$ matrix, $U^{\dagger}$ its conjugate
transpose and $D$ a diagonal density operator,
the diagonal entries ($d_{i}$'s)
of which --- being the eigenvalues of $\rho$ --- are the squared
components of the
$(n-1)$-sphere. Thus, for $n =2$,
\begin{equation} \label{two}
D = \pmatrix{\cos^{2}{\theta /2} & 0 \cr 0 & \sin^{2}{\theta /2} \cr} \qquad
0 \leq \theta \leq {\pi \over 2},
\end{equation}
and, for $n = 3$,
\begin{equation} \label{three}
D = \pmatrix{\cos^{2}{\phi /2} \sin^{2}{\theta /2} & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & \sin^{2}{\phi /2} \sin^{2}{\theta /2} & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & \cos^{2}{\theta /2} \cr} \qquad 0 \leq \theta, \phi \leq \pi.
\end{equation}
(Note the differences in the ranges of angles used in the two
cases. This will be commented
upon in sec.~\ref{n4bures}.)
Biedenharn and Louck have
presented \cite[eq. (2.40)]{bied} the parameterization of an element of
$SU(2)$,
\begin{equation} \label{su2}
U(\alpha \beta \gamma) = e^{-i \alpha \sigma_{3} /2} e^{-i \beta \sigma_{2} /2}
e^{-i \gamma \sigma_{3} /2},
\end{equation}
in terms of the Pauli matrices ($\sigma_{i}$'s) and
three Euler angles --- $ 0 \leq \alpha < 2 \pi,
0 \leq \beta \leq \pi, 0 \leq \gamma < 2 \pi$ --- with an associated
invariant Haar measure \cite[eq. (3.134)]{bied},
\begin{equation} \label{invariant1}
\mbox{d} \Omega_{2} = {1 \over 8} \mbox{d} \alpha \mbox{d} \gamma
\sin{\beta} \mbox{d} \beta.
\end{equation}
Byrd \cite{byrd} (cf. \cite{byrdsudarshan}) has extended this approach to
$SU(3)$. He obtains
\begin{equation}
U(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\kappa,a,b,c,\zeta) = e^{i \lambda_{3} \alpha}
e^{i \lambda_{2} \beta} e^{i \lambda_{3} \gamma} e^{i \lambda_{5} \kappa}
e^{i \lambda_{3} a} e^{i \lambda_{2} b} e^{i \lambda_{3} c}
e^{i \lambda_{8} \zeta},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{i}$ denotes one of the
eight $3 \times 3$ Gell-Mann matrices \cite{lukach}.
The corresponding invariant element is
\begin{equation} \label{invariant2}
\mbox{d} \Omega_{3} = \sin{2 \beta} \sin{2 b} \sin{2 \kappa} {\sin^{2}{\kappa}}
\mbox{d} \alpha \mbox{d} \beta \mbox{d} \gamma \mbox{d} \kappa \mbox{d} a
\mbox{d} b \mbox{d} c \mbox{d} \zeta,
\end{equation}
with the eight Euler angles having the ranges,
\begin{equation} \label{ranges}
0 \leq \alpha, \gamma, a, c < \pi, \quad 0 \leq \beta, b, \kappa \leq
{\pi /2}, \quad 0 \leq \zeta < \sqrt{3}.
\end{equation}
For our purposes, the Euler angle $\gamma$ for the case $n=2$ and
$c$ and $\zeta$ in the case $n=3$ are irrelevant, as they
``drop out'' in the formation of the product
(\ref{one}). (I thank M. Byrd for this important observation.)
So, we will employ below the appropriate {\it conditional}
versions
of these invariant measures (\ref{invariant1}) and (\ref{invariant2}) --- the
condition
(a technical statistical term)
corresponding, of course, to the ignoring of the indicated angles.
The Bures metric itself is expressible in the form \cite[eq. (10)]{hubner1}
\begin{equation} \label{bures}
d_{B}^{2}(\rho,\rho + \mbox{d} \rho) = \sum_{i,j =1}^{n} {1 \over 2}
{{|<i|\mbox{d} \rho |j>}^{2} \over d_{i} + d_{j}},
\end{equation}
where $|i>$ denotes the eigenvectors of the $n \times n$ density matrix
$\rho$, $<j|$, the corresponding complex conjugate (dual) vectors, and
the $d$'s are the associated eigenvalues.
The parameterization of Boya {\it et al} is, then, particularly
convenient, since the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\rho$ are
immediately available. Our chief concern must, then, be to compute the
complete
Jacobian of the transformation to the set of parameters
of Boya {\it et al}.
(We shall note for further reference the occurrence of the term $d_{i} + d_{j}$
in (\ref{bures}). This, is of course, simply proportional to the arithmetic
mean, $(d_{i} +d_{j})/2$. By replacing this term by (twice) the
{\it exponential/identric} mean (\ref{qi13}) of $d_{i}$ and $d_{j}$,
that is $2 I(d_{i},d_{j})$,
we shall obtain the particular ``quasi-Bures'' distributions described
in sec.~\ref{QUASI}.)
\subsection{The Bures case $n=2$}
For the case $n=2$, the volume element of the Bures metric
(\ref{bures}) is proportional to the
product of the inverse of the square root of the determinant of
$\rho$ (or, equivalently, the determinant of $D$) with two Jacobians. The
first Jacobian (in line with the familiar practice
in the theory of random matrices \cite[eq. (3.3.5)]{mehta}) is
itself the product of
$(d_{1}-d_{2})^2$ and the (conditional) invariant element (\ref{invariant1}).
The second Jacobian, ${\sin{\theta} / 2}$,
corresponds simply to the transformation from cartesian
coordinates to the squared polar coordinates employed in
(\ref{two}). Simplifying and normalizing the full product, we arrive at
the probability density for the normalized volume element of the Bures
metric over the three-dimensional convex set
of two-state quantum systems. This density is
\begin{equation} \label{n2}
\mbox{d} p_{Bures:2}(\theta,\alpha,\beta) = {\cos^{2}{\theta}
\sin{\beta} \over {\pi^{2}}} \mbox{d} \theta
\mbox{d} \alpha \mbox{d} \beta \qquad 0 \leq \theta \leq {\pi \over 2},
\quad 0 \leq \alpha \leq 2 \pi, \quad 0 \leq \beta \leq \pi.
\end{equation}
The expected values of the eigenvalues are, then, ${1/2 \pm 4 / 3 \pi}$.
\subsection{The Bures case $n=3$} \label{n3bures}
For the case $n=3$, the volume element of the Bures metric is equal to the
product of: (i) two Jacobians again, one of which now has the form
$\big((d_{1}- d_{2}) (d_{1}-d_{3}) (d_{2}-d_{3})\big)^2$ multiplied by the
(conditional)
invariant measure (\ref{invariant2}), while the other, $(\cos{{\theta \over 2}}
\sin^{3}{{\theta \over 2}} \sin{\phi})/2$, corresponds to the
transformation to squared spherical coordinates used in
(\ref{three}); and (ii)
the reciprocal of the product of the square root of the determinant of $\rho$
(or, equivalently, of $D$) and
the difference between the sum of the three principal minors of order two
of $\rho$ (or, equivalently, of $D$)
and the determinant itself. Since $|\rho|^{1/2} =
(\cos{{\theta \over 2}} \sin^{2}{{\theta \over 2}} \sin{\phi})/2$, it can be
seen that
considerable cancellation occurs between the numerator and the
denominator of the full product.
The normalization of the resultant volume element
required considerable manipulations using MATHEMATICA
(basically involving reducing the problem to the simplest possible
form at each stage of the integration process). We
obtained the following Bures prior probability density
over the eight-dimensional convex set of three-state (spin-1)
quantum systems,
\begin{equation} \label{new}
\mbox{d} p_{Bures:3}(\theta,\phi,\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\kappa,a,b) =
{35 u
\over 128 {\pi}^4
(35 + 28 \cos{\theta} + \cos{2 \theta} -8 \cos{2 \phi}
{\sin^{4}{{\theta \over 2}}})}
\mbox{d} \theta \mbox{d} \phi \mbox{d} \widetilde{\Omega}_{3},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{newvariable}
u = {\sin^{3}{{\theta \over 2}}}
\big((35 + 60 \cos{\theta} + 33 \cos{2 \theta} )
\cos{\phi} - {8 \cos{3 \phi}} {{\sin^{4}{{\theta \over 2}}}})^2 \big),
\end{equation}
and the conditional invariant element (cf. (\ref{invariant2})) is
\begin{equation} \label{conditionalhaar}
\mbox{d} \widetilde{\Omega}_{3} = \sin{2 \beta} \sin{2 b} \sin{2 \kappa}
{\sin^{2}{\kappa}}
\mbox{d} \alpha
\mbox{d} \beta \mbox{d} \gamma \mbox{d}
\kappa \mbox{d} a \mbox{d} b.
\end{equation}
The eight variables have the previously indicated ranges ((\ref{three}),
(\ref{ranges})).
In Fig.~\ref{twodim}, we display the two-dimensional marginal probability
distribution of
(\ref{new}) over the parameters $\theta$ and $\phi$
(which are invariant under unitary transformations of $\rho$).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=buresprior2.eps}}
\caption{Bivariate marginal Bures prior probability distribution over the
variables
$\theta$ and $\phi$
for three-state systems}
\label{twodim}
\end{figure}
Let us note that the fully mixed state --- corresponding to the
$3 \times 3$ diagonal
density matrix with entries equal to $1/3$ --- is obtained at
$\phi = \pi/2, \theta = 2 \cos^{-1}({1/\sqrt{3})} \approx 1.91063$.
The probability density (\ref{new}) is zero at this distinguished
point, as well as
along the loci $\theta = 0$ and $\phi = \pi /2$. (Wherever at least two
of the eigenvalues of $\rho$ or, equivalently $D$, are equal, the density
is zero.)
The one-dimensional marginal probability density (Fig.~\ref{onedim1}),
obtained by integrating (\ref{new}) over all variables except $\theta$, is
\begin{equation}
\mbox{d} \tilde{p}_{Bures:3}(\theta) =
{35 \over 256} (-1533 + 2816 \cos{{\theta \over 2}} - 1988 \cos{\theta} +
1152 \cos{{3 \theta \over 2}} - 447 \cos{2 \theta} + 128 \cos{{5 \theta
\over 2}})
\sin^{3}{{\theta \over 2}} \mbox{d} \theta.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=buresprior1.eps}}
\caption{Univariate marginal Bures prior probability distribution over the
variable $\theta$ for
three-state systems}
\label{onedim1}
\end{figure}
The relative maxima of this density are located at .914793, 2.2795
and $\pi$, while the relative
minima are at 0, 1.59995 and 2.61732.
The one-dimensional marginal probability density
(Fig.~\ref{onedim2}), obtained by integrating (\ref{new}) over all
variables except $\phi$,
is
\begin{equation} \label{othermarginal}
\mbox{d} \tilde{\tilde{p}}_{Bures:3}(\phi) =
{1 \over 768 \pi} \big(\cot{\phi} {\csc^{8}{\phi}}
\big(110100480 \tan^{-1}{[\cot{\phi \over 2}]} {\cos^{12}{{\phi \over 2}}} - 26880 (792 (2 \pi -\phi) \cos{\phi}
+ 8 \pi
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
(55 \cos{3 \phi} + 3 \cos{5 \phi})
+ \phi (495 \cos{2 \phi} - 220 \cos{3 \phi} +66 \cos{4 \phi} -12 \cos{5 \phi} + \cos{6 \phi})) +
16885656 \sin{2 \phi}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
+ 5069937 \sin{4 \phi} + 167012 \sin{6 \phi} -
3 ( 4139520 \phi + 124 \sin{8 \phi} - 4 \sin{10 \phi} + \sin{12 \phi})\big)\big)
\mbox{d} \phi.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=buresprior1other.eps}}
\caption{Univariate marginal Bures prior probability distribution over
the variable $\phi$ for three-state
systems}
\label{onedim2}
\end{figure}
The limits of (\ref{othermarginal}) as $\phi$ approaches 0 and $\pi$ are
both equal to ${20 \over 9 \pi} \approx .707355$. (The density is highly
oscillatory in the vicinity of these boundary points.)
MATHEMATICA does, in fact, perform a {\it symbolic/exact} integration of
(\ref{othermarginal}), yielding the result 1. (Note that for our analyses
below for $n>3$, we have found it
necessary to rely upon {\it numerical} integrations, although the results
obtained do appear to indicate that
exact solutions exist, which in principle might be found with a powerful
enough computer.)
However, several warning messages are generated en route to this result,
concerning indeterminate expressions and inconsistencies in the arguments
of MeijerG functions (which are very general forms of hypergeometric
functions) \cite{MeijerG}.
\section{HALL NORMALIZATION CONSTANTS FOR {\it MARGINAL} BURES
PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS OVER THE $(n-1)$-DIMENSIONAL
SIMPLEX OF THE $n$ EIGENVALUES OF THE $n \times n$ DENSITY MATRICES}
\label{bureshallsection}
Let us note that Hall \cite[eq. (24)]{hall} has, in fact,
given an explicit formula
for the volume element of the Bures metric on the
$n \times n$ density matrices. This is (converting to the notation used
above),
\begin{equation} \label{hallformula}
\mbox{d} V_{Bures:n} =
{\mbox{d} d_{1} \ldots \mbox{d} d_{n} \over (d_{1} \ldots d_{n})^{1/2}}
\prod_{i < j}^{n} 4 {(d_{j} -d_{k})^{2} \over d_{i} + d_{j}}
\mbox{d} x_{ij} \mbox{d} y_{ij},
\end{equation}
where the real part of the $ij$-entry of the diagonalizing unitary
matrix $U$ in formula (\ref{one}) is represented by
$x_{ij}$ and the imaginary part by $\pm i y_{ij}$.
Since in the parameterization of Boya {\it et al}
\cite{boya}, which we have employed, one
uses not these $x$'s and $y$'s, but rather the Euler angles
parameterizing the unitary matrix
$U$, we have been compelled to replace the differential elements
$\mbox{d} x_{ij} \mbox{d} y_{ij}$ in
(\ref{hallformula}) by the corresponding conditional form ($\mbox{d}
\widetilde{\Omega}$)
of the invariant (Haar) measures (\ref{invariant1}) and (\ref{invariant2}).
One can, then, confirm that our presentation and results are
fully consistent with the use of
(\ref{hallformula}), bearing in mind the unit trace
requirement that $d_{1} + \ldots +d_{n} =1$.
Hall \cite[eq. (25)]{hall} also expressed the marginal
Bures probability distribution over the space of $n$ eigenvalues of
$\rho$ as
\begin{equation} \label{hallconstant}
\tilde{p}_{Bures:n}(d_{1},\ldots,d_{n}) =
C_{n} {\delta (d_{1} + \ldots + d_{n} -1) \over (d_{1} \ldots d_{n})^{1/2}}
\prod_{i < j}^{n} {(d_{i} -d_{j})^2 \over d_{i}+ d_{j}}.
\end{equation}
We shall report the values of the ``Hall constants'' $C_{n}$ for $n =2, 3, 4$
and 5, immediately below. (The results for $n > 2$ are, apparently, new.)
\subsection{The Hall constants for $n=2$ and $n=3$} \label{proximate}
If, for consistency with our further results for $n>2$, we take $\theta \in
[0,\pi]$ and not $[0,\pi /2]$ as in \cite{boya}, then we find that
$C_{2}$ equals $2 / \pi
\approx .63662$ (cf. \cite[eq. (30)]{hall}).
From the results of the analysis in sec.~\ref{n3bures},
we are able to determine,
for the first time, apparently,
that $C_{3} = 35 / \pi \approx 11.1408$.
Let us note here that 35 is, of course, simply the product of
{\it proximate} or {\it neighboring} prime numbers, that is,
$35 = 5 \cdot 7$.
\subsection{The Hall constant for $n=4$ and associated
methodology} \label{n4bures}
To continue the full line of research reported here
for the cases $n=2, 3$, to
$n > 3$, it would be useful to extend
the work of Byrd and Sudarshan
\cite{byrd,byrdsudarshan} on the Euler angle parameterization of $SU(3)$
to such higher $n$.
However, computation of the Hall constants $C_{n}$ (\ref{hallconstant})
does not depend on
parameterizations of $SU(n)$.
We have, in fact, been able to obtain
exceedingly strong {\it numerical} evidence
that $C_{4}$ is, in fact, equal to ${71680 / \pi^{2}} \approx 7262.7$.
Let us, first, mention some methodological considerations
useful in deriving this result (and, in general, $C_{n}$, $n > 4$).
The parameterizations of Boya {\it et al} \cite{boya}
of the diagonal $2 \times 2$ and $3 \times 3$
matrices differ, in that in the $2 \times 2$ case (\ref{two}) only matrices in which
the (1,1)-entry is at least as great as the (2,2)-entry are generated
(due to the restriction of the angular parameter, $\theta$, to the
range $[0, \pi /2]$),
while in the $3 \times 3$ case (\ref{three}),
no order is imposed on the diagonal
entries (the parameters $\theta$ and $\phi$ both varying freely between
0 and $\pi$). Now, in performing
(the apparently necessary) numerical (as opposed to symbolic)
integrations to obtain the Hall
constants $C_{n}$ $(n > 3)$, it seems to be considerably more computationally
effective to integrate over
only those diagonal matrices in which (say) the (1,1)-entry
is no less than the (2,2)-entry, which in turn is no less than the
(3,3)-entry, {\it etc.} (This helps to minimize troublesome
oscillations.)
Then, the result can be multiplied by the number ($n!$) of
permutations of $n$ objects to yield
$C_{n}$, since the result of the integration must be invariant under
any other of the $n!-1$
possible orderings (permutations) that can be
imposed on the diagonal entries of the
$n \times n$ diagonal matrices. In
precisely this manner, we were able to obtain
(using the numerical integration of interpolating function command of
MATHEMATICA) the result
$71680.000001/ \pi^{2}$ for $C_{4}$. This we take as overwhelming
evidence that $C_{4}$, in fact, equals $71680 / \pi^{2}$, particularly so,
since 71,680 has the highly structured prime decomposition of
$2^{11} \cdot 5 \cdot 7$. (It is also interesting to note that $35 = 5 \cdot 7$
appears in the numerator of $C_{3}$, that is, $35 / \pi$, or, to the
same effect, $C_{4} = 2^{11} C_{3}/ \pi$.
To illustrate the procedure followed,
let us first parameterize the $4 \times 4$ nonnegative diagonal
matrices of trace unity in the following fashion
(cf. (\ref{two}), (\ref{three})),
\begin{equation}
D = \pmatrix{ \cos^{2}{\theta / 2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & \sin^{2}{\theta / 2} \cos^{2}{\phi / 2} & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & \sin^{2}{\theta / 2} \sin^{2}{\phi / 2}
\cos^{2}{\zeta / 2}& 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & \sin^{2}{\theta / 2} \sin^{2}{\phi / 2} \sin^{2}{\zeta
/ 2} \cr}.
\end{equation}
Then, the
(truncated) region of integration employed above --- corresponding to
successively nonincreasing diagonal entries --- can be described
as $\zeta \in [0, \pi / 2], \phi \in [0, f(\zeta)], \theta \in [0, f(\phi)]$,
where $f(x) = 2 \cot^{-1}{(\cos{x/2})}$, rather than
$\zeta, \phi, \theta \in [0, \pi]$, as in the apparently suggested
parameterization of Boya {\it et al}
\cite{boya}, which would yield all possible diagonal matrices, without
regard to the ordering of their elements.
If we construct a similar truncated region of integration in the case $n=3$,
then we find that the expected values of the eigenvalues are
.802393, .181878 and .0157299.
In the $n=2$ case, the analogous values are (as previously noted),
$1/2 \pm 4 / 3 \pi$, that is .924413, and .0755868.
\subsection{The Hall constant for $n=5$}
We have also attempted to
compute $C_{5}$, in the manner of sec.~\ref{n4bures},
with the use of MATHEMATICA.
We obtained (using the Gauss-Kronrod integration method
with a working precision of twenty-one digits, rather
the machine precision of sixteen) the result $2342475135.00/ \pi^{2}$.
Now, it is most interesting to note (particularly, in light of our
results for $C_{n}$, $n<5$, that
\begin{equation} \label{C5}
2,342,475,135 = 21 \Pi_{i=2}^{9} P_{i} = 21 (3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 \cdot 11
\cdot 13 \cdot 17 \cdot 19 \cdot 23),
\end{equation}
where $P_{i}$ denotes the $i$-th prime number (taking the sequence of primes
to be $2, 3, 5, \ldots$).
Thus, we have acquired strong evidence that, in fact,
$C_{5} = 2342475135/ \pi^{2}$. (As a simple exercise, we looked at the
one hundred thousand
consecutive integers containing 2,342,475,135 as their midpoint,
and computed all their prime decompositions. All the others had at
least one prime factor greater than 23.)
The seemingly independent factor of 21 in (\ref{C5}) will also apparently
be found below in the (odd) case $n=7$.
\subsubsection{Prime factorials}
In \cite{caldwell}, the product of
the primes less than or equal to $p$ is denoted $p \#$.
(The issue there, as in several of the works cited there, was to test
$p \# \pm 1$ for primality (cf. \cite{shor}).)
Let us point out a 1952 article \cite{duarte}, entitled ``Tables of logarithms
of the prime factorials from 2 to 10007'' (a synopsis of which can be
found in Mathematical Reviews 16, 112f). It is noted that by the prime
number theorem \cite{primenumbertheorem} the ratio of the
sum of the logarithms of the primes from 2 to $p$ to $p$ itself
approaches 1 as $p \rightarrow \infty$.
So, if it eventuates that the general formula for $C_{n}$, at least for
odd $n$, contains a term of the form $p(n) \#$,
where $p(n)$ is a prime as a function of $n$, which grows indefinitely
large with $n$ itself, then it should be possible to asymptotically
replace $p(n) \#$ by $e^{p(n)}$.
(``A version of the prime number theorem states that the product of the primes
less than $x$ is asymptotically $e^{x}$ [citing
the well-known treatise \cite[Theorem 434]{hardy}],
but the error term is notoriously large, so it is probably unrealistic to
expect to be able to compute far enough to get within the necessary epsilon''
\cite{guy}.)
We also observe that with the use of Wilson's theorem \cite{wilson},
$(p-1) ! \equiv -1 \mbox{mod} {p}$, one could express $p \#$ in
terms of the (more) standard
factorial function $p!$. (In \cite{mat}, the primes are {\it defined} in terms
of factorials.)
Let us point out that Ellinas and Floratos have recently
studied the ``prime decomposition'' of an $n \times n$ density matrix into
a sum of separable density matrices with dimensions determined by
the coprime factors of $n$ \cite{ellinas} (cf. \cite{number}).
\subsection{Preliminary investigations of the Hall constant for $n>5$, with the use
of quasi-Monte Carlo integration}
\subsubsection{$n=6$} \label{subn6}
Of course, as the dimensionality of the $n$-state quantum systems increases
(that is, $n$ itself increases), the numerical integrations required to
sufficiently narrow estimates of the corresponding Hall constant become
increasingly more difficult, and it is hard to judge what is precisely
the optimum numerical/programming strategy to employ.
Following the methodology outlined
in
sec.~\ref{n4bures}, based on the ordering of the eigenvalues, MATHEMATICA
did yield (using the standard default options)
an estimate of $C_{6}$, representable in the form,
$1.4616286 \cdot 10^{16} / \pi^{3}$ (although diagnostics as to
inadequate precision were issued during the course of the computation). This
result, coupled with our observation
of the pattern of $C_{n}$ for $n < 6$, might lead us to speculate that
the numerator of $C_{6}$ is either the seventeen-digit number,
$14,616,907,579,654,144 = 2^{41} \cdot 17^{2} \cdot 23$
or $14,623,504,649,420,800 = 2^{42} \cdot 5^{2} \cdot 7 \cdot 19$,
with the denominators, in both cases, being $\pi^{3}$.
When we employed the quasi-Monte Carlo
(Halton-Hammersley-Wozniakowski) procedure \cite[chap. 3]{hammersley}
\cite{saar}
of MATHEMATICA,
to numerically
integrate over a hypercube of volume $\pi^{5}$
(corresponding, thus, now to no particular distinguished ordering of the
six eigenvalues), we obtained (with {\it no} diagnostics at all
being generated in two separate analyses --- having set maxima of ten and
fifty million sample points)
a result of the form
$1.536355674 \cdot 10^{16} / \pi^{3}$. To a very high accuracy, this numerator
can be approximated by
$15,363,556,773,986,304 = 2^{28} \cdot 3^{4} \cdot 13^{2} \cdot 37 \cdot 113$
for the numerator of the presumptive value of $C_{6}$ (with denominator, again,
$\pi^{3}$).
Sloan and Wo\'zniakowski have noted that recently
``Quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms have been successfully used for multivariate
integration of high dimension $d$, and were significantly more efficient than
Monte Carlo algorithms'' \cite{sloan}.
However, in comparing the two sets of results here for $n=6$ it
is very important to bear in mind that MATHEMATICA sets its precision and
accuracy objectives much lower when Monte Carlo procedures are employed
\cite{saar}.
(Of course, these default values can be reset, but in the preliminary
analyses reported
here, they have not been, though we intend to do so in future studies.)
\subsubsection{$n=7$} \label{subsecn7}
The quasi-Monte Carlo MATHEMATICA procedure produced an estimate
(with no accompanying diagnostics, having set a maximum of four million
sample points) of
$C_{7}$ as $2.4811899
\cdot 10^{24} / \pi^{3}$.
The numerator of this fraction (cf. (\ref{C5}))
could be approximated (to a relative error of less than three-tenths of
one percent)
by the product of 21 and the (eighteen) consecutive primes
from 2 to 61 (in the notation of \cite{caldwell}, this is $61 \#$), that is,
$C_{7} = 21 \Pi_{i=1}^{18} P_{i} / \pi^{3}$.
However, this degree of accuracy does not at all seem satisfactory,
particularly in light of the proximate results for $n=6$ and 8, though
odd $n$'s appear to present greater computational challenges.
\subsubsection{$n=8$}
The quasi-Monte Carlo procedure estimated
$C_{8}$ as $4.1836777028 \cdot 10^{35} / \pi^{4}$ (though, unlike
the $n=6,7$ cases, a failure to converge was reported --- that is,
with the preassigned use of at most
ten million sample points). Nonetheless, this outcome
can be fit to a very
high accuracy (less than one part in one hundred million) by taking
$C_{8}$ to be
$2^{89} \cdot 3^{2} \cdot 5 \cdot 13^{2} \cdot 31 \cdot 47 \cdot 61 /
\pi^{4}$.
\subsection{$n \geq 9$}
For the case $n=9$, convergence was not obtained with the use of
six million sample points. The result given was
$7.631832917 \cdot 10^{47} / \pi^{4}$.
We have also made tentative attempts, using the quasi-Monte Carlo procedure
again, to estimate $C_{n}$ for $n =10$ and 11 (but it appears that considerable investment of computer resources is needed for sufficiently
satisfactory answers). For $n=10$, based on a maximum
of two million sample points, convergence was not obtained and the
result $6.334733996
\cdot 10^{62} / \pi^{5}$ reported. (No related decomposition
was immediately apparent.) For $n=11$ and 12, using a maximum of one million
sample points in both cases, the results $3.254198489 \cdot 10^{78} /
\pi^{5}$ and $5.218327334 \cdot 10^{97}/ \pi^{6}$
were gotten
(without convergence or any obvious associated simple
prime decompositions, however).
Our impression is that the computations are considerably
more difficult for the odd values of $n$ than for the even, which may be
some reflection of the simpler formulas displayed above for even $n$
(cf. \cite{chen,cvij}).
(For $n>7$, the MATHEMATICA compiler was unable to handle the small numbers
appearing in the calculation, and then proceeded with the use of the
uncompiled evaluation, leading to slower running times \cite{saar}.)
Of course, there exists a wide range of
possible approaches to numerical integration problems of this kind,
including, certainly, the use of alternative programming languages,
in particular, FORTRAN. The trade-offs
between these various options need to be assessed.
As a reference point, against which one can attempt to
compare the (reciprocals of the)
several values of $C_{n}$ above, let us recall that the area of an
$n$-sphere of radius $r$ is given by $2 \pi^{n/2} r^{n-1} / \Gamma(n/2)$
\cite{fusaro}. Also of similar interest is Euler's formula
\begin{equation} \label{riemann}
\zeta(2 n) = {(-1)^{n-1} \over 2 (2 n)!} (2 \pi)^{2 n} B_{2 n},
\quad n =1,2,3,\ldots
\end{equation}
where $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann zeta function, $\sum_{n \geq 1} n^{-s}$,
and $B_{n}$ is the
(necessarily rational) $n$-th Bernoulli number
\cite[Vol. I, pp. 75 and 211]{terras}.
(The values of $\zeta(n)$ for positive odd integers $n$, however, have not been
expressed in such a simple form \cite[Vol. III, p. 1695]{ito}. Infinite
series representations are, in fact, reported in \cite{chen,cvij}.)
Initial attempts to find an explanatory formula for the sequence of
(integral) numerators of $C_{n}$, using on-line programs
of C. Krattenthaler (``Rate'') \cite[App. A]{advanced} and of N. Sloane
(``superseeker'') \cite{sloane}, did not succeed.
However, we did
eventually find a somewhat intriguing connection (further
buttressed by some related analyses, discussed below in sec.~\ref{further})
between the results here and sequence A035077 of \cite{sloane}, which gives the
denominators of partial sums of $B_{2 n}$.
The numerator of: (1) $C_{2}$ is (rather trivially) twice
the first entry in this
sequence; (2) $C_{3}$ is one-half the fourth entry; (3) $C_{4}$
is $2^{10} = 1024$
times the fourth entry; and (4)
$C_{5}$ is 63 times the thirteenth entry of A035077. (We note that
Donaldson has found simple proofs of various formulas for {\it symplectic}
volumes involving Bernoulli numbers \cite{donaldson,witten,jeffrey}.)
\subsection{Average von Neumann entropy of $n$-state quantum systems with
respect to Bures prior probability distributions}
\label{ENTROPY}
As one application of these computations of the Hall constants ($C_{n}$),
let us note that with respect to the Bures
probability distribution (\ref{n2})
the average von Neumann entropy,
$-\mbox{Tr} \rho \log{\rho}$, is exactly
$2 \log{2} - 7/6 \approx .219628$ nats for the two-state systems and,
now using numerical integration,
.507937 nats for the three-state systems (cf. \cite{page}). (Since we
employ the natural logarithm here, the unit of information is the
{\it nat}, which is equivalent to $1/ \log{2} \approx 1.4427$ {\it bits}.)
This latter
result, to a high degree of precision --- that is, to ten significant places,
can, in fact, be written as $3 \log{3} - 3917/1405$.
We also computed
the Bures average entropy for the four-state quantum systems, obtaining
.751771 nats. To eight significant places, this can be written
as $4 \log{4} - 32135/6704$. Similarly, for $n=5$, using our knowledge
of $C_{5}$, we obtain an average entropy of .954103 nats.
This is closely approximated (to at least nine places,
according to our calculations) by $5 \log{5} - 40045/5648$.
\subsection{Auxiliary analyses of variations of Hall integrals and
the role of Bernouilli numbers} \label{further}
Since it appeared to be quite challenging to determine the Hall constants
($C_{n}$) for $n > 5$, we thought that it might be revealing
(possibly helpful in deriving a general formula for arbitrary $n$), as well as
being of independent interest,
to investigate
more tractable variations. To do so, we replaced
the exponent two in (\ref{hallformula}) and
(\ref{hallconstant}) by either one (corresponding to {\it real} quantum
systems) or four (for quaternionic quantum systems) \cite{mehta}, and other
positive integer values of less immediate {\it physical} interest, as well.
For the $n=3$ (spin-1) quaternionic case (that is, using an exponent
of four), the counterpart of the previously derived
(sec.~\ref{proximate}) Hall constant $35 / \pi $
is $1616615/ {226 \pi} = 5 \cdot 7 \cdot 11 \cdot 13
\cdot 17 \cdot 19 / 226 \pi$. (The numerator here is one-half the tenth member of
the sequence A035077, comprised of
denominators of partial sums of the Bernoulli
numbers $B_{2 n}$ \cite{sloane}.) When we use an exponent of six,
the result is $ 100280245065 /88252 \pi = 3 \cdot
5 \cdot 7 \cdot 11 \cdot 13 \cdot 17 \cdot 19 \cdot 23 \cdot 29 \cdot
31 / 88252 \pi$. (This numerator is precisely the seventeenth member of A035077.)
If we use an exponent of one (corresponding to the case of
real quantum systems), the result is $1 /4 \pi$,
and if we employ an exponent of
three, the normalization constant is
$ 105 / 128 \pi = 3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 / 128 \pi$. (The numerator here is
the fifth member of A035077.) For an exponent of five, we have
$15015 / 8192 \pi = 3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 \cdot 11 \cdot 13 / 8192 \pi$,
the numerator being three times the seventh entry of Sloane's sequence.
For an exponent of seven, the result was the
eleventh member of the sequence A035077, that is, 969969, divided by
$262144 \pi$.
When an inquiry was made of
Neil Sloane as to whether to his knowledge there were any published
discussions of this sequence, he replied ``No, I was just
looking at various sequences of important rationals, and thought that the
pair A035078/A035077 should be in the database''. (However, he later pointed
out that the von Staudt-Clausen Theorem \cite[p. 10]{rademacher} was
relevant to questions involving sums of Bernoulli numbers.) For the case
$n =3$, MATHEMATICA rejected our
efforts to compute any further exact integrals
having integer exponents greater than seven. (It would appear that the use
of an exponent of eight would be associated with the {\it octonionic}
quantum systems \cite{deleo}.)
For the analogous set of variations with $n=2$, use of odd exponents in
(\ref{hallformula}) and (\ref{hallconstant}) lead to divergent results.
For an exponent of two, the result is $2 \pi$, for four, $8 / 3 \pi $,
for six, $16 / 5 \pi $, for eight, $128 / 35 \pi $, \ldots.
For comparable scenarios based on $n=4$, we were unable to proceed with
exact integrations.
Our
numerical
computation of the analog of the Hall constant employing an exponent of
unity (the real quantum case), yielded $ \pi^{2} / .079271$. But we were
unable to determine if this result bore any relation to the sequence A035077.
\section{{\it QUASI}-BURES PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS OVER THE $n \times n$
DENSITY MATRICES} \label{QUASI}
In line with the work reported in \cite{kratt}, it would be of interest
to obtain formulas for the averages over the eight-dimensional
convex set of $3 \times 3$ density matrices ($\rho$)
with respect to the Bures prior probability
distribution (\ref{new}) of the $m$-fold tensor products of $\rho$.
As $m \rightarrow \infty$, the relative
entropy of these products with respect to the averaged
$3^{m} \times 3^{m}$ density matrix gives us the (Bures) asymptotic redundancy
for the universal quantum coding of {\it three}-state systems.
\subsection{The quasi-Bures case $n=2$}
In \cite{kratt} and further yet unreported
work, the Bures prior probability density (\ref{n2})
for the two-state
systems was found to closely resemble the (what we term
``quasi-Bures'') probability density,
\begin{equation} \label{wsquiggle}
\mbox{d} p_{quasi:2}(\theta,\alpha,\beta) = .226231 (\tan^{\sec{\theta}}{\theta / 2}) \cos{\theta}
\cot{\theta} \sin{\beta} \mbox{d} \theta \mbox{d} \alpha \mbox{d} \beta,
\qquad 0 \leq \theta \leq {\pi \over 2}, \quad 0 \leq \alpha
\leq 2 \pi, \quad 0 \leq \beta \leq \pi
\end{equation}
which yields, it appears,
{\it both} the asymptotic minimax and maximin redundancies
(as ``Jeffreys' prior'' \cite{kass} does classically \cite{cb1,cb2}).
This common value, if one ignores the error
term, as appears to be legitimate,
is $(3 \log{m}) / 2 - 1.77062$, while the Bures
probability distribution (\ref{n2}) has been shown to
be, incorporating the error term, associated with an asymptotic redundancy of
$(3 \log{m}) /2 - 1.77421 + O(1/\sqrt{m})$ \cite[p. 29]{kratt}.
In general, for any probability distribution
$w(\theta), \theta \in [0, \pi/2]$,
the asymptotic redundancy for the two-state quantum systems takes the form,
\begin{equation} \label{redundancy}
{3 \over 2} \log{{m \over 2 \pi}} -{1 \over 2} -2 \log{\sin{\theta}} +
2 (\sec{\theta}) \log{\tan{{\theta \over 2}}} -\log{w(\theta)} + o(1).
\end{equation}
Standard variational arguments can, then, be used to show (ignoring the
error term, the legitimacy of which seems plausible, but has
not yet been rigorously justified) that the particular $w(\theta)$ yielding
both the maximin and minimax
redundancies is simply proportional to the $\theta$-dependent part of
$p_{quasi:2}(\theta,\alpha,\beta)$, indicated in (\ref{wsquiggle}).
The reciprocal of the corresponding ``Morozova-Chentsov function'' $c(x,y)$
\cite{petzsudar,petzlaa} for (\ref{wsquiggle}) is the exponential
or identric mean \cite[eq. (1.3)]{qi} of $x$ and $y$,
\begin{equation} \label{qi13}
I(x,y) = e^{-1} (x^{x}/y^{y})^{{1 \over x-y}},\quad x \ne y
\end{equation}
($I(x,x)= x$),
while
for the Bures (minimal monotone) metric, it is the (more commonly
encountered) arithmetic mean $(x+y)/2$.
The associated operator monotone functions
\cite{petzsudar,petzlaa} are $f(t) =(1+t)/2$
for the Bures metric, and $f(t) = t^{t/(t-1)}/e$, for the metric giving
(\ref{wsquiggle}). (The Morozova-Chentsov functions fulfill the
relation $c(x,y) =1/yf(x/y)$.)
Perhaps the {\it exponential}
mean arises in this context because the von Neumann
entropy is the {\it logarithmic} relative entropy, and of
course the exponential and logarithmic functions are inverses of one another.
This leads us to speculate that if one were to employ, following
\cite{lesniewski}, the ``quadratic
relative entropy'' or the ``Bures relative entropy'' instead, then,
in the parallel universal coding context, the minimax/maximin would be
achieved by the means corresponding to the
new forms of inverse functions. While the logarithmic relative entropy
is based on the operator convex function, $g(t)=-\log{t}$, the quadratic form
relies upon $g(t) = (t-1)^{2}$ and the Bures form on $g(t) = (t-1)^2/(t+1)$
\cite{lesniewski}. Here, $f(t) = (t-1)^{2}/(g(t) + t g(1/t))$.
In Fig.~\ref{comparison}, we jointly
display the univariate marginal probability
distributions of (\ref{n2}) and (\ref{wsquiggle}), revealing
that they closely resemble one another, with the quasi-Bures distribution
assigning relatively greater probability to the
states more pure in character ($\theta \leq .443978$).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=comparison.eps}}
\caption{One-dimensional marginals of the ($n=2$)
Bures probability distribution
(\ref{n2}) and the quasi-Bures distribution
(\ref{wsquiggle}) (assuming greater values for $\theta \in [0,.443978]$),
which
yields both the asymptotic minimax and maximin redundancies for the universal
quantum coding of two-state systems}
\label{comparison}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The quasi-Bures case $n=3$}
The three-state counterpart of (\ref{wsquiggle}) (that is, the probability
distribution associated with the exponential/identric mean, rather than
the arithmetic mean, as for such Bures distributions) is
\begin{equation} \label{quasiBures}
\mbox{d} p_{quasi:3}(\theta,\phi,\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\kappa,a,b) =
.000063495 u ({\tan^{(1 + \sec{\phi})}}{\phi / 2})
{\csc^{4}{{\theta \over 2}}}
{\csc^{6}{{\phi \over 2}}}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
(\cos{{\phi \over 2}} \tan{{\theta \over 2}})^{{16
{\cos^{2}{{\phi \over 2}}} {\sin^{2}{{\theta \over 2}}} \over {v+w}}}
(\sin{{\phi \over 2}} \tan{{\theta \over 2}})^{2 -{8 (1 + \cos{\theta})
\over {w -v}}} \mbox{d} \theta \mbox {d} \phi \mbox{d} \widetilde{\Omega}_{3},
\end{displaymath}
where $u$ is given in (\ref{newvariable}),
$\mbox{d} \widetilde{\Omega}_{3}$ in (\ref{conditionalhaar}) and
\begin{equation}
v = 2 + 6 \cos{\theta}, \quad w = \cos{(\theta-\phi)} -2 \cos{\phi}
+\cos{(\theta +\phi)}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding two-dimensional marginal probability distribution
over the variables $\theta$ and $\phi$ is exhibited in
Fig.~\ref{exponentialspin1}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=exponentialprior2.eps}}
\caption{Bivariate marginal of the quasi-Bures probability distribution
(\ref{quasiBures}) over the
variables $\theta$ and $\phi$, for three-state systems}
\label{exponentialspin1}
\end{figure}
As would be anticipated from Fig.~\ref{comparison}, this figure
closely
resembles Fig.~\ref{twodim}.
In Fig.~\ref{plotdifference},
we show the result obtained by subtracting the bivariate marginal
Bures probability
distribution shown in Fig.~\ref{twodim} from its quasi-Bures counterpart
in Fig.~\ref{exponentialspin1}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=difference.eps}}
\caption{Difference obtained by subtracting the
three-state Bures bivariate marginal probability density
in Fig.~\ref{twodim} from the quasi-Bures one,
associated with the exponential/identric mean, displayed
in Fig.~\ref{exponentialspin1}}
\label{plotdifference}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quasi-Bures counterparts of Hall (Bures) normalization constants}
If we replace the term $d_{j} + d_{k}$, occurring in the denominator of
the expression (\ref{hallconstant}), by (twice) the exponential/identric mean
(\ref{qi13}) of $d_{j}$ and $d_{k}$, that is,
$I(d_{i},d_{j})$, the resultant expression becomes a formula
for $\tilde{p}_{quasi:n}(d_{1},\ldots,d_{n})$, now interpreting $C_{n}$ to
be the normalization constant for the
corresponding quasi-Bures probability distribution. For $n=2$ then
(taking $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ and not $[0,\pi/2]$ as in
\cite{boya}), rather
than $2 / \pi \approx .63662$, we obtain .769427, and for $n=3$, instead of
$35 / \pi \approx .089759$, we find .138681.
\section{CONCLUDING REMARKS}
We hypothesize that the (full eight-dimensional)
quasi-Bures probability distribution (\ref{quasiBures})
associated with Fig.~\ref{exponentialspin1} will
furnish the common asymptotic (minimax and maximin)
redundancies for universal quantum
coding
in that higher-dimensional setting, paralleling the
result (not yet fully formally demonstrated, however) for the
three-dimensional convex set of two-state systems (cf. \cite{jozsa}).
In this regard,
it might prove computationally convenient, as a heuristic device,
to replace the
quasi-Bures probablity distributions by their (closely approximating) Bures
analogues, since certain exact (symbolic) integrations are achievable
(at least, for the cases $n = 2, 3$) with
the Bures distributions, but apparently not with the quasi-Bures ones,
for which numerical methods seem to be necessary.
Although a parameterization of SU(4) is not relevant, as already
noted, to the computation
of the Hall constant $C_{4}$, that is, $71680 / \pi^{2}$, and to that of
the corresponding average (von Neumann) entropy (sec.~\ref{ENTROPY}),
it would be essential in investigating the
universal coding of four-state quantum systems, since the tensor products of
$4 \times 4$ density matrices have to be calculated and it would,
therefore,
be necessary to implement formula (\ref{one}). In a personal communication,
M. Byrd has indicated that he has undertaken the (challenging) task of
developing such an
(Euler angle) parameterization of $SU(4)$.
Such a parameterization of $SU(4)$ --- in conjunction with the knowledge,
acquired here, of $C_{4}$ --- might also prove of value
in estimating the volume
of $2 \times 2$ separable quantum states \cite{zhsl,zyczrecent}
and lead to numerically
more stable results than those
reported in \cite[Table I]{slaterjpa2}, since the ``over-parameterizations''
of the unitary matrices used there
could then be avoided, due to the ``dropping out''
(as pointed out for $n=2,3$ immediately after (\ref{ranges}) above) of
certain Euler angles in the formation of the product (\ref{one}).
We also note
that in \cite{slaterjpa2} (cf. \cite{slaterduan}),
the Bures (minimal monotone) metric was found
to yield higher {\it a priori} probabilities of entanglement than other
monotone metrics (in particular, the Kubo-Mori-Bogoliubov and maximal ones).
Presumably, even
in any computationally improved form of analysis, this conclusion
would be unaltered.
We have also pursued a traditional (pseudo-random number) Monte Carlo
approach to estimating the Hall normalization constants for $2 \leq n \leq
16$. However, the degrees of precision attained were not satisfactory.
(For discussions of the comparative
computational complexities of the pseudo- and
quasi-Monte Carlo methods, see \cite{sloan,frank}.)
We are presently attempting
to obtain a more precise estimate of the Hall
constant $C_{6}$, in particular, using {\it non}-Monte Carlo
(that is, adaptive)
integration
methods.
Our best current estimate of $C_{6}$
is $1.534836628 \cdot 10^{16} / \pi^{3}$.
The numerator can be very well approximated by $15348366279966720 =
2^{33} \cdot 3 \cdot 5
\cdot 7^{2} \cdot 11 \cdot 13 \cdot 17$, which seems more satisfactory than
the results reported in sec.~\ref{subn6}, based on the quasi-Monte Carlo
procedure. Now, it is most interesting to note that this numerator
is precisely
$2^{33} \cdot 7$
times the ninth entry of the sequence A035077, we have repeatedly
referenced above. We are also compelled to observe that our educated
conjecture as to the numerator of $C_{7}$ (sec.~\ref{subsecn7})
is exactly forty-two times the
thirty-third entry --- which we had to compute ourselves, since Sloane's
published list does not extend this far --- of A035077.
\acknowledgments
I would like to express appreciation to the Institute for Theoretical Physics
for computational support in this research and to M. Byrd and K.
\.Zyczkowski each for a number of helpful communications, as well as to
C. Krattenthaler for his insightful analyses, and to M. J. W. Hall for
pointing out to me an erroneous statement in an earlier version.
Also I thank J. Stopple for the reference to
\cite{terras} and his interest in this work and to
M. Choptuik for a discussion concerning the relative
merits of various numerical integration routines.
|
\section{ Introduction}
The birefringence of $\gamma$-quanta with energies $ >1 $ GeV propagating
in single crystals was predicted in \cite{C}. The main process by which
$\gamma$-quanta are absorbed in single crystals is the electron-positron
pair production. The cross section of the process depends on the direction
of linear polarization of the $\gamma$-quanta relative to the
crystallographic planes. As a result of interaction with the electric
field of the single crystal, a monochromatic, linearly polarized beam of
$\gamma$-quanta comprises two electromagnetic waves with different refractive
indices, so that linear polarization is transformed into circular polarization
or vice versa. This polarization phenomenon would be observed for symmetric
orientations of single crystals with respect to the direction of motion of
$\gamma$-quanta.
The general case of the propagation of $\gamma$-quanta in single crystals
was considered in \cite{MMF,MV1,MV2}. In these papers it was shown that
the propagating $\gamma$-beam is a superposition of the two elliptically
polarized waves and unpolarized $\gamma$-beam obtain some degree of
circular and linear polarization after passage through a single crystal.
In case,
describing in \cite{C}, the beam of $\gamma$-quanta is a superposition
of the two linearly polarized waves and unpolarized beam obtain
only some degree of linear polarization after propagation in single crystals.
It is important to note that no experiments have been performed to date
to corroborate the transformation of $\gamma$-beam polarization in single
crystals, despite the notable lapse of time since the publication of
\cite{C}. It is at least two essential purposes for experimental investigations
of the birefringence in single crystals. There are:
1)The nature of phenomenon is a manifestation of the nonlinearity of
Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic vacuum. Of course, a single
crystal contain carriers of electric charge (electron, ions, etc), but
their direct presence is significant only if the frequencies of the
electromagnetic radiation passing through the single crystal are low,
while at high frequencies the fields formed by these charges play
the main role. Thus the observation of the birefringence in single
crystals is indirect experimental proof of existence of the similar
effect in electromagnetic vacuum (see \cite{WDHG} and the literature
cited therein);
2) Some possibilities exist to utilize this phenomenon in experiments
on modern accelerators (see \cite{MV2,BT,KP} and the literature cited
therein).
\section{ Refractive indices of $\gamma$-quanta in single crystals.}
Now we have found the refractive indices of $\gamma$-quanta propagating in
a single crystal. Below we rewrite the components of a complex
permittivity tensor
$\varepsilon_{ij}= \varepsilon'_{ij}+\varepsilon''_{ij} , i, \, j =1,2$
(the process is determined by the transverse
part of the tensor) from paper \cite{MMF}.
Let us consider a high-energy beam of $\gamma$-quanta
moving at a small angle $\theta$ with a reciprocal lattice axis defined
by vector $\bf{G_1}$.
Then in the Cartesian system of coordinates such that one axis is
oriented approximately parallel to the direction of motion of the
$\gamma$-quanta and other two axes lie in planes determined by the
vectors $\bf{G_1},\, \bf{G_2}$ and $\bf{G_1}, \, \bf{G_3}$, the
tensor $\varepsilon_{ij}$ is a sum over reciprocal lattice vectors
${\bf{g}}= n_2 {\bf{G_2}}+n_3 {\bf{G_3}}\, (n_1=0, \theta \ll 1)$ and has
the following components:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon'_{11}={S^{'}\over 2}+ {{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {8\pi}}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(g_2^2-g_3^2)z_g^2F'_1(z_g).
\nonumber \\
\varepsilon'_{22}={S^{'}\over 2}- {{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {8\pi}}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(g_2^2-g_3^2)z_g^2F'_1(z_g).
\nonumber \\
\varepsilon'_{12}=\varepsilon'_{21}= + {{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {8\pi}}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(2g_2g_3)z_g^2F'_1(z_g).
\label{1} \\
S'= 2+{{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {\pi}}{\hbar \over mc}
\sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(g_2^2+g_3^2)z_g^2F'_2(z_g,1). \nonumber \\
z_g= {{2mc^2} \over {E_{\gamma}\theta(g_2\cos\alpha +g_3 sin\alpha)}} =
{1 \over { n_2W_V +n_3W_H}}.
\label{2}
\end{eqnarray}
The summation over {\bf{g}} satisfies the condition
\begin{equation}
z_g>0.
\label{3}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon''_{11}= {S''\over 2} - {BN \bar{\sigma} \over 16}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)(g_2^2 - g_3^2)F''_1(z_g),
\nonumber \\
\varepsilon''_{22}= {S''\over 2} + {BN \bar{\sigma} \over 16}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)(g_2^2 - g_3^2)F''_1(z_g),
\nonumber \\
\varepsilon''_{12}=\varepsilon''_{21}= - {BN \bar{\sigma} \over 16}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)(2g_2 g_3)F''_1(z_g),
\label{4} \\ \nonumber
S''= \varepsilon_A+{{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {2}}{\hbar \over mc}
\sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(g_2^2+g_3^2)z_g^2F''_2(z_g,1).
\end{eqnarray}
The summation over {\bf{g}} satisfies the condition
\begin{equation}
0<z_g \le 1
\label{5}
\end{equation}
The functions $F'_1, F'_2, F''_1, F''_2, $\footnote{
Note that these functions are also used for description of the birefringence
in the laser electromagnetic wave \cite{MV1,MV}}
are equal to:
\begin{equation}
{F_1}^{\prime }(z) =
\cases{
[\sqrt{1-z}+{z\over 2}L_-]^2+[\sqrt{1+z}-{z\over 2}L_+]^2 -
{{\pi^2z^2}\over {4}},\; 0<z \le 1, \cr
-[\sqrt{z-1} -z \arcctg\sqrt{z-1}]^2+[\sqrt{1+z}- {z\over 2}L_+]^2
, \; z>1. \cr}
\label{6}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{F_2}^{\prime }(z,\mu ) =
\cases{
-2-\mu -(1+\mu (z-{z^2\over 2})){1\over 4} L^2_-
-(1-\mu (z+{z^2\over 2})){1\over 4}L^2_+ + \cr
+{{(1+\mu z )\sqrt{1-z}}\over{2}}L_- -{{(\mu z-1)\sqrt{z+1}}\over {2}}L_+
+ {\pi^2 \over 4}(1+\mu (z-{{z^2}\over 2})),\; 0<z \le 1, \cr
-2-\mu +(1+\mu (z-{z^2\over 2})) \arcctg^2(\sqrt{z-1})
-(1-\mu (z+{z^2 \over 2})){1\over 4}
L^2_+ + \cr
+ (1+\mu z)\sqrt{z-1} \arcctg\sqrt{z-1} -{{(\mu z-1)\sqrt{1+z}}\over{2}} L_+
,\; z>1. \cr }
\label{7}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{F_1}^{\prime \prime}(z)=
\cases{
z^4 (L_- + {{2\sqrt{1-z}}\over{ z}}) , \; 0< z \le 1, \cr
0, \; z>1. \cr}
\label{8}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{F_2}^{\prime \prime}(z,\mu )=
\cases{
z^2((1+\mu (z-{z^2\over 2}))L_- -\sqrt{1-z}(1+\mu z)), \; 0<z \le 1, \cr
0, \; z> 1 \cr}
\label{9}
\end{equation}
The functions $L_+,\, L_- $ are equal to:
\begin{equation}
L_+ =ln{{\sqrt{1+z}+1}\over {\sqrt{1+z}-1}} \, . \nonumber
\label{10}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_- =ln{{1+\sqrt{1-z}}\over {1-\sqrt{1-z}}} \, .
\label{11}
\end{equation}
In these equations $E_\gamma$ is the energy of $\gamma$-quanta,
$m$ is the electron mass, c is the speed of light,
$\alpha$ is
the angle between planes $({\bf{G_1}}, {\bf{G_2)}}$
and $({\bf{G}_1}, {\bf{K}})$,
where ${\bf{K}}$ is the momentum of $\gamma$-quanta.
The value $\Phi(g)$ is determined by following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(g)= |S({\bf{g})}|^2(1-F(g))^2\exp^{-Ag^2}/g^4 ,
\label{12}
\end{eqnarray}
where S(g) is the structure factor, F(g) is the form factor of an atom in
the single crystal and A is the mean-square amplitude of thermal vibrations
of the atoms. N is the number of atoms per unit of volume.
\begin{eqnarray}
B= {{16\pi^2} \over {N_S \Delta}}, \qquad \qquad
\bar{\sigma}=\alpha_e Z^2 r_e^2,
\label{13}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \alpha_e$ is the fine-structure constant, $r_e$ is the classical
electron radius, $Z$ is the atomic number of the material of the single
crystal, $\Delta$ is the volume of the elementary cell and $N_S$ is the
number of atoms per this cell.
The term $\varepsilon_A$ in Eqs.(5) takes into account the absorption of
$\gamma$-quanta on the thermal vibrations of the lattice and is equal to
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_A= {\bar{\sigma} Nc \hbar \over E_\gamma} ({2 \over 3} \psi^{am}_1
+ {1 \over 9} \psi^{am}_2),
\label{14}
\end{equation}
where the values $\psi^{am}_1$ and $\psi^{am}_2$ are approximately constants
and these quantities are determined in theory \cite{TM}.
In Eqs.(1-4,12-14) the system of units was used in which the reciprocal lattice
constant is measured in units of $\lambda_e^{-1}$ ($\lambda_e =\hbar/mc$)
and the direct lattice constant is measured in units of $\lambda_e$;
this is adopted in the theory of coherent radiation and pair-production
\cite{TM}.
The choice of the basic vectors ${\bf{G_1}}$, ${\bf{G_2}}$, ${\bf{G_3}}$
is not unique. It is convenient to choice these vectors along axes of
symmetry of the crystallographic lattice. So, for instance, let choice
the vector ${\bf{G_1}}$ along the $<110>$-axis in a silicon single crystal.
Then one can choice the vectors ${\bf{G_2}}$ and ${\bf{G_3}}$ along
the $<001>$ and $<1 \bar{1} 0>$ axes, correspondingly. In this case
the lengths of these vectors are equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
G_2=2\pi/a, \qquad \qquad G_3=2\sqrt{2}\pi/a,
\label{15}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $a$ is the side of the sell.
One can see from the expressions (1)-(4) that the components of the
tensor $\varepsilon_{ij}$ are the functions of the two universal
parameters $W_H$ and $W_V$ (if the term $\varepsilon_A$ is ignored).
These parameters for silicon crystal and orientation determined by Eq.(15)
are equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
W_H=6.183 E_\gamma \theta \sin\alpha \qquad
W_V=4.372 E_\gamma \theta \cos\alpha \qquad
\label{16}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_\gamma$ and $\theta$ are measured in GeV and radians,
correspondingly.
Knowing the permittivity tensor $\varepsilon_{ij}$ one can find
the refractive indices of $\gamma$-quanta \cite{MMF}
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^2
=(\varepsilon_{11}+\varepsilon_{22})/2 \pm
\sqrt{(\varepsilon_{11}-\varepsilon_{22})^2/4 +
\varepsilon_{12}\varepsilon_{21} }
\, ,
\label{17}
\end{equation}
Thus two waves with different indices of refraction
$\tilde n_1$ and $\tilde n_2$ can propagate in the single crystals.
In general, these refractive indices are complex quantities.
Besides, in general case these two waves are elliptically polarized.
However in particular case when the coordinate system exists in which the
tensors $\varepsilon'_{ij}$ and $\varepsilon''_{ij}$ are simultaneously
diagonal (i.e., complex tensor $\varepsilon_{ij}$ is reduced to
principal axes) the both waves are linearly polarized.
It is obviously that the permittivity tensor is diagonal when the
momentum of
$\gamma$-quanta lies strictly in $({\bf{G_1}},{\bf{G_2}})$ or
$({\bf{G_1}},{\bf{G_3}})$ planes (angle $\alpha =0$ or $ \pi/2$).
Then the
refractive indices are equal to:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{n_1}= \sqrt{\varepsilon_{11}} ,\,\qquad
\tilde{n_2}= \sqrt{\varepsilon_{22}}
\label{18}
\end{equation}
In this case the differences of the real and imaginary parts of
refractive indices are equal to $(\alpha=0)$ :
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits (\tilde{n_1}-\tilde{n_2})=
{{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {8\pi}}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(g_2^2-g_3^2)z_g^2F'_1(z_g)
\vartheta(z_g) , \,
\label{19}
\\
\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits(\tilde{n_1}-\tilde{n_2})=
- {BN \bar{\sigma} \over 16}
{\hbar \over mc} \sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)(g_2^2 - g_3^2)F''_1(z_g)
\vartheta(1-z_g) \vartheta(z_g) ,
\label{20} \\
z_g=1/(n_2 W_V)
\label{21}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vartheta$ is the Heaviside unit step function.
The similar case was considered in paper \cite{C}.
However, the $\gamma$-beam obtaining for experiments has some nonzero
phase volume and, strictly speaking, the number of $\gamma$-quanta,
which have different angles $\theta$ but fixed angle $\alpha=0$,
is equal to zero.
In other words, a real $\gamma$-beam have some
distribution over the angle $\alpha$. Now we show in detail that this fact
change noticeably the relations for calculation of the refractive
indices.
The components of permittivity tensor are the sum over the reciprocal
lattice vectors and summation over ${\bf{g}}$ satisfies the
conditions $z_g >0$ or $ 0<z_g<=1$ for the real and imaginary components,
correspondingly. Let us consider the first condition (for real components).
One can rewrite its in the following form: $n_2W_V +n_3W_H >0$.
When $\alpha=0$ we have $W_H=0$ and get $n_2 >0$ and $n_3$ is an arbitrary
integer number ($W_V \ne 0$). Now let the angle $\alpha$ is nonzero
small angle. Then we get
\begin{equation}
n_2(G_2 \theta \cos{\alpha}) + n_3 (G_3 \theta \sin{\alpha}) >0
\label{22}
\end{equation}
It easy to see that set of numbers $n_2=0, \, n3= (1,2,3 ...) \mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits{\alpha}$
($\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits$ is the function equal to $\pm 1$ according to sign of $\alpha$)
satisfies to Eq.(22). The set of obtained numbers (in case $\alpha=0$ )
is also satisfied Eq.(22). Note that is true for any small
nonzero angle $\alpha$.
For imaginary components the set of $n_2,\,n_3$-numbers is the same in
both cases, if only the angle $\alpha$ is enough small.
Now we can calculate the components of the permittivity tensor in
limits $\alpha \, \rightarrow \pm \,0 $. It is clear that permittivity
tensor (in pointed limit) have a diagonal form.
Finally we get the following
quantity of the difference of real parts of the refractive indices:
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits (\tilde{n_1}-\tilde{n_2})=
{{BN\bar{\sigma}}\over {8\pi}}
{\hbar \over mc} \{\sum_{\bf{g}} \Phi(g)\,(g_2^2-g_3^2)z_g^2F'_1(z_g)
\vartheta(z_g) + {8 \over 15} \sum_{n_3=1}^{\infty} \Phi(n_3 G_3)(G_3n_3)^2 \}
\label{23}
\end{equation}
Note that the left and right limits are equal in value.
The difference of the imaginary parts of refractive indices is described
as before by Eq(20). The add term in Eq(23) is equal to the mean-square value
of the interplanar electric field (within a multiplier) \cite{MMF} .
This term is independent of the $W_H$ and $W_V$ parameters.
One can pointed to the similar effect in the coherent bremsstrahlung
in single crystals. Let the electron beam motion in single crystal
is determined by the $W_H$ and $W_V$ parameters. Then the theory
predicts that the intensity of radiation of the low energy photons is small
enough, when $W_H=0$ and $W_V$ is reasonably large.
However the experiments show
the significant exceeding of intensity of these photons relative to
calculated values \cite{TM,BBC}, if the calculations is not take into account
the angular divergence of the electron beam.
\section{Influence of the $\gamma$-beam divergence on propagation }
As it was shown in paper \cite{MMF}, in general case the $\gamma$-beam
propagate in the single crystal as superposition of the two elliptically
polarized waves. Birefringence is a special case
of propagation of high-energy $\gamma$-quanta in single crystals,
when the elliptical polarization of these waves (eigenfunctions of
the problem) degenerate into linear one. The linear polarization
point to the space symmetry of the problem as it was shown
previously.
Now we consider the important problem for the experimental observation
of birefringence. We want to get the answer on the following question:
Is the refractive indices and polarization states
of waves, when $\gamma$-beam move near the axis of symmetry in the
single crystal (in other words, when $W_H \ne 0$, but $W_H \ll W_V$),
essentially changed ?
With the aim of investigation of this problem we carry out calculations
of the refractive indices and polarization states of waves at
the small values of $W_H$. These calculations are based on papers
\cite{MMF,MV1,MV2} where the general case of $\gamma$-quanta
propagation in the anisotropic medium was considered.
Besides, we examine only the case when the beam of $\gamma$-quanta
move under a small angle $\theta$ with respect to one of the
"strong" crystallographic axis
(in other words when $W_H, \, W_V \, \simeq 1)$. The difference of real
parts of refractive indices is more significant at these orientations
in compare with the motion of beam near crystallographic planes \cite{MMF}.
Figures 1 and 2 show the results of calculations of the refractive
indices as functions of $W_V$ at some values of $W_H$.
One can see that the variations of the refractive indices difference
are insignificant as a whole when the parameter $W_H$ is within 0 - 0.01.
However the peaks of curve at $W_H=0$ are spreading enough when
the parameter $W_H$ rise to 0.01. The curve at $W_H=0.1$ is differ from
curve at $W_H=0$ for all practically values of the $W_V$.
In all calculations the Moliere form factor was employed \cite{BKF}.
Figure 3 illustrates the absolute value of circular polarization,
which have the normal electromagnetic waves (eigenfunctions of the problem).
The circular polarization $P_c$ is small when $W_H \sim 0.01 $ and
it rise to 0.5 with increasing of the parameter $W_H$ to 0.1.
Nevertheless, the value of linear polarization $P_L=\sqrt{1-P_c^2}$
of the normal waves
is dominant at all considered here values of $W_H$ and $W_V$.
Besides, the turn of the semiaxes of polarization ellipse in plane
$({\bf{G_2,G_3}})$ is take a place (see figure 4).
Thus once can say that the pure birefringence in the single crystal
takes a place for $\gamma$-beam with a small angle divergence
(the value of this divergence one can found from relation
$\delta W_H \sim 0.01$). On the other hand, the variations of polarized
state of the $\gamma$-quanta propagating in single crystals at
different values of $W_H$ is of more direct interest to practical goals.
Figures 5,6 show the variation of the circular polarization of the
100 GeV $\gamma$-beam propagating in the silicon single crystal
as a function of its thickness. The system of coordinate is chosen so
that the Stokes parameter of $\gamma$-beam $\xi_3= \pm 1$ when
100 \% linear polarization lies in planes $(1 \bar{1}0)$ and $(001)$,
correspondingly. We take for illustration the cases of partially polarized
beam and unpolarized one at the point of entry in the single crystal.
In the case of pure birefringence (see figure 5) the unpolarized $\gamma$-beam
can obtain only some degree of the linear polarization
on any thickness of a single crystal (i.e. $\xi_2(x) =0$).
In the case when
the normal electromagnetic waves is elliptically polarized the propagating
unpolarized
beam of $\gamma$-quanta can obtain some degree of the linear and circular
polarization (see figure 6).
The transformation of linear polarization to circular one
( under angle in $ \pm 45^{o}$ with
respect to above-mentioned coordinate system) one can see also on these
figures. The analogous curves for parameter $W_H=-0.1$ are
mirror-symmetric with respect to x-coordinates.
The intensity of $\gamma$-beam is decreased in $\sim \, 10^9 $
times on 100 cm of the silicon single crystal.
Note that our consideration of the bierfrigence base on the theory
of coherent $e^{\pm}$-pair production in single crystals \cite{TM,U}.
However this theory is violated at some orientations of single crystals
(in regions of so called "strong field") \cite{MP}. For silicon
crystallographic planes this violation is expected at very high energy
of $\gamma$-quanta $\gg 1 TeV$.
\section{Conclusion}
The pure birefringence of high energy $\gamma$-beam propagating
near crystallographic axis
(when the eigenfunctions of a problem is two linearly polarized electromagnetic
wave) take a place
for special (predominantly symmetric) orientations.
In general case the propagating $\gamma$-beam is the
superposition of two elliptically polarized waves, because of this
some peculiarities in the propagation of $\gamma$-beam exist
even for orientations near to the pointed symmetrical ones.
For these orientations we can point on the following:
\newline 1. Some noticeable degree of circular polarization of
eigenfunctions exists.
\newline 2. Some angle shift of the axes of the polarization ellipse
takes a place also.
\newline 3. The quantities of refractive indices is changed sharply
for close orientations.
\newline
Thus it needs to take into account these effects in experimental
observation of birefringence of a beam of $\gamma$-quanta with
some phase volume.
In addition we consider in detail the procedure of calculation of
refractive indices for real $\gamma$-beams.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Sec.intro}
Nonclassical features of optical pulses
like squeezing, sub-Poissonian statistics and
entanglement have been of increasing interest for
optical communication and measurement techniques
\cite{DrummondPD93,SizmannA97,AndersonME97,AbramI99}. From
classical optics it is well known that in fibers photons can fly
in soliton-like pulses over long distances, provided that
they intense enough and the fiber nonlinearity can
compensate for the dispersion-assisted pulse spreading
\cite{HasegawaA89,AkhmanovSA92}. Yet solitons are not rigid
but very lively nonclassical species, because of the quantum noise
associated with the nonlinear dynamics. Since already
single-mode radiation becomes nonclassical under the
influence of a Kerr nonlinearity \cite{KitagawaM86}, solitons
can be expected to exhibit not only single-mode nonclassical
properties but also nonclassical internal correlations.
The study of quantum solitons has been also motivated by a number
of possible applications \cite{DrummondPD93,SizmannA97,AbramI99}.
Solitons may be used for realizing efficient and reliable
sources of pulses with intensity fluctuations below the shot
noise level. Nondestructive high-precision optical switching devices
and logic gates may be implemented applying the concept of quantum
non-demolition measurement to the collision interaction of solitons
\cite{FribergSR92,SpaelterS97a,CourtyJM98}. Suppression of noise in
soliton communication lines \cite{DrummondPD93,SizmannA97,AbramI99}
and usage of solitons in quantum information processing
\cite{AbramI99} may be other potential applications.
Nonclassical properties of optical solitons have been
detected in a number of experiments. In \cite{RosenbluhM91,BergmanK94}
soliton squeezing is measured using homodyne detection.
Photon-number squeezing of the spectrally filtered solitons
is measured by direct detection in \cite{FribergSR96,SpaelterS97}.
In the experiment in \cite{SchmittS98}
with asymmetrical ($10/90$) fiber-loop interferometer
photon-number squeezing up to $6.0\mbox{dB}$ is achieved.
Recently the experimental studies have been extended to
internal spectral photon-number correlations associated with
narrow bandwidth soliton components \cite{SpaelterS98}.
Disregarding losses, the dynamics of quantum solitons in optical
fibers may be described by the operator-valued
nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation, which can be solved employing the
Bethe ansatz \cite{LaiY89a}. The method was used successfully to calculate
field and intensity correlations in the space-time domain
\cite{YaoD95a,KartnerFX96}. In practice however, the
quantum nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation must be
modified by supplementing it with further terms in order to
include effects such as absorption, third-order dispersion,
and Raman scattering. Various methods of solution have
been developed and successfully applied
\cite{LaiY89,SingerF92,HausHA90,LaiY90,LaiY93,%
DoerrCR94,LaiY95,DrummondPD87,DrummondPD93a,CarterSJ95,%
WernerMJ96,WernerMJ97,WernerMJ97a,WernerMJ97b,SchmidtE98}.
Here we follow \cite{SchmidtE98} and use cumulant expansion
in Gaussian approximation for studying spectral photon-number
squeezing and nonclassical photon-number correlation of different
spectral components of damped solitons.
We consider both narrow-bandwidth spectral pulse components
\cite{SpaelterS98} and pulse components with finite spectral
bandwidth selected by optimally chosen square bandpass
filters \cite{WernerMJ96}. The numerically obtained results
illustrate the possibility to use optical solitons for generation
of squeezed light and nonclassically correlated light beams
also in the presence of absorption.
Moreover, the results reveal that absorption can improve,
under certain circumstances, the nonclassical features.
The article is organized as follows. Section \ref{Sec.model} outlines
the used basic concept. The relations necessary for studying
nonclassical correlations are given in Sec.~\ref{Sec.CS}, and
the numerical results are reported in Sec.~\ref{Sec.Results}.
Finally, a summary and some concluding remarks are given
in Sec.~\ref{Sec.Summary}.
\section{Basic concept}
\label{Sec.model}
Let us first give a brief outline of the used concept for
describing the propagation of a quantized optical pulse through an
absorbing fiber with second order dispersion and Kerr nonlinearity
(for details, see \cite{SchmidtE98} and references therein).
The spatio-temporal pulse evolution in a co-moving reference frame
is described in terms of slowly varying bosonic operators
$\hat{a}(x,t)$ satisfying the commutation relation
\begin{equation}
\left[ \hat{a}(x,t),\hat{a}^{\dagger }(x^{\prime },t)\right] ={\cal A}%
^{-1}\delta (x-x^{\prime }), \label{eq.aa}
\end{equation}
[${\cal A}$ is the effective cross-section of the fiber].
The undamped motion is governed by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}=\hbar {\cal A}\int dx\left[ \vphantom{ a^{(2)} }
\textstyle\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{(2)}\left( \partial
_{x}\hat{a}^{\dagger }\right) \left( \partial _{x}\hat{a}\right)
+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\chi
\hat{a}^{\dagger }\hat{a}^{\dagger }\hat{a}\hat{a}\vphantom{ a^{(2)} }
\right] , \nonumber
\end{equation}
where the constant ${\chi }$ is related to the third-order susceptibility
$\chi^{(3)}$ as
\begin{equation}
{\chi }=\frac{3\chi ^{(3)}\hbar (v_{{\rm gr}} k_{{\rm c}})^{2}}
{4\epsilon _{{\rm r}}^{2}\epsilon _{0}} \label{eq.chi}
\end{equation}
[$\epsilon _{{\rm r}}$, relative permittivity at the carrier frequency
$\omega _{{\rm c}}$; $k_{{\rm c}}$, carrier wave number; $v_{{\rm gr}}$,
group velocity; $\omega ^{(2)}$ $\!=$
$\!{\rm d}^2\omega (k)/{\rm d}k^2|_{k=k_{\rm c}}$].
Note that solitons can be formed either
in focusing media with anomalous dispersion
(\mbox{$\chi$ $\!<$ $0$}, \mbox{$\omega^{(2)}$ $\!>$ $\!0$}) or
in defocusing media with normal dispersion
(\mbox{$\chi$ $\!>$ $\!0$}, \mbox{$\omega^{(2)}$ $\!<$ $\!0$}).
The damped motion is treated on the basis of the master equation
\begin{equation}
i\hbar ~\partial _{t}\hat{\rho}=[\hat{H},\hat{\rho}]
+i\gamma \hat{L}\hat{\rho}, \label{eq.master}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma \hat{L}\hat{\rho} &=&\gamma \hbar {\cal A}\int dx\left[ \vphantom{ a^{(2)} } N_{%
{\rm th}}\left( 2\hat{a}^{\dagger }\hat{\rho}\hat{a}-\hat{\rho}\hat{a}\hat{a}%
^{\dagger }-\hat{a}\hat{a}^{\dagger }\hat{\rho}\right) \right.
\nonumber\\
&&\quad \quad \quad +\left. \left( N_{{\rm th}}+1\right) \left( 2\hat{a}\hat{%
\rho}\hat{a}^{\dagger }-\hat{\rho}\hat{a}^{\dagger }\hat{a}-\hat{a}^{\dagger
}\hat{a}\hat{\rho}\right) \vphantom{ a^{(2)} }\right], \label{eq.L}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\gamma $ being the damping constant, and
\begin{equation}
N_{{\rm th}}=\left[ \exp \left( \frac{\omega _{{\rm c}}\hbar }{k_{{\rm B}}T}%
\right) -1\right] ^{-1} \label{Nthermisch}
\end{equation}
($k_{{\rm B}}$ - Boltzmann constant, $T$ - temperature). The model
applies to pulses longer than $1\,$ps, otherwise the influence of
additional effects such as Raman scattering and third order dispersion
must be taken into account.
The master equation (\ref{eq.master}) is converted,
after spatial discretization, into a pseudo-Fokker-Planck equation
for an $s$-parametrized multi-dimensional phase-space
function, which is solved numerically using
cumulant expansion in Gaussian approximation.
The initial condition is realized by a multimode displaced
thermal state, without internal entanglement,
and it is assumed that the field expectation value
corresponds to the classical fundamental soliton.
In the numerical calculation, the coordinates $x$ and $t$ are
scaled by the initial pulse width $x_{0}$ and the dispersion
time $t_{{\rm d}}=x_{0}^{2}|\omega ^{(2)}|^{-1}$ respectively.
The calculations are performed
on a grid of $200$ points with discretization step
$\Delta x$ $\!=$ $\!0.1\,x_0$
for an initial photon number of the
pulse of $2\bar{n}$ $\!=$ $\!2|\omega ^{(2)}{\cal A}/(\chi x_{0})|$
$\!=$ $2\!\cdot\!10^{9}$ and a reservoir photon number of $N_{{\rm th}}$
$\!=$ $\!10^{-16}$. The value of $N_{{\rm th}}$ corresponds to a
carrier wavelength
of $\lambda _{{\rm c}}$ $\!=$ $\!2$ $\!\!\pi $ $\!\!c$ $%
\!\!/\omega _{{\rm c}}$ $\!=$ $1.5\,\mu {\rm m}$ of the pulse in vacuum and
a temperature of $T$ $\!=$ $\!300$K [see Eq.~(\ref{Nthermisch})]. Thus the
pulse is initially prepared in a displaced thermal state that is almost a
coherent state.
\section{Nonclassical spectral correlations}
\label{Sec.CS}
In order to study spectral properties, bosonic operators in
the Fourier space are introduced,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.aw}
\hat{a}(\omega ,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx\
e^{i\omega x}\hat{a}(x,t).
\end{equation}
The operator $\hat{N}_i$ of the number of photons
in a frequency interval
$(\Omega_i,\Omega_i^{\prime })$, i.e.,
$\Omega_i$ $\!\leq$ $\!\omega$ $\!\leq$ $\!\Omega_i^{\prime}$, reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.NWW}
\hat{N}_i={\cal A}\int_{\Omega_i }^{\Omega_i ^{\prime
}}d\omega \ \hat{a}^{\dagger }(\omega ,t)\hat{a}(\omega ,t),
\end{equation}
and the photon-number variance of the beam associated with this
frequency interval can be given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \Delta \hat{N}_{i}^{2}\rangle =\langle \hat{N}_{i}^{2}\rangle
-\langle \hat{N}_{i}\rangle ^{2}
=\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{i}^{2}\!:\rangle
+\langle \hat{N}_{i}\rangle ,
\label{eq.dn}
\end{equation}
where $:\ :$ introduces normal ordering.
When the inequality
\begin{equation}
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{i}^{2}\!:\rangle < 0
\label{eq.dn1}
\end{equation}
is valid -- a condition that cannot be satisfied within the
classical noise theory -- then sub-Poissonian statistics are
observed, i.e., $\langle \Delta \hat{N}_{i}^{2}\rangle$ $\!<$
$\!\langle \hat{N}_{i}\rangle $.
Let us now consider two nonoverlapping frequency intervals
$(\Omega _{i},\Omega _{i}^{\prime })$, $i$ $\!=$ $\!1,2$.
A measure of the mutual correlation of the photon-number variances
in the two frequency intervals is the correlation coefficient
\begin{equation}
\eta_{12}=\frac{\langle \Delta\hat{N}_{1} \Delta\hat{N}_{2}\rangle }
{\sqrt{\langle \Delta\hat{N}_{1}^{2}\rangle
\langle \Delta\hat{N}_{2}^{2}\rangle }} \,.
\label{eq.eta12}
\end{equation}
(note that $\langle \Delta\hat{N}_{1} \Delta\hat{N}_{2}\rangle$
$\!=$ $\!\langle :\!\Delta\hat{N}_{1} \Delta\hat{N}_{2}\!:\rangle$
for nonoverlapping frequency intervals). From the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
\begin{equation}
\langle \Delta\hat{N}_{1}^{2}\rangle \langle \Delta\hat{N}_{2}^{2}\rangle
- \langle \Delta\hat{N}_{1} \Delta\hat{N}_{2}\rangle^{2} \geq 0
\label{eq.CS.op}
\end{equation}
it follows that the absolute value of the correlation coefficient
is limited to the right,
\begin{equation}
|\eta _{12}|\leq 1. \label{eq.eta12.1}
\end{equation}
Obviously, the correlation is nonclassical, if
the inequality (\ref{eq.CS.op}) is violated for
normally ordered quantities, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\!:\rangle
-\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{1}\Delta \hat{N}_{2}\!:\rangle^{2} < 0.
\label{eq.CS.dn}
\end{equation}
In order to give a quantitative measure of the degree of
nonclassical correlation, we define the generalized correlation
coefficient
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq.y12}
\tilde{\eta}_{12}
&=&\frac{\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\!:\rangle
-\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{1}\Delta \hat{N}_{2}\!:\rangle^{2}}
{\left| \langle \Delta \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\rangle
\langle \Delta \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\rangle -
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\!:\rangle \right| }
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\eta _{11}\eta _{22}-\eta _{12}^{2}}
{|1-\eta _{11}\eta _{22}|}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\eta _{ii}=
\frac{\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{i}^{2}\!:\rangle }{\langle \Delta
\hat{N}_{i}^{2}\rangle }\leq 1. \label{eq.eta11}
\end{equation}
Note that $\eta _{ii}$ is
negative (positive) for sub-Poissonian (super-Poissonian) statistics.
Nonclassical correlation is observed if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.eta111}
\tilde{\eta}_{12} < 0,
\end{equation}
and it is easily proved that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.y121}
\tilde{\eta}_{12} \ge -1.
\end{equation}
From Eq.~(\ref{eq.y12}) it is easily seen that when
\begin{equation}
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle
\langle :\!\Delta \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\!:\rangle <0,
\label{eq.y12.1}
\end{equation}
then the correlation of the photon-number variances is
nonclassical. Note that for Gaussian quantum states the
criterion (\ref{eq.CS.dn}) is closely related to that
used in \cite{SpaelterS98}.
Similarly, the mutual correlation of the numbers of
photons in the two frequency intervals can be considered,
\begin{equation}
\tau_{12}=\frac{\langle \hat{N}_{1} \hat{N}_{2}\rangle }
{\sqrt{\langle \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\rangle \langle \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\rangle }}\,
\label{eq.eta121}
\end{equation}
($|\tau_{12}|$ $\!\leq 1$). Nonclassical correlation is realized if
\begin{equation}
\langle :\!\hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle \langle :\!\hat{N}_{2}^{2}\!: \rangle
- \langle :\!\hat{N}_{1} \hat{N}_{2}\!: \rangle ^{2} < 0 ,
\label{eq.CS.op1}
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.CS.op2}
\tilde{\tau}_{12} < 0 ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\tau}_{12}
=\frac{\langle :\!\hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle
\langle :\!\hat{N}_{2}^{2}:\rangle
-\langle :\!\hat{N}_{1}\hat{N}_{2}\!:\rangle ^{2}}
{\langle \hat{N}_{1}^{2}\rangle
\langle \hat{N}_{2}^{2}\rangle
-\langle :\!\hat{N}_{1}^{2}\!:\rangle
\langle :\!\hat{N}_{2}^{2}\!:\rangle }
\label{eq.Y12}
\end{equation}
($\tilde{\tau}_{12}$ $\!\ge$ $\!-1$).
Note that for the photon numbers an inequality analogous to
(\ref{eq.y12.1}) is not valid, since the average of the
normally ordered square of a photon number cannot be negative.
The spectral photon-number statistics can be determined using
a setup shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.setup}.
The scheme in Fig.~\ref{fig.setup}$(a)$ is used in \cite{FribergSR96}
(and with slightly modified detection in \cite{SpaelterS97})
for measuring spectral photon-number squeezing. The
scheme can also be used to reconstruct correlations
between different spectral components from the measured data
\cite{SpaelterS98}. However with regard to direct
correlation measurement, a scheme of the
type shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.setup}$(b)$ may be better suited
for that purpose. Omitting the detectors, the schemes can
also be used for selecting from the original beam partial
beams that are highly nonclassical.
\section{Results}
\label{Sec.Results}
\subsection{Narrow bandwidth intervals}
\label{narrow}
In Fig.~\ref{fig.nn0t} the temporal evolution of the coefficient
$\eta _{11}$, Eq.(\ref{eq.eta11}), is plotted for
a narrow bandwidth mid-interval
$(\Omega _{1},\Omega _{1}^{\prime })$ $\!=$
$(-\Delta \omega,\Delta \omega)$,
$\Delta\omega/\omega_0$ $\!\ll$ $\!1$,
and various values of the damping parameter $\gamma$
(here and in the following frequencies are scaled by
$\omega_0$ $\!=$ $x_0^{-1}$ \cite{FreqNormalization}).
The strongest sub-Poissonian effect
is observed for $\gamma t_{{\rm d}}$ $\!=$ $\!0.03$ at
$t$ $\!\sim$ $\!10t_{{\rm d}}$. Surprisingly,
the sub-Poissonian statistics of the narrow bandwidth
mid-component can be stronger for a damped
soliton than for the undamped one \cite{SchmidtE98}.
The temporal evolution of the coefficient $\eta _{11}$
as a function of the frequency $\omega$ [for a narrow bandwidth
interval $(\Omega _{1},\Omega _{1}^{\prime })$ $\!=$
\mbox{$\!(\omega$ $\!-$ $\!\Delta \omega,$
$\!\omega$ $\!+$ $\!\Delta\omega$)}] is plotted in
Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt} for
$(a)$ $\gamma$ $\!=$ $\!0$ and $(b)$ $\gamma t_{{\rm d}}$ $\!=$ $\!0.03$.
From the figure it is seen that the interference
pattern which is typically obtained in the limit of vanishing
absorption [Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}$(a)$] is not observed for an
absorbing fiber [Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}$(b)$].
Note that in the limit of vanishing absorption the results
obtained here are in good agreement with those obtained by
stochastic simulations within the frame of the positive $P$
representation \cite{WernerMJ97b}.
Disregarding absorption and solving the cumulant evolution
equations given in \cite{SchmidtE98} in a linearization
approximation, the solution can be given by
eigenfunction expansion, the expansion coefficients
being determined by the chosen initial condition.
The result of superposition then corresponds to an interference
pattern like that in Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}$(a)$.
Obviously, the (phase-sensitive) terms that are superimposed do not respond
uniformly to absorption, so that the internal
coherences responsible for the interference pattern
can be destroyed at least in part.
In particular, near the center of the spectrum
\mbox{($\omega$ $\!\to$ $\!0$)} the super-Poissonian
peaks are fully suppressed and in place of them sub-Poissonian
statistics is observed. Accordingly, the super-Poissonian side-band
formation that appears with increasing frequency is more
uniform for an absorbing fiber than for a nonabsorbing one.
To get an insight into the correlation between spectral
components at different frequencies $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$
[for narrow bandwidth intervals
$(\Omega _{i},\Omega _{i}^{\prime })$ $\!=$
\mbox{$\!(\omega_i$ $\!-$ $\!\Delta \omega,$
$\!\omega_i$ $\!+$ $\!\Delta\omega$)}, $i$ $\!=1,2$],
we have plotted the correlation coefficients $\eta _{12}$
[Eq.~(\ref{eq.eta12}), Fig.~\ref{fig.etaww}],
$\tilde\eta_{12}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq.y12}), Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}],
and $\tilde\tau_{12}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq.Y12}),
Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02ww}] as functions of $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$
for \mbox{$\gamma$ $\!=$ $\!0$} and \mbox{$\gamma t_{\rm d}$
$\!=$ $\!0.03$}, restricting our attention
to the two characteristic propagation times \mbox{$t$ $\!=$
$\!5\,t_{\rm d}$} and \mbox{$t$ $\!=$ $\!10\,t_{\rm d}$}
(cf. Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}).
Figures \ref{fig.etaww}$(a)$ and \ref{fig.etaww}$(b)$ reveal
that the super-Poissonian side-band components
observed at the propagation time \mbox{$t$ $\!=$ $\!5\, t_{\rm d}$}
(Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}) are strongly positively correlated with
respect to the photon-number variance, whereas
relatively strong negative correlation between the
super-Poissonian side-band
components and the sub-Poissonian mid-components is observed --
effects which can be found for both a nonabsorbing fiber,
Fig.~\ref{fig.etaww}$(a)$, and an absorbing fiber,
Fig.~\ref{fig.etaww}$(b)$.
The notably reduced correlation observed at the
propagation time \mbox{$t$ $\!=$ $\!10\, t_{\rm d}$}
for a nonabsorbing fiber, Fig.~\ref {fig.etaww}$(c)$,
may be viewed as an interference effect in a similar
sense as mentioned above. From that it can be understood
that absorption can enhance correlation --
a surprising effect which can be seen from Fig.~\ref {fig.etaww}$(d)$.
From Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww} it is seen that nonclassical
correlation of the photon-number variance appears between
sideband super-Poissonian
components and -- in agreement with the condition (\ref{eq.y12.1}) --
between the sub-Poissonian mid-component and the
super-Poissonian sideband components.
The relatively strong nonclassical correlation
\mbox{$\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\!-7.3\!\cdot\!10^{-3}$}
observed for a nonabsorbing fiber at the propagation time
$t$ $\!=$ $\!5\,t_{{\rm d}}$ [Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(a)$]
reduces to \mbox{$\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\!-8.6\!\cdot\!10^{-4}$} at
$t$ $\!=$ $\!10\,t_{{\rm d}}$ [Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(c)$].
The behavior of $\tilde\eta_{12}$ for an absorbing fiber may be
quite different, as is seen from comparison of
Figs.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(a)$ and \ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(c)$
with Figs.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(b)$ and \ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(d)$,
respectively. Whereas at $t$ $\!=$ $\!5\,t_{{\rm d}}$
the effect of nonclassical correlation is weaker,
\mbox{$\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\! -3\!\cdot\!10^{-3}$}
[Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(b)$], a stronger effect is observed
at $t$ $\!=$ $\!10\,t_{{\rm d}}$,
\mbox{$\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\! -4.8\!\cdot\!10^{-3}$}
[Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(d)$]. The latter
reflects the enhanced correlation between the
mid-component and the sideband components as shown in
in Fig.~\ref{fig.etaww}$(d)$. We are again left with
the surprising fact that absorption can enhance
nonclassical behavior.
Figure \ref{fig.cs02ww} shows that the photon-number correlation
can be quite different from the correlation of the
photon-number variance.
Contrary to the photon-number variance,
there is no nonclassical correlation of the photon numbers
of the sub-Poissonian mid-component and the
super-Poissonian sideband components, since
for the photon number an inequality of the type
(\ref{eq.y12.1}) cannot be valid.
Nevertheless, the minimum value \mbox{$\tilde\tau_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\! -0.02$}
obtained for a nonabsorbing fiber at the
propagation time \mbox{$t$ $\!=$ $\!5\,t_{{\rm d}}$}
[Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02ww}$(a)$]
is smaller than the minimum value
\mbox{$\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim $ $\!-7.3\!\cdot\!10^{-3}$}
[Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(a)$],
and hence a stronger nonclassical correlation is observed for
the photon number than the photon-number variance.
Moreover, the effect of nonclassical correlation observed
at the propagation time \mbox{$t$ $\!=$ $\!10\,t_{{\rm d}}$} is
weaker than that at \mbox{$t$ $\!=$ $\!5\,t_{{\rm d}}$}
for both a nonabsorbing fiber [Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02ww}$(c)$]
and an absorbing one [Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02ww}$(d)$]
[contrary to the correlation of the
photon-number variance,
Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww}$(b)$ and $(d)$].
\subsection{Finite bandwidth intervals}
\label{finite}
Let us return to the coefficient $\eta _{11}$.
Allowing for finite frequency windows, we consider
a frequency interval $(\Omega _{1},\Omega _{1}^{\prime })$ $\!=$
$\!(-\Omega,\Omega)$ [for the scheme, see Fig.~\ref{fig.setup}$(a)$]
and optimize $\Omega$ such that the sub-Poissonian components
dominates the signal and $\eta _{11}$ becomes minimal
for all times (Fig.~\ref{fig.eta11x3}). From
Fig.~\ref{fig.eta11x3}$(d)$ it is seen that
for a nonabsorbing fiber the absolute minimum of $\eta _{11}$
that is attainable in this way is $\eta _{11}$ $\!\sim$ $\!-3.5$
($t$ $\!\sim$ $\! 4.5\,t_{{\rm d}}$), which corresponds to a Fano factor
of \mbox{$F_1$ $\!=$ $\!\langle\Delta\hat{N}_1^2\rangle/
\langle\hat{N}_1\rangle$} $\!=$ $\!(1$ $\!-$ $\!\eta_{11})^{-1}$
$\!\sim$ $\!0.23$ or $\sim 6.4\,\mbox{dB}$ squeezing
(cf. \cite{WernerMJ96,MecozziA97}). In that case $\sim$ $\!80\%$ of the
photons of the initial, full pulse contribute to the
filtered pulse [Fig.~\ref{fig.eta11x3}$(c)$].
It is further seen that the oscillating behavior of
$\eta _{11}$ as a function of the propagation time is damped out
owing to absorption such that for certain
propagation times stronger sub-Poissonian statistics
can be observed for an absorbing fiber than a nonabsorbing
one. This effect is of course a consequence of the behavior
of the narrow bandwidth components as addressed in Sec.~\ref{narrow}.
The observed discrepancy between $\Omega$ [Fig.~\ref{fig.eta11x3}$(a)$]
and $\Omega _{0}$ [Fig.~\ref{fig.eta11x3}$(b)$, for the
definition of $\Omega _{0}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}],
e.g., for $\gamma t_{\rm d}$ $\!=$ $\!0\ldots 0.005$ at
$t$ $\!\gtrsim$ $\!9\,t_{\rm d}$, obviously results from the
correlation between different frequency components
(cf. \cite{FribergSR96,WernerMJ96}).
To obtain strong nonclassical correlation
between different beams, we first consider two (with respect
to the center of the spectrum)
symmetric frequency windows $(\Omega_{1},\Omega _{1}^{\prime })$ and
$(\Omega_{2},\Omega'_{2})$ $\!=$ $\!(-\Omega'_{1},-\Omega _{1})$
[for the scheme, see Fig.~\ref{fig.setup}$(b)$]
and optimize $\Omega_{1}$ and $\Omega_{1}'$
such that $\tilde\eta_{12}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig.y12nw}) and
$\tilde\tau_{12}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig.yy12nw}) become minimal. From
inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig.y12nw}$(d)$ the absolute minimum
of $\tilde\eta_{12}$ is realized for a nonabsorbing fiber
($\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\! -0.48$ at $t$ $\!\sim$ $\! 4.5\,t_{{\rm d}}$).
The effect of absorption is again seen to damp out the
oscillations of $\tilde\eta_{12}$ (as a function of the
propagation time) such that at certain propagation times
[$\gamma t_{\rm d}$ $\!=$ $\!0.01\ldots 0.02$,
$t/t_{\rm d}$ $\!=$ $\!6\ldots 14$ in Fig.~\ref{fig.y12nw}$(d)$]
stronger nonclassical correlation can be achieved for
an absorbing fiber than a nonabsorbing one.
On the contrary, Fig.~\ref{fig.yy12nw}$(d)$ reveals that
dissipation always reduces the nonclassical
photon-number correlation, i.e., for any propagation time the
lower bound of the coefficient $\tilde\tau_{12}$ is realized in
the limit of vanishing absorption. Note that the strongest
nonclassical photon-number correlation ($\tilde\tau_{12}$ $\!=$ $\!-0.32$
at $t$ $\!\sim$ $\!3.5\,t_{{\rm d}}$) is weaker than the
strongest nonclassical correlation of the photon-number variance.
For weak absorption ($\gamma t_{\rm d}$ $\!=$ $\!0\ldots 0.005$)
from Figs.~\ref{fig.y12nw}$(a)$ and $(b)$ a
(quasi-)periodic change of the frequency interval $(\Omega_{1},
\Omega _{1}^{\prime })$ is seen, in agreement with
the results in Sec.~\ref{narrow}.
At the early stage of propagation
the frequency interval is essentially determined by the
nonclassically correlated super-Poissonian sideband components.
Later [at $t$ $\!\sim$ $\!3 \,t_{{\rm d}}$ in Figs.~\ref{fig.y12nw}$(a)$
and $(b)$] it shifts towards the mid-frequency, which indicates
the increasing weight of the sub-Poissonian mid-components.
The shift back to the sideband components obviously results from the
\mbox{(quasi-)}periodic formation of super-Poissonian
(and sub-Poissonian) components in the center of the spectrum
[cf. Fig.~\ref{fig.etaxt}$(a)$].
The fraction of the number of photons in each beam relative to the
number of photons in the initial, full beam changes from less then
$5\%$ for sideband frequency windows to about of $40\%$ for
near mid-frequency windows [Fig.~\ref{fig.y12nw}$(c)$].
With increasing absorption only the first shift of the frequency window
from the sideband to the central part is observed.
In contrast to $\tilde\eta_{12}$, minimization of $\tilde\tau_{12}$
always requires sideband frequency windows [Figs.~\ref{fig.yy12nw}$(a)$
and $(b)$], where each beam contains less than $10\%$ of the initial
number of pulse photons [Fig.~\ref{fig.yy12nw}$(c)$].
Whereas symmetric windows are expected to be best suited to realization
of minimal $\tilde\tau_{12}$, from Fig.~\ref{fig.cs02dnww} it is
suggested that asymmetric windows may be more suited to realization
of minimal $\tilde\eta_{12}$. This is fully confirmed
by the calculation. The symmetric windows shown in
Fig.~\protect\ref{fig.yy12nw} indeed yield the smallest
value of $\tilde\tau_{12}$. A comparison of
Fig.~\ref{fig.y12nw}$(d)$ with Fig.~\ref{fig.et12}
reveals that $\tilde\eta_{12}$ can be reduced if asymmetric windows
are used. In particular, it is
seen that the absolute minimum of $\tilde\eta_{12}$ observed
for a nonabsorbing fiber can be reduced to
$\tilde\eta_{12}$ $\!\sim$ $\! -0.71$ ($t$ $\!\sim$ $\!5.5t_{{\rm d}}$).
A more detailed analysis is given in Fig.~\ref{fig.w4_15x3}.
It is seen that only at a early stage of propagation
symmetric and
asymmetric frequency windows yield
equal values of $\tilde\eta_{12}$. Obviously, asymmetric
frequency windows take better account of the nonclassical correlation
between sub-Poissonian mid-components and super-Poissonian
sideband components in order to reduce $\tilde\eta_{12}$.
The price to be paid are the unequal photon numbers
of the two beams, since the number of photons in the spectral
interval around the center is substantially larger
than that in the sideband interval, as is seen from the figure.
Hence for generation of (with respect to the photon-number
variance) nonclassically correlated beams, the
frequency windows should be chosen such that an
optimum between nonclassical correlation and
beam intensities is observed.
\section{Summary and concluding remarks}
\label{Sec.Summary}
We have studied the internal quantum statistics
of fundamental solitons in absorbing Kerr media, applying
multimode cumulant-expansion techniques and solving the
resulting evolution equations numerically in Gaussian approximation.
In particular, we have calculated the temporal evolution
of the photon-number variance, its correlation, and the
photon-number correlation for various frequency windows.
The formation of super-Poissonian sideband components with
nonclassically correlated photon numbers and nonclassically correlated
photon-number variances may be regarded as being a typical signature of
the quantum nature of a soliton pulse.
Since a soliton pulse is a highly involved multimode field,
interference effects can essentially determine its
properties. It is worth noting that absorption can damp out
interferences that are destructive with respect to nonclassical
features, such as squeezing and the nonclassical correlations
mentioned, so that absorption
surprisingly improves, under certain conditions,
these nonclassical effects. The calculations show that
for a nonabsorbing fiber propagation distances of
$3.5\ldots 5.5$ dispersion lengths are best suited for
detecting the nonclassical features. Destructive interferences
are observed at distances of $8\dots 12$ dispersion lengths.
At these distances the best values for photon-number squeezing
and nonclassical correlation of the photon-number variance
are achieved for an absorbing fiber ($\gamma t_{{\rm d}}$
$\!\sim$ $\!0.02$).
Using appropriately chosen spectral windows, a soliton pulse can
serve as a source of nonclassically correlated light beams.
We have considered both symmetric and asymmetric windows
and optimized them such that the filtered beams are
maximally nonclassically correlated with regard to the
photon number and the photon-number variance.
It should be pointed out that in practice a number
of effects such as Raman scattering and third-order
dispersion should be included in a refined theoretical
model. Finally, inclusion in the calculation of
non-Gaussian effects for weak absorption has been a challenge.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
We are grateful to
F.~K\"onig,
G.~Leuchs,
and A.~Sizmann
for valuable discussions.
\widetext
\begin{appendix}
\narrowtext
\widetext
\end{appendix}
\vspace*{2cm}
\narrowtext
\vspace*{-2.5cm}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is widely believed that the rapid variability frequently observed
in blazars (for reviews see Ulrich, et al. 1997; Wagner, 1997) is
linked to dissipation in relativistic jets. The
characteristically short variability time scales
- down to a few minutes at optical and x-ray
wavelengths (e.g., Wagner 1997), and several hours
at gamma-ray energies (Mattox, J., et al. 1997; Aharonian et al.
1998) - indicate that the source is compact and strongly beamed,
supporting this view.
Despite the apparent complexity of the temporal behavior exhibited by
blazars, ongoing observational efforts have revealed some
trends. Firstly, the high-and low-energy emission appears to be
well correlated. Correlations between optical/UV and gamma-ray
emission have been observed
in many blazars (Wagner, 1997, and references therein), and
between the X-ray and TeV emission in the TeV BL Lac objects
(Macomb et al. 1995; Buckley et al. 1996; Aharonian et al. 1998).
There is also evidence for a correlated activity at radio and gamma-ray
bands in some cases (e.g., 3C279; Wehrle et al. 1998).
Secondly, the variation of the synchrotron emission below the spectral
turnover has the tendency to be slower and later at longer wavelengths
(with the exception of radio IDV), suggesting that the low frequency
(radio-to-IR) emission is self-absorbed at the early stages of
the outburst. In spite of these trends, it seems that blazars can
exhibit a variety of
temporal behaviors, and that even in individual sources the variability
pattern can change, as exemplified by observations of the BL Lac
object PKS 2155-304 that revealed different variability patterns
during the 1991 (e.g., Brinkmann et al. 1994; Edelson et al. 1995)
and 1994 (Urry et al. 1997)
campaigns. The change in temporal behavior can be ascribed to the
different physical conditions that exist in the source during each
episode, and it is, therefore,
desirable to examine the dependence of the temporal characteristics
of the emission on the physical parameters of the source.
In this paper we study the time dependent synchrotron emission from
relativistic jets in the framework of the radiative front model developed
previously to study gamma-ray flares (Levinson, 1998; hereafter Paper
I). The model is extended to encompass synchrotron emission
and employed to calculate the temporal evolution of the synchrotron
and ERC emission radiated by the front, with an attempt to elucidate
the dependence of the variability pattern on the model parameters.
As shown below, the model can successfully account for some of the trends
mentioned above, and predicts some additional features. In \S 2 we
give an outline of the model and the necessary extensions. In \S 3 we
derive the equation governing the evolution of the synchrotron flux
in the front, and explain how it is incorporated into the numerical
model. We then go on to describe the numerical results. The
observational consequences are discussed in \S 4.
\section{Description of the model}
The model presented in Paper I assumes that the variable
emission seen in blazars originates inside dissipative fronts
that are produced by overtaking collisions of highly
magnetized, relativistic outflows, and consists of a pair of
shocks and a contact discontinuity (Romanova \& Lovelace,
1997; Levinson \& Van Putten, 1997). The front propagates
with a velocity intermediate between that of the slow and
fast fluid slabs, dissipates a fraction of the outflow energy,
and cools radiatively and adiabatically. A fraction of the
dissipation power is taped for the acceleration of electrons to
high energies, and the rest for the heating of the bulk plasma in
the front. The acceleration time of non-thermal electrons
has been assumed to be short compared with the cooling and
the corresponding light crossing times. Further, the fluid
parameters and the fraction
of dissipation power that is taped for electron acceleration
are assumed to have no explicit time dependence (but do
depend on time implicitly through the dynamics of the front). As
a consequence, the characteristics of the transient emission
produced by this model reflect essentially the dynamics of the
system, as well as the intensity of external radiation, rather than
explicit variations of the outflow parameters and/or electron
acceleration rate, as, e.g., in the one-zone, homogeneous model
by Mastichiadis \& Kirk (1997).
In Paper I we focused on the production of gamma-ray flares in
the regime where ERC emission (e.g., Dermer \& Schlickheiser 1993;
Blandford \& Levinson 1995) dominates over
SSC emission (Bloom \& Marscher 1993).
The dynamics of the system and the time evolution of the flux
radiated by the front have been calculated in a self-consistent
manner, by numerically solving the MHD equations governing the front
structure coupled to the kinetic equations describing the angle
averaged pair and gamma-ray distribution functions.
The solutions depend on four key parameters: i) the
dissipation rate of magnetic energy, ii) the maximum injection energy of
electrons, denoted by $E_{emax}$, which was taken to be fixed in the
observer frame for simplicity, iii) the fraction of dissipation
energy that is injected in the form of non-thermal electrons, and iv)
the ratio of the thickness of ejected fluid slab and the gradient length
scale of background radiation intensity. The latter parameter
determines essentially whether the shape and timescale of the flare are
related to the radial variation of ambient radiation intensity,
in which case the light curve is asymmetric with a rapid rise
and a longer decay, or to the shock travel time across the fast
fluid slab, in which case the decay time is of order the cooling time
and is typically much shorter than in the case of infinite length
outbursts. As shown in Paper I, the temporal evolution of the
gamma-ray flux is insensitive to the injected electron spectrum
provided that electron acceleration is efficient, and
that $E_{emax}$ exceeds the corresponding gamma-spheric energy at
any given radius along the course of the front. The evolution of
the synchrotron spectrum, on the other hand, is expected to depend
on variations of $E_{emax}$, particularly if the front is optically
thin at the corresponding frequencies (cf. Levinson 1996).
We shall, therefore, relax the assumption that $E_{emax}$ is fixed.
In general, the evolution of the injected electron distribution
is governed by the acceleration process, and a self-consistent
treatment of particle acceleration is required in order to follow
the development of $E_{emax}$. Such a treatment is beyond the scope
of our paper. Here we settle for a simple prescription where
the injected spectrum is taken to be a power law with an exponential
cutoff above $E_{emax}(t)$, where
\begin{equation}
E_{emax}(t)=E_o (r/r_o)^{b},
\label{eq:Emx}
\end{equation}
with $r(t)=r_o+\beta_c ct$.
One important feature of the model is a positive radiative feedback
that affects the emitted spectrum considerably. The point
is that as a result of radiative losses the front decelerates and
its expansion rate decreases until the peak of the radiated
power is reached. The deceleration of the front leads, in turn,
to enhanced dissipation rate of the bulk flow energy, since
the relative velocity between the fast fluid and the reverse
shock increases. After peak emission is reached, the front
begins to reaccelerate, ultimately reaching its initial
speed and structure.
The consequences of this radiative feedback for the variability
have been discussed in detail in Paper I. Another
consequence is that the variability should depend strongly
on the orientation of the source, owing to the change in beaming
factor during the deceleration phase. The analysis presented in Paper I
cannot account for such orientation effects, as it only treats the
angle averaged flux. The model does describe rather well,
however, the variability that would be seen by an observer at
sufficiently small viewing angle. A study of orientation
effects will be presented elsewhere (Eldar \& Levinson, in preparation).
\section{Synchrotron flares}
In this section
we extend the analysis to incorporate synchrotron emission, and
apply the results to study the relation between the low-and
high-energy emission in ERC dominated blazars. In order to do
so, we augment the set of equations introduced in Paper I by an
equation governing the time change of the synchrotron intensity
(see eq. [\ref{eq:transfer}] below). We also include additional loss
term for the electrons accounting for synchrotron cooling. The equations
are then integrated in the injection frame (the rest frame of the
boundary from which the fluid is expelled), as described in Paper I.
Now, the synchrotron opacity depends on the electron density and magnetic
field inside the front and, consequently, on the transverse expansion
of the front.
Let $c_{s\perp}$ denotes the expansion speed in the transverse direction,
$d$ the cross-sectional radius, and $A=\pi d^2$ the cross-sectional area.
The expansion speed $c_{s\perp}$ may depend on external
pressure and magnetic fields, or the density of ambient gas if inertial
effects are important, and should not be the same as the sound speed
in the radial direction in general. We suppose that initially $d_o=
\psi r_o$, where $\psi$ is the jet opening angle, and $r_o$ is the
radius of formation of the front (Paper I). Then $d=d_o+c_{s\perp}t=
\psi[r_o+(c_{s\perp}/\psi)t]$. For illustration we take $
(c_{s\perp}/\psi)$ to be equal to the front velocity, $c\beta_c$.
We then obtain $A(t)\propto r^2(t)$, where $r(t)=(r_o+c\beta_c t)$.
Let $N_e$ be the total number of electrons in the front. The
corresponding number density is then given by $n_e=N_e/(\Delta X A)$,
where $\Delta X$ is the axial length of the front.
The magnetic field is assumed to decline like
\begin{equation}
B=B_o [r(t)/r_o]^{-p}.
\label{eq:B}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Transfer equation}
We define $I_{\nu}(t,\mu)$ to be the unpolarized synchrotron intensity
inside the front, as measured in the injection frame.
The equation governing the time evolution of $I_{\nu}$ can be derived
in the manner described in Paper I. One then obtains,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^0}I_{\nu}=j-[(\mu-\beta_{s-})/
(\Delta X)+\kappa] I_{\nu},
\label{eq:transfer}
\end{equation}
where $j(\nu,\mu,t)$ and $\kappa(\nu,\mu,t)$ are the emission
and absorption coefficients, $x^0=ct$, $\beta_{s-}$ is the velocity
of the reverse shock, $\cos^{-1}\mu$ is the angle between the direction
of a photon and the front velocity, and $\Delta X$ is the axial
length of the front. The term proportional to $(\mu-\beta_{s-})$
accounts for the change in the intensity due to the combined effects
of front expansion and escape of synchrotron photons from
the front (see Paper I for details). For convenience, we compute
the emission and absorption coefficients in the rest frame of
the front (quantities
measured in the front frame are henceforth denoted by prime), and then
transform them to the injection frame. The coefficients in the two
frames are related through (Rybicki \& Lightman 1979),
\begin{eqnarray}
j(\nu,\mu)=\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu'}\right)^2j'(\nu',\mu'), \\
\kappa(\nu,\mu)=\frac{\nu'}{\nu}\kappa'(\nu',\mu'),
\end{eqnarray}
with $\nu={\cal D}\nu'$, ${\cal D}=[\Gamma_c(1-\beta_c\mu)]^{-1}$ being
the Doppler factor, where $\Gamma_c$ is the bulk Lorentz
factor of the front. The emission and absorption coefficients are
given in the front frame by,
\begin{equation}
j'=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{4\pi mc^2}B(t)\sin\phi'\int{n'_e({\cal E}',t)
F(x') d{\cal E}'},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\kappa'=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{8\pi m \nu'^2}B(t)\sin\phi'\int{{\cal E}'^2
\frac{d}{d{\cal E}'}\left[\frac{n'_e}{{\cal E}'^2}\right]
F(x') d{\cal E}'}.
\label{eq:kp}
\end{equation}
Here ${\cal E}'$ is the electron energy with respect to the front frame,
$n'_e$ is the corresponding electron number density per unit energy,
$\phi'$ is the angle between the line of sight and the magnetic field
in the front frame,
$x'=\nu'/\nu'_c$; $\nu'_c=(3e/4\pi mc)B(t)\sin\phi' ({\cal E}'/mc^2)^2$,
and $F(x)=x\int_{x}^{\infty}K_{5/3}(\chi)d\chi$.
We emphasize that $B(t)$, $\Gamma_c(t)$, and $\beta_{s-}(t)$ are
not given explicitly but rather calculated self-consistently by
integrating the front equations.
Now, as mentioned above, the integration of the electron kinetic
equation is carried out in the injection frame. This yields $n_e(
t,{\cal E})$. Thus, in order to obtain $n'_e(t,{\cal E}')$ we need to
transform $n_e$ into the front frame. The appropriate
transformation is derived in the Appendix under the assumption
that the comoving electron distribution is isotropic.
As a check on the above equation, consider the case of a radiating blob,
for which $\beta_{s+}=\beta_{s-}=\beta_{c}$. It can be readily
shown that the steady-state solution
of eq. (\ref{eq:transfer}) reduces, in the optically thin limit,
to $I=j\Delta X/(\mu-\beta_c).$ On
substituting $\Delta X'=\Gamma_c\Delta X$ and $\mu'=(\mu-\beta_c)/
(1-\beta_c\mu)$ in the latter expression, we recover the well known
result: $I={\cal D}^3(j'\Delta X'/\mu')
={\cal D}^3 I'$. Note that $\Delta X'$ and $\mu'$
are respectively the blob thickness and the cosine of the
angle between the blob velocity and the direction of a photon,
as measured in the blob frame.
We shall proceed by assuming that the
magnetic field in the front is tangled and has no net
direction. The emission and absorption
coefficients can then be averaged over $\phi'$. Since
we do not consider polarization and orientation effects,
we anticipate the results not to depend strongly on this
assumption. We further average eq. (\ref{eq:transfer}) over
the viewing angle $\mu$.
\subsection{Cooling rates}
The synchrotron cooling time can be expressed in terms of the
front parameters as
\begin{equation}
\frac{ct_{syn}}{r_o}=0.17\left(\frac{L_{j46}}{r_{o16}}\right)^{-1}
\Gamma_{A-}^2(n_f/n_{-})U^2_{Af}({\cal E}/mc^2)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Here $n_f$, $n_{-}$ are the electron densities inside the
front and in the fluid exterior to the front, respectively,
$U_{Af}$ is the Alfv\'en 4-velocity with respect to front frame,
$L_{j46}$ is the power carried by the fast outflow in units of
$10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $\Gamma_{A-}$ is the Lorentz factor associated
with the Alfv\'en 4-velocity of the exterior fluid, and $r_{o16}$ is
the radius of shock formation $r_o$ in units of $10^{16}$ cm.
For magnetized jets $\Gamma_{A-}>>1$. The product ($n_f/n_{-})U_{Af}$
changes with time due to the radiative feedback (Paper I), and is
typically of order 30 or so in the presence of rapid magnetic field
dissipation. Thus, the synchrotron cooling time
at most electron energies is much shorter than the dynamical time
$r_o/c$.
The ratio of synchrotron and Compton cooling rates equals the ratio
of comoving energy densities of magnetic field and external radiation
field, and is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{t_{IC}}{t_{syn}}\simeq \frac{20}{\Gamma_{A-}^2\Gamma_c^2}
\frac{L_{j46}}{(\epsilon L_{s})_{45}}(n_f/n_{-})U^2_{Af}
\label{eq:cool}
\end{equation}
with $(\epsilon L_{s})_{45}$ being
the fraction of soft-photon luminosity that is scattered across the
jet in units of $10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This ratio is independent of
radius when $p=1$ in eq. (\ref{eq:B}) (provided the soft photon
intensity declines as $r^{_2}$). Nevertheless, enhanced compression
during the radiative phase renders it time dependent, as shown in fig. 1.
For the parameters adopted in fig. 1 electron cooling is dominated
by ERC emission as long as $L_j<10(\epsilon L_{s})$.
\subsection{Numerical results}
The numerical model presented in Paper I has been extended to include
equations (\ref{eq:transfer})-(\ref{eq:kp}). The entire set of
equations has then been integrated, starting from $r_o$ where
$I_{\nu}=0$, and where the front structure is taken to be that of
an adiabatic front (see Paper I for a detailed discussion concerning
the initial conditions). In the following examples the Lorentz
factors of the fluids ahead and behind the front and the rest frame
Alfven 4-velocity have been chosen to be respectively 5, 20, and 10,
as in Paper I. A rapid magnetic field dissipation with the
same decay constant as in Paper I ($\alpha_b=0.5$), and a background
radiation field with the same intensity have been invoked.
We examine first the dependence of the variability pattern on the
thickness of expelled fluid slab, $d$, in the case in which the maximum
injection energy, $E_{emax}$, is time independent. As shown below,
both the shape of the light curve and the spectral evolution
depend on $d$. Quite generally we find that
the ejection of slabs of thickness $d>>r_o$ leads to the production
of asymmetric flares with a fast, exponential rise and a much
slower, power law decline, as shown in the {\it bottom right} panel
of fig. 2, where a sample light curves of the optically thin emission,
computed for different values of $d/r_o$ is exhibited . The decay
time and profile in this case are determined predominantly by
the decline of the density and magnetic field inside the front due
to its transverse expansion. When the expelled slab is sufficiently
thin, specifically, when $d/r_o$ is smaller than approximately
$(1-\beta_c)$, $\beta_c$ being the average front velocity, shock
crossing of the fluid slab followed by a large drop of the energy
dissipation and consequent particle acceleration rates occurs on
a timescale much shorter than the time change of the front parameters
due to expansion. As a result, the radiated flux decay on the cooling
time scale (provided it is short enough), leading to a roughly
symmetric light curve with exponential rise and decay. The observed
duration of the flare in this case is on the order of $d/c$. An example is
shown in the {\it upper left} panel in fig. 2. Intermediate length
outbursts can give rise to light curves that exhibit a fast rise, a
plateau and a steep decline, as illustrated in the {\it upper right}
and {\it bottom left} panels.
Fig. 3 displays light curves at different observing frequencies
(10, $10^3$, $10^5$, and $10^6$ GHz, with logarithmic energy intervals),
produced for $d/r_o=10^{-2}$, and different values of $r_o$.
As seen, the low frequency flux is delayed, owing to self absorption
at the early stages of the outburst. Furthermore, the low frequency
emission is strongly depressed when the radius of front formation, $r_o$,
is sufficiently small. In the example depicted in fig. 3 there
is essentially no radio emission for $r_o$ smaller than about 10, and
very little emission even at millimeter wavelengths for $r_o<1$.
The suppression of the flux at $10^6$ GHz seen for $r_o=10^2$ in the
{\it upper left} panel in fig. 3, is due to our choice of $E_o$ and
$B_o$ in eqs. (\ref{eq:Emx}) and (\ref{eq:B}). The total gamma-ray flux
is emitted from roughly the same radii as the optically thin
synchrotron flux and, therefore, correlations between the gamma-ray and
optical/UV emission are expected. The precise relation, however, depends
upon the combination of parameters through the radiative feedback and
the evolution of the pair cascade, but the time lags should not exceed
the flare duration. We emphasize that the gamma-ray flare can either lead
or precede the optical/UV emission. As discussed in Paper I, the gamma-ray
flux above the initial gamma-spheric radius should also be
delayed and, for small enough $r_o$, will be strongly attenuated by
pair production on external photons. Hence, we anticipate
some correlated activity of the low-frequency and the hard gamma-ray
emission (see further discussion below).
The dependence of flare's properties on $p$ (defined in eq.
[\ref{eq:B}]) is shown in fig. 4, for infinite length outbursts. As
expected, increasing $p$ results in a substantially steeper decay
of the emitted flux. As illustrated by this example, roughly
symmetric flares can be produced essentially
for a steep enough magnetic field profile, even in the case of thick
slabs. The suppression of the low frequency flux at larger values of $p$,
seen in the figure, is due to the steeper decline of the ratio
of synchrotron and Compton cooling rates with time (see eq. [\ref
{eq:cool}]). In the case of short length outbursts, the light curve
is essentially insensitive to the radial profile of the magnetic field.
Finally, we consider a situation whereby the maximum injection energy
evolves with time. We then anticipate the development of the
synchrotron flux at frequencies above the initial cutoff frequency,
$\nu_{max}=(3eB/4\pi m_ec)E_o$ (cf. eq. [\ref{eq:Emx}]), to be governed
by the evolution of $E_{emax}(t)$,
whereas at lower frequencies the light curves should be highly
insensitive to $E_{emax}(t)$, reflecting mainly
the evolution of the synchrotron opacity, as in the previous example.
This is illustrated in fig. 5, where light curves computed for
infinite length outbursts and $b=1$ in eq. (\ref{eq:Emx}) are
plotted. As seen, the onset of the flare at high frequencies becomes
more delayed and the maximum flux becomes smaller for lower cutoff
energies, $E_o$.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
In this paper we considered the time dependent synchrotron emission
produced by radiative fronts propagating in a magnetically dominated
jet, and examined the relation between
the synchrotron and ERC emission. Using a numerical model developed
earlier, we analyzed the dependence of the variability pattern on the
model parameters, and demonstrated how a change in physical parameters
can lead to considerably different temporal behavior.
We now summarize our results and conclusions.
Two important parameters determine, in addition to the radial profile
of the jet's magnetic field, the shape of the flare and the
spectral evolution of the broad-band emission; the thickness of
expelled fluid slab, and the radius at which the front is created.
Ejection of sufficiently thin slabs leads to the production
of roughly symmetric flares with exponential rise and decay, as
occasionally seen in blazars (e.g., Massaro et al. 1996;
Urry et al. 1997). The duration of
the optically thin flare in this case should be on the order of the
light crossing time of the ejected fluid slab, which can be as short
as $r_{g}/c$, where $r_{g}$ is the gravitational radius of the putative
black hole (cf. Paper I). The low frequency emission is quite generally
delayed due to optical depth effects. Such delays provide an important
diagnostic of radiatively efficient, inhomogeneous models in general, and
are in agreement with the delays (of weeks to months) between high-energy
and radio outbursts often observed (Reich et al. 1993; Wehrle et a.l, 1998),
and the ejection of a superluminal blob following a gamma-ray flare
(Zhang et al. 1994; Wehrle et al. 1996; Otterbein et al. 1998). The
much shorter lags (hours to days) between the peaks of the gamma-ray, UV
and optical fluxes, as seen on several occasions (e.g., Edelson et al. 1995;
Urry et al. 1997; Wehrle et al., 1998),
are also a natural consequence of this model. The precise relation
between the optically thin emission in different bands depends on
the conditions in the source through the radiative feedback and the
evolution of pair cascades inside the front.
If, in addition to being thin, the front is formed at a sufficiently
small radius, then
the low-frequency synchrotron flux will be strongly suppressed by virtue
of self absorption, and the gamma-ray flux at energies above the
corresponding gamma-spheric energy, will be severely attenuated
by pair production on external photons ahead of the front.
This implies that i) during such episodes a
source may exhibit gamma-ray and UV/optical outbursts followed by
little or no activity at low (typically radio-to-submillimeter)
frequencies, and ii) in a single object the cutoff energy of
the gamma-ray spectrum should be smaller for shorter outbursts,
and should be correlated with the lack of activity (or with
the amplitude of variations) at long wavelengths. Successful
detection of such
correlations in a source, particularly ii), will provide a strong
support to this model, as such a behavior is not expected in
SSC models or other types of inhomogeneous models and is, therefore,
distinctive. For a reasonable choice of parameters
we estimate the cutoff energy of the gamma-ray spectrum in the
powerful blazars (which are likely to be ERC dominated) to lie
in the range between a few GeV to a few hundreds GeV. It may be
possible to observe it with the next generation gamma-ray
telescope or, perhaps, with upcoming ground based experiments.
Intermediate length
outbursts can produce synchrotron light curves that exhibit a relatively
rapid rise, a plateau and a sharp decay. We argue that the
light curves reported by the PKS 2155, 1991 campaign
(Urry et al. 1993; Courvoisier et al. 1995)
might have been produced by such an event. A rise on a time scale of
order a few days followed by a period of about 20 days during which
the average flux remained at maximum level is evident (although the flux
fluctuated around the maximum level during this period). Unfortunately,
there is no data at later times. The faster, small amplitude oscilations
may be caused by subsequent formation of smaller fronts, by instabilities,
or by inhomogeneities in the upstream flow (which would lead essentially
to bifurcation of the front). Furthermore, there is indication
(Edelson et al. 1995) that
the variation of the radio emission is delayed and has a smaller
amplitude, consistent with this model. It is also tempting to relate
the difference in temporal behavior seen by the 1991 and 1994 campaigns
to the difference in conditions, particularly the length of the outburst,
during those two episodes (cf. Georganopoulos \& Marscher 1997).
When the thickness of expelled fluid slab largely exceeds the formation
radius, which happens when the injection time of the jet by the central
engine is much longer than the fluid acceleration time, the resultant
light curve will exhibit an exponential rise and a
power law decline. If the radial decrement of the jet's magnetic field
is not too steep ($p<2$ in ep. [\ref{eq:B}]) then the flare will
appear asymmetric, with a decay much longer than the rise when viewing
the source at small enough angles. At larger viewing angles the shape
of the flare may be altered by orientation effects (Eldar \& Levinson,
in preparation). Such asymmetric flares are atypical to blazars,
but are characteristic to GRB afterglows.
In situations where the maximum injection energy increases with
time, the onset of outbursts at frequencies above the initial upper
cutoff becomes delayed, with longer time lags and smaller
peak fluxes at higher frequencies, in contrast to the tendency
found in the case of time independent $E_{emax}$. The gamma-ray light
curve should not be affected significantly though (Levinson 1996), in
contrast to the evolution predicted by SSC type models. Such
events can lead to
delayed, lower amplitude variations at optical/UV wavelengths, or even
to the lack of apparent variations at these frequencies. Since the
evolution of $E_{emax}$ is dictated by the rate of electron acceleration
in the front, careful examination of the correlations at short
wavelengths can provide important information regarding the
acceleration process.
Finally, we note that the inclusion of the SSC process
may alter our results somewhat, particularly for parameters
typical to fainter sources. The study of SSC flares is left
for future work.
I thank Avigdor Eldar for useful discussions, and the anonymous
referee for constructive criticism.
This research was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation
and by Alon Fellowship.
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank T.~Jacobson, L.~J.~Mason, J.~M.~Nester,
D.~C.~Robinson, R.~W.~Tucker and R.~M.~Wald for helpful comments;
the Mathematics Department, King's College London,
the Physics Department, National Central University,
Lancaster University,
and the Mathematical Institute at Oxford
for hospitality
while some of the work was carried out.
The research was supported in part by
NSC88-2112-M-008-018 (Taiwan) and EPSRC (UK).
|
\section{Introduction}
The purpose of this paper is to point out a link between two
apparently remote concepts: renormalization and Runge-Kutta
methods.
Renormalization enables us to remove infinities from quantum
field theory. Recently, Kreimer discovered a Hopf algebra
of rooted trees
that brings order and beauty in the intricate combinatorics of
renormalization \cite{Kreimer98}. He established formulas
that automate the subtraction of infinities to all orders
of the perturbation expansion, and proved the effectiveness
of his method for the practical computation of renormalized
quantities in joint works with Broadhurst \cite{Broadhurst}
and Delbourgo \cite{Delbourgo}. Moreover, his approach shines
new light on the problem of overlapping divergences
\cite{KreimerOD,Krajewski} and on the mechanics of the
renormalization
group \cite{Kreimer}. Furthermore, Connes and Kreimer revealed
a deep connection between the algebra of rooted trees
(ART) and a Hopf algebra of diffeomorphisms \cite{Connes}.
On the other hand, Runge published in 1895 \cite{Runge}
an efficient algorithm to compute the solution of
ordinary differential equations. For an equation of
the type $dy/ds=f(y(s))$, he defines
recursively $k_1=f(y_n)$, $k_2=f(y_n+h k_1/2)$,
$y_{n+1}=y_n+hk_2$. His algorithm was improved
in 1901 by Kutta, and became known as the Runge-Kutta
method. It is now one of the most widely used
numerical methods.
In 1972, Butcher published an extraordinary article
where he analyzed general Runge-Kutta methods on the basis
of the ART. He showed that the Runge-Kutta methods form
a group\footnote{Hairer and Wanner called it the
Butcher group \cite{Hairer74}.} and found
explicit expressions for the inverse
of a method or the product of two methods. He also
defined sums over trees that are now called B-series
in honour of Butcher.
Altough the Hopf algebra structure of ART is implicit
all along his paper, Butcher did not mention
it\footnote{The opposite of the present Hopf structure of ART
was discussed in 1986 by
D\"ur (\cite{Dur}, p.88-90), together with
the corresponding Lie algebra (identical, up to
a sign, with the one defined in \cite{Connes}).}.
Important developments were made in 1974 by Hairer
and Wanner \cite{Hairer74}. Since then, B-series
are used routinely in the analysis of Runge-Kutta
methods.
Our main purpose is to show that the results and concepts
established by Kreimer fit nicely into the Runge-Kutta language,
and that the tools developed by Butcher have a range of application
much wider than the numerical analysis of ordinary differential
equations.
The present expository paper will be reasonably self-contained.
After an introduction to rooted trees, the genetic relation
between ART and differentials is presented. Then Butcher's
approach to Runge-Kutta methods is sketched. Several B-series
are calculated and the connection with the Hopf structure
of ART is exhibited. The application of Runge-Kutta methods
to renormalization is exposed using a toy model which is
solved non perturbatively. Finally, the solution of non-linear
partial differential equations is written as a formal
B-series.
\section{The rooted trees}
A rooted tree is a graph with a designated vertex called
a root such that there is a unique path from the root
to any other vertex in the tree \cite{Tucker}. Several examples of
rooted trees are given in the appendix, where the root
is the black point and the other vertices are white points
(the root is at the top of the tree).
The length of the unique path from a vertex $v$ to the root
is called the level number of vertex $v$. The root has level
number 0. For any vertex $v$
(except the root), the father of $v$ is the unique vertex $v'$
with an edge common with $v$ and a smaller level number.
Conversely, $v$ is a son of $v'$. A vertex with no sons is
a leaf.
Rooted trees are sometimes called pointed trees or arborescences.
The tree with one vertex is $\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}$, the ``tree'' with
zero vertex is designated by $1$.
\subsection{Operations and functions on trees}
An important operation is the merging of trees.
If $t_1$,\dots,$t_k$ are trees, $t=B^+(t_1,t_2,\dots,t_k)$
is defined as the tree obtained by creating a new vertex $r$
and by joining the roots of $t_1$,\dots,$t_k$ to $r$, which
becomes the root of $t$. This operation is also denoted
by $t=[t_1,t_2,\dots,t_k]$, but we avoid this notation because
of the possible confusion with commutators.
In \cite{Connes}, Connes and Kreimer defined a natural growth
operator $N$ on trees: $N(t)$ is the set of $|t|$ trees
$t_i$, where each $t_i$ is a tree with $|t|+1$ vertices
obtained by attaching an additional leaf to a vertex of
$t$. For example $N(1)=\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
N(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&\tdeux,\quad N(\tdeux)=\ttroisun+\ttroisdeux\quad
N(\ttroisdeux)=\tquatrequatre+2\,\tquatretrois.
\end{eqnarray*}
Some trees may appear with multiplicity.
A number of functions on rooted trees have been defined
independently by several authors:
$|t|$ designates the number of vertices of a tree $t$
(alternative notation is $r(t)$, $\rho(t)$ and $\# t$).
Clearly,
$|B^+(t_1,t_2,\dots,t_k)|=|t_1|+|t_2|+\cdots+|t_k|+1$.
The tree factorial $t!$ is defined recursively as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} !&=&1\\
B^+(t_1,t_2,\dots,t_k)!&=&|B^+(t_1,t_2,\dots,t_k)|\, t_1! t_2! \cdots t_k!.
\end{eqnarray*}
(an alternative notation is $\gamma(t)$).
The notation $t!$ is taken from
Kreimer \cite{Kreimer} because $t!$ generalizes the factorial of a number.
Besides $t!$ has also similarities
with the product of hooklengthes of a Young diagram in the representation theory
of the symmetric group \cite{Fomin}.
A few examples may be useful
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tdeux !&=&2,\quad \ttroisun !=6,\quad \tquatredeux != 12,\quad \tquatreun != 24,
\quad\tquatrequatre !=4.
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{On $CM(t)$}
$CM(t)$ was defined in \cite{Kreimer} as the number of
times tree $t$ appears in $N^n(1)$ where $n=|t|$ is the number
of vertices of $t$. In the literature (\cite{Butcher63},
\cite{Butcher}, p.92, \cite{Hairer}, p.147),
$CM(t)$ is written as
$\alpha(t)$ and considered as the number of ``heap-ordered trees''
with shape $t$, where a heap-ordered tree with shape $t$ is
a labelling of each vertex of $t$ (i.e. a bijection between
the vertices and the set of numbers $0,1,\dots |t|-1$) such
that the labels decrease along the path going from any vertex
to the root. This is called a monotonic labelling in
\cite{Hairer}, p.147.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\parbox{10mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(10,10)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfforce{(0,0)}{o2}
\fmfforce{(0,0.6h)}{o1}
\fmfright{o3}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{o1,o2}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o3}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$0$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$1$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$2$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$3$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o3}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\quad\quad
\parbox{10mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(10,10)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfforce{(0,0)}{o2}
\fmfforce{(0,0.6h)}{o1}
\fmfright{o3}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{o1,o2}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o3}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$0$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$2$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$3$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$1$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o3}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\quad\quad
\parbox{10mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(10,10)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfforce{(0,0)}{o2}
\fmfforce{(0,0.6h)}{o1}
\fmfright{o3}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{o1,o2}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o3}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$0$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$1$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$3$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$2$},label.angle=0,label.dist=0,decor.size=90}{o3}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\end{eqnarray*}
There are $(n-1)!$ heap-ordered trees with $n$ vertices.
This can be seen by a recursive argument. Take a heap-ordered
tree $t$ with $n$ vertices, and make $n$ labeled trees by
adding a new vertex with label $n$ to each vertex of $t$.
Then all the created trees are heap-ordered (because the
added vertex is a leaf and all other labels are smaller
than $n$). Furthermore, all the heap-ordered trees
created by this process from the set of heap-ordered trees with $n$
vertices are different. Therefore, there are at least
$n!$ heap-ordered trees with $n+1$ vertices.
On the other hand, in each heap-ordered tree $t$
with $n+1$ vertices, the vertex labeled $n$ is a leaf,
therefore $t$ can be created from a heap-ordered tree with
$n$ vertices by adding this leaf with label $n$.
So there are exactly $n!$ heap-ordered trees with $n+1$ vertices.
We shall give a non combinatiorial proof of this fact in the sequel.
Since $N(t)$ is defined by the addition
of a leaf to all the vertices of $t$,
$\alpha(t)$ is the number of heap-ordered trees with shape $t$.
This number has been calculated in \cite{Butcher63}
(see also. \cite{Butcher}, p.92):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha(t)=\frac{|t|!}{t!S_t},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $S_t$ is the symmetry factor of $t$, defined in
\cite{Broadhurst,Kreimer} and in \cite{Butcher}
where it is denoted by $\sigma(t)$.
Note that there is a simple correspondence between
the permutations of $n-1$ numbers and the heap-ordered
trees. Let $(p_1,\dots,p_{n-1})$ be a permutation
of $(1,\dots,n-1)$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item $p_1$ is a subroot, labeled $p_1$
\item for $i$=2 to $n-1$
\begin{itemize}
\item if all $p_j$ for $1\le j\le i$ are such that
$p_j > p_i$, then $p_i$ is a subroot, labeled $p_i$
\item otherwise, let $p_j$ be first number such that
$p_j < p_i$, in the series
$p_{i-1},p_{i-2},\dots,p_1$, then the $i$-th vertex,
labeled $p_i$, is linked to $p_j$ by a line
\end{itemize}
\item when all $(p_1,\dots,p_{n-1})$ have been processed,
all subroots are linked to a common root, labeled $0$
\end{itemize}
On the other hand, starting from a heap-ordered tree $t$,
$t$ is arranged so that the set of all vertices
with a given level number are ordered with
labels increasing from right to left. Then the permutation
is built by gathering the labels through a depth-first search
(backtracking) of the tree from left to right.
For instance, the permutation corresponding to the
three labeled trees of the above example are
(312), (231) and (213).
Finally, we use the term algebra of rooted trees and not
Hopf algebra of rooted trees because, thanks to the work
of Butcher, the Hopf structure is only one aspect of the
ART.
\section{Differentials and rooted trees}
Assume that we want to solve the equation
$(d/ds)x(s)=F[x(s)]$, $x(s_0)=x_0$,
where $s$ is a real, $x$ is in $\mathbb{R}^N$
and $F$ is a smooth
function from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}^N$,
with components $f^i(x)$. This is the equation
of the flow of a vector field.
\subsection{Calculation of the $n$-th derivative}
Let us write the derivatives of the $i$-th component of
$x(s)$ with respect to $s$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d^2x^i(s)}{ds^2}&=&\frac{d}{ds} f^i[x(s)]
= \sum_j\frac{\partial f^i}{\partial x_j}[x(s)] \frac{dx^j}{ds}
= \sum_j\frac{\partial f^i}{\partial x_j}[x(s)] f^j[x(s)]
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d^3x^i(s)}{ds^3}&=&\frac{d}{ds}
\left(\sum_j\frac{\partial f^i}{\partial x_j}[x(s)] f^j[x(s)]\right)\\
&=& \sum_{jk}\frac{\partial^2 f^i}{\partial x_j\partial x_k}[x(s)]
f^j[x(s)] f^k[x(s)] +
\sum_{jk}\frac{\partial f^i}{\partial x_j}[x(s)]
\frac{\partial f^j}{\partial x_k}[x(s)] f^k[x(s)].
\end{eqnarray*}
A simplified notation is now required. Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
f^i &=& f^i[x(s)] \\
f^i_{j_1j_2\cdots j_k} &=&
\frac{\partial^k f^i}{\partial x_{j_1}\cdots\partial x_{j_k}}[x(s)],
\end{eqnarray*}
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{dx^i(s)}{ds}&=& f^i\quad
\frac{d^2x^i(s)}{ds^2}= f^i_j f^j\quad
\frac{d^3x^i(s)}{ds^3}= f^i_{jk} f^j f^k + f^i_j f^j_k f^k,
\end{eqnarray*}
where summation over indices appearing in lower and upper
positions is implicitly assumed.
With this notation, we can write the next term as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d^4x^i(s)}{ds^4}&=& f^i_j f^j_k f^k_l f^l
+ f^i_j f^j_{kl} f^k f^l + 3 f^i_{jk} f^j_l f^k f^l
+ f^i_{jkl} f^j f^k f^l \\
&=&
\parbox{10mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(10,12)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfbottom{o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,v1}
\fmf{vanilla}{v1,v2}
\fmf{vanilla}{v2,o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=1,%
label=\mbox{\small$i$},label.angle=0,label.dist=20,decor.size=30}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$j$},label.angle=0,label.dist=20,decor.size=30}{v1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$k$},label.angle=0,label.dist=20,decor.size=30}{v2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$l$},label.angle=0,label.dist=20,decor.size=30}{o1}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\quad
\quad
\quad
\parbox{6mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(6,10)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfbottom{o1,o2}
\fmfforce{(0.5w,0.5h)}{v1}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,v1}
\fmf{vanilla}{v1,o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{v1,o2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=1,%
label=\mbox{\small$i$},label.angle=0,label.dist=20,decor.size=30}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$j$},decor.size=30}{v1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$k$},decor.size=30}{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$l$},decor.size=30}{o2}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\parbox{6mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(6,10)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfforce{(0,0)}{o2}
\fmfforce{(0,0.5h)}{o1}
\fmfright{o3}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{o1,o2}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o3}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=1,%
label=\mbox{\small$i$},label.angle=0,label.dist=20,decor.size=30}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$j$},decor.size=30}{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$l$},decor.size=30}{o2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$k$},decor.size=30}{o3}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\quad
\quad
\quad
\quad
\parbox{8mm}{
\begin{fmfchar*}(8,6)
\fmftop{i1}
\fmfstraight
\fmfbottom{o1,o2,o3}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o1}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o2}
\fmf{vanilla}{i1,o3}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=1,%
label=\mbox{\small$i$},decor.size=30}{i1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$j$},decor.size=30}{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$k$},decor.size=30}{o2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=0,%
label=\mbox{\small$l$},decor.size=30}{o3}
\end{fmfchar*}
}
\end{eqnarray*}
This relation between differentials and rooted tree was
established by Arthur Cayley in 1857 \cite{Cayley}.
With this notation, there is a one-to-one relation
between a rooted tree with $n$ vertices and a
term of $d^n x(s)/ds^n$
\subsection{Elementary differentials}
A little bit more formally, we can follow Butcher
(\cite{Butcher}, p.154.) and call
``elementary differentials'' the
$\delta_t$ defined recursively for each rooted tree $t$ by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^i_\bullet &=& f^i \nonumber\\
\delta^i_t &=&
f^i_{j_1j_2\cdots j_k} \delta^{j_1}_{t_1}
\delta^{j_2}_{t_2} \cdots \delta^{j_k}_{t_k}
\quad\mathrm{when}\quad t=B^+(t_1,t_2,\cdots,t_k). \label{defdeltat}
\end{eqnarray}
Using this correspondence between rooted trees and
differential expressions, we establish the identity:
\begin{eqnarray*}
N\delta_{t}\equiv\frac{d\delta_t}{ds}=\delta_{N(t)},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $N(t)$ is the natural growth operator of rooted
trees defined in Ref.\cite{Connes}.
So that the solution of the flow equation is
\begin{eqnarray}
x(s)&=&x_0+\int_{s_0}^s ds' \exp[s'N]\delta_\bullet\nonumber\\
&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) \delta_t(s_0), \label{Butcherflow}
\end{eqnarray}
where $|t|$ is the number of vertices of $t$,
and $\alpha(t)$ is called $CM(t)$ in \cite{Kreimer}.
\section{Runge-Kutta methods}
We shall see that sum over trees appear quite naturally
with differential equations. So, if one is given a
function $\phi$ that assigns a value (e.g. a real,
a complex, a vector) to each tree $t$, is there
a function $f$ such that $\phi(t)=\delta_t$.
Generally, the answer is no. Consider a function $\phi$ such that
all components are equal (and denoted also by $\phi$):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1,\quad \phi(\tdeux)=a,\quad \phi(\ttroisun)=b,
\end{eqnarray*}
so that for any $i$, $f^i=1$, $f^i_j f^j=a$ and $f^i_j f^j_kf^k=b$.
The first two equations give $\sum_jf^i_j=a$, so that
the third gives
$f^i_j f^j_kf^k=\sum_j f^i_j a=a^2$, and $\phi$ cannot
be represented as elementary differentials
(i.e. it cannot be the $\delta_t$) of a function $f$ if $b\not=a^2$.
In fact, the number of functions reachable as
elementary differentials is rather narrow.
Given such a function $\phi$ over rooted trees, we extend it
to a homomorphism of the algebra of rooted trees by linearity
and
$\phi(tt')=\phi(t)\phi(t')$ where the componentwise product was
used on the right-hand side.
If vector flows are not enough to span all possible $\phi$,
what more general equation can do that? As we shall see now,
the answer is the Runge-Kutta methods.
\subsection{Butcher's approach to the Runge-Kutta methods}
To solve a flow equation
$dx(s)/ds=F[x(s)]$,
some efficient numerical algorithms are known as
Runge-Kutta methods. They are determined by
a $m\times m$ matrix $a$ and an $m$-dimensional vector $b$, and
at each step a vector $x_n$ is defined as a function
of the previous value $x_{n-1}$ by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_i &=& x_{n-1}+h\sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij} F(X_j)\\
x_n &=& x_{n-1}+h\sum_{j=1}^m b_j F(X_j),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $i$ range from $1$ to $m$.
If the matrix $a$ is such that $a_{ij}=0$ if
$j\ge i$ then the method is called explicit (because
each $X_i$ can be calculated explicitly), otherwise
the method is implicit.
In 1963, Butcher showed that the solution of the
corresponding equations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_i(s) &=& x_0+(s-s_0)\sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij} F(X_j(s))\\
x(s) &=& x_0+(s-s_0)\sum_{j=1}^m b_j F(X_j(s)),
\end{eqnarray*}
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
X_i(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! \sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij} \phi_j(t) \delta_t(s_0) \nonumber\\
x(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! \phi(t) \delta_t(s_0). \label{Bseries}
\end{eqnarray}
These series over trees are called B-series in the numerical
analysis literature, in honour of John Butcher (\cite{Hairer}, p.264).
The homomorphism $\phi$ is defined recursively as a function
of $a$ and $b$, for $i=1,\dots,m$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_i(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi_i(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_k}
a_{ij_1}\dots a_{ij_k}\phi_{j_1}(t_1)\dots\phi_{j_k}(t_k)\\
\phi(t)&=&\sum_{i=1}^m b_i \phi_i(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Comparing Eqs.(\ref{Butcherflow}) and (\ref{Bseries})
it is clear that the Runge-Kutta approximates the solution
of the original flow equation up to order $n$
if $\phi(t)=1/t!$ for all trees with up to $n$ vertices.
In 1972 \cite{Butcher72}, Butcher made further progress.
Firstly he showed that Runge-Kutta methods are ``dense'' in
the space of rooted tree homomorphisms. More precisely, he
showed that given any finite set of trees $T_0$ and any
function $\theta$ from $T_0$ to $\mathbb{R}$, then there is a
Runge-Kutta method (i.e. a matrix $a$ and a vector $b$) such
that the corresponding $\phi$ agrees with $\theta$ on
$T_0$ (see also \cite{Butcher} p.167).
\subsection{Further developments}
Furthermore, Butcher proved that the combinatorics he
used to study Runge-Kutta methods in 1963 \cite{Butcher63}
was hiding an algebra. If ($a$,$b$) and ($a'$,$b'$) are
two Runge-Kutta methods, with the corresponding
homomorphisms $\phi$ and $\phi'$, then the product homomorphism is
defined (in Hopf algebra terms) by
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\phi\star\phi')(t)&=&m[(\phi\otimes\phi')\Delta(t)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Butcher proved
that the $\phi$ derived from Runge-Kutta methods form
a group. Again, this is nicely interpreted within the
Hopf structure of the ART.
For instance,
the inverse of the element $\phi$ is simply defined
by $\phi^{-1}(t)=\phi[S(t)]$, where $S$ is the antipode.
This concept of inverse is quite important in practice since it
is involved in the concept of self-adjoint Runge-Kutta
methods, which have long-term stability in time-reversal symmetric
problems (\cite{Hairer}, p.219).
The adjoint is defined within our approach by
$\phi^*(t)=(-1)^{|t|}\phi[S(t)]$.
On the other hand,
Butcher found an explicit expression for all the Hopf operations
of the ART. Given the method ($a$,$b$) for $\phi$, he expressed
the method ($a'$,$b'$) for $\phi\circ S$ ($S$ is the antipode)
in (simple) terms of ($a$,$b$).
Moreover,
(\cite{Butcher}, p.312 et sq.), if ($a$,$b$)
and ($a'$,$b'$) are
two Runge-Kutta methods (with dimensions $m$ and $m'$, respectively),
corresponding to $\phi$ and $\phi'$, the method ($a"$,$b"$)
corresponding to the convolution product $(\phi\star\phi')$ is
\begin{eqnarray*}
a''_{ij}&=&a_{ij}\mathrm{\quad if\quad} 1\le i\le m
\mathrm{\quad and\quad} 1\le j\le m,\\
a''_{ij}&=&a'_{ij}\mathrm{\quad if\quad} m+1\le i\le m+m'
\mathrm{\quad and\quad} m+1\le j\le m+m',\\
a''_{ij}&=&b_{j}\mathrm{\quad if\quad} m+1\le i\le m+m'
\mathrm{\quad and\quad} 1\le j\le m,\\
a''_{ij}&=&0 \mathrm{\quad if\quad} 1\le i\le m
\mathrm{\quad and\quad} m+1\le j\le m+m',\\
b''_i &=& b_i \mathrm{\quad if\quad} 1\le i\le m,\\
b''_i &=& b'_i \mathrm{\quad if\quad} m+1\le i\le m+m'.
\end{eqnarray*}
In 1974, Hairer and Wanner (\cite{Hairer}, p.267) built upon the
work of Butcher and proved the following important result:
if we denote
\begin{eqnarray}
B(\phi,F)&=&1+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! \phi(t) \delta_t(s_0) \label{Hairer1}
\end{eqnarray}
then
\begin{eqnarray}
B(\phi',B(\phi,F))&=&B(\phi\star\phi',F), \label{Hairer2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B(\phi',B(\phi,F))$ is the same as Eq.(\ref{Hairer1}),
with $\phi(t)$ replaced by $\phi'(t)$ and
$\delta_t$ replaced by $\delta'(t)$
(i.e. $\delta'(t)$ is calculate as $\delta_t$, but
with the function $B(\phi,F)(s)$ instead of the function
$F(x(s))$).
In other words, the group of homomorphisms acts on the right
on the functions $F$.
\section{The continuous limit}
In his seminal article \cite{Butcher72}, Butcher did not
restrict his treatment to finite sets of indices.
It is possible to consider the continuous limit of Runge-Kutta
methods. A possible form of it is an integral equation, which
we write artitrarily between 0 and 1:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_u(s) &=& x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1 dv a(u,v) F(X_v(s))\\
x(s) &=& x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1 b(u) du F(X_u(s)),
\end{eqnarray*}
the solution of which are
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_u(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! \int_0^1 dv a(u,v) \phi_v(t) \delta_t(s_0)\\
x(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! \phi(t) \delta_t(s_0).
\end{eqnarray*}
The homomorphism $\phi$ is defined recursively as a function
of $a$ and $b$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi_u(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&\int_0^1 du_1 a(u,u_1) \phi_{u_1}(t_1)
\dots\int_0^1 du_k a(u,u_k) \phi_{u_k}(t_k)\\
\phi(t)&=&\int_0^1 du b(u) \phi_u(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Continuous RK-methods do not seem to have been much used, except for
an example in Butcher's book (\cite{Butcher} p.325).
\subsection{Butcher's example \label{Butcherexample}}
It will be useful in the following to have the results of
a modified version of Butcher's example.
So, we consider:
\begin{eqnarray}
X_u(s)&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^u F[X_v(s)] dv \label{Picard}\\
x(s)&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1 F[X_u(s)] du\nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
which corresponds to $a(u,v)=1_{[0,u]}(v)$, $b(u)=1$.
This Runge-Kutta method will be used again in the sequel, and
will be referred to as the ``simple integral method''.
If we take the derivative of Eq.(\ref{Picard}) with respect
to $u$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{du} X_u(s)=(s-s_0) F[X_u(s)],
\end{eqnarray*}
so $X_u(s)=y(s_0+(s-s_0)u)$, where $y(s)$ is the solution
\begin{eqnarray*}
y(s)=x_0+\int_{s_0}^s F[y(s')] ds'.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1 F[X_u(s)] du\\
&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1 F[y(s_0+(s-s_0)u)] du\\
&=&x_0+\int_{s_0}^s F[y(s')] ds' = y(s).
\end{eqnarray*}
The corresponding homomorphism $\phi(t)$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi_u(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&\int_0^u du_1 \phi_{u_1}(t_1)
\dots\int_0^u du_k \phi_{u_k}(t_k)\\
\phi(t)&=&\int_0^1 du \phi_u(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the facts that
$|B^+(t_1\cdots t_k)|=(|t_1|+\cdots+|t_k|+1)$ and
$B^+(t_1\cdots t_k)!=(|t_1|+\cdots+|t_k|+1)t_1!\dots t_k!$
it is proved that the solutions of these equations are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_u(t)&=&\frac{|t|u^{|t|-1}}{t!}\\
\phi(t)&=&\frac{1}{t!}.
\end{eqnarray*}
If we introduce $\phi(t)=1/t!$ into Eq.(\ref{Bseries})
we obtain Eq.(\ref{Butcherflow}). So we confirm that
the solution of the equation
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)=x_0+\int_{s_0}^s F[x(s')] ds'
\end{eqnarray*}
is
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&x_0+
\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) \delta_t(s_0).
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{First applications}
The above example can already bring some interesting
applications. But we must start by giving a way to
calculate $\delta_t(s_0)$ in a simple case.
\subsubsection{Calculation of $\delta_t(s_0)$ \label{sectiondeltat}}
To obtain specific results, we must choose a particular
function $F$. The simplest choice is to take a vector function
$F$, with components
$f^i(x)=f(\sum_j x_j/N)$, where $N$ is the dimension of the
vector space and $f$ has the series expansion
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(s)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f^{(n)}(0) s^n}{n!}.
\end{eqnarray*}
From the definition of $\delta_t$ in Eq.(\ref{defdeltat}),
one can show recursively that, for $i=1,\dots,N$,
$\delta^i_t(0)$ is independent of $i$ (and will be denoted
$\delta_t$) and
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_\bullet &=& f(0) \nonumber\\
\delta_t &=& f^{(k)}(0) \delta_{t_1} \delta_{t_2} \cdots \delta_{t_k}
\quad\mathrm{when}\quad t=B^+(t_1,t_2,\cdots,t_k). \label{defdeltatsimple}
\end{eqnarray}
In ref.\cite{Kreimer}, Kreimer defined a similar quantity,
that he called $B_t$. Here $\delta_t$ and $B_t$ will be
used as synonymous.
The simplest case is $f(s)=\exp s$ and $s_0=0$, where $f^{(n)}(0)=1$
and $\delta_t=1$ for all trees $t$.
\subsubsection{Weighted sum of rooted trees}
If we take $f=\exp$, $s_0=0$ and $x_0=0$ in Butcher's example
(see section \ref{Butcherexample}), we have to solve the equation
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)=\int_{0}^s \exp[x(s')] ds'
\end{eqnarray*}
which can be differentiated to give $x'(s)=\exp(x(s))$
with $x(0)=0$. This has the solution
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)=-\log(1-s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{s^n}{n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand, the corresponding homomorphism is
$\phi(t)=1/t!$ and the B-series for this problem is
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&
\sum_t \frac{s^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Comparing the last two results, we find
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{|t|=n} \alpha(t)=(n-1)!
\end{eqnarray*}
in other words, the number of heap-ordered trees
with $n$ vertices is $(n-1)!$.
\subsubsection{Derivative of inverse functions}
We can try to extend the last example to an arbitrary
function $f(x)$.
The equation to solve becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)=\int_{0}^s f[x(s')] ds',
\end{eqnarray*}
or $x'(s)=f(x(s))$ with $x(0)=0$.
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
S(x)=\int_{0}^x \frac{dy}{f(y)},
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives us $s=S(x)$, or $x(s)=S^{-1}(s)$, where
$S^{-1}$ is the inverse function of $S$.
If $f=\exp$, $S(x)=1-\exp(-x)$ and we confirm that
$x(s)=-\log(1-s)$.
We can use this result to
calculate the derivatives of a function $x(s)$,
given as the inverse of a function $S(x)$.
To do this, we define $f(x)=1/S'(x)$ and, using
Eq.(\ref{Butcherflow}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
x^{(n)}(0) &=&\sum_{|t|=n} \alpha(t) \delta_t,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta_t$ is calculated from $f(s)$ using
Eq.(\ref{defdeltatsimple}) in section \ref{sectiondeltat}.
This method can also be calculated to find the function $f$
satisfying given values for
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_n=\sum_{|t|=n} \alpha(t) \delta_t,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\delta_t$ is calculated from $f$. For instance,
if we want
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{|t|=n} \alpha(t) \delta_t=n!,
\end{eqnarray*}
we must take $f(s)=1+s^2$.
\subsubsection{Other sums over trees \label{sectionothersum}}
We give now further examples of sums over trees,
that will be used in the sequel.
For instance, assume that we need to compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
S=\sum_{|t|=n} \frac{\alpha(t)}{t!}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This term comes in the Butcher series with
$\phi(t)=1/(t!)^2$. Since this $\phi(t)$ is the square
of the previous one, the corresponding Runge-Kutta
method can be realized as
the tensor product of two ``simple integral methods''
(see section \ref{Butcherexample}).
In other words
\begin{eqnarray*}
a(u,u',v,v')&=&a(u,v) a(u',v')=1_{[0,u]}(v)1_{[0,u']}(v')
\quad b(u,u')=b(u)b(u')=1.
\end{eqnarray*}
and the Runge-Kutta method is now
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_{uu'}(s)&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^u dv \int_0^{u'} dv'f[X_{vv'}(s)] \\
x(s)&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1du \int_0^1du' f[X_{uu'}(s)].
\end{eqnarray*}
The corresponding homomorphism $\phi(t)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_{uu'}(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi_{uu'}(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&\int_0^u du_1 \int_0^{u'} du'_1
\phi_{u_1u'_1}(t_1)
\dots\int_0^u du_k \int_0^{u'} du'_k \phi_{u_ku'_k}(t_k)\\
\phi(t)&=&\int_0^1 du \int_0^1 du'\phi_{uu'}(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
The solutions of these equations are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_{uu'}(t)&=&\frac{|t|^2(uu')^{|t|-1}}{(t!)^2}\\
\phi(t)&=&\frac{1}{(t!)^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
so that, from Eq.(\ref{Bseries})
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_{uu'}(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\frac{\alpha(t)(uu')^{|t|}}{t!} \delta_t(s_0).
\end{eqnarray*}
The conclusion is that $X_{uu'}(s)$ is in fact a function
of $uu'$ and not of $u$ and $u'$.
More precisely, we know from the general formula Eq.(\ref{Bseries})
that the B-series for the solution of
$x(s)=x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1du \int_0^1du' f[X_{uu'}(s)]$ is
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&x_0+ \sum_t \frac{(s-s_0)^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\frac{\alpha(t)}{t!} \delta_t(s_0),
\end{eqnarray*}
so that $X_{uu'}(s)=x(s_0+(s-s_0)uu')$.
If we use the successive changes of variables $w=uu'$,
$v'=s_0+(s-s_0)w$ and $v=s_0+(s-s_0)u$ we find
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1du \int_0^1du' f[x(s_0+(s-s_0)uu')]\\
&=&x_0+(s-s_0)\int_0^1\frac{du}{u} \int_0^u dw f[x(s_0+(s-s_0)w)]\\
&=&x_0+\int_0^1\frac{du}{u} \int_{s_0}^{s_0+(s-s_0)u}
dv' f[x(v')]\\
&=&x_0+\int_{s_0}^{s}\frac{dv}{v-s_0} \int_{s_0}^{v}
dv' f[x(v')].
\end{eqnarray*}
With the initial values $x_0=s_0=0$ this gives us
\begin{eqnarray}
x(s) &=&\int_{0}^{s}\frac{dv}{v} \int_{0}^{v} dv' f[x(v')],
\label{doublefact}
\end{eqnarray}
or
$sx''+x'=f(x)$ with $x(0)=0$ and $x'(0)=f(0)$.
If we take again
$f(x)=\exp(x)$ we find
$sx''+x'=\exp(x)$ with $x(0)=0$ and $x'(0)=1$, so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)=-2\log(1-s/2)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{s^n}{n2^{n-1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Comparing this with the B-series
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&
\sum_t \frac{s^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\frac{\alpha(t)}{t!}
\end{eqnarray*}
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
S=\sum_{|t|=n} \frac{\alpha(t)}{t!}=\frac{(n-1)!}{2^{n-1}},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is the result found by Kreimer in \cite{Kreimer}
using combinatorial arguments.
As a final example, we can consider the Runge-Kutta method
$a(u,v)=1$, $b(u)=1$ which gives $\phi(t)=1$ for all trees $t$.
The equation for $x(s)$ is now a fixed point problem
$x(s)=s\exp(x(s))$, whose well-known solution is
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&
\sum_n \frac{s^n}{n!} n^{n-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{|t|=n} \alpha(t) t!=n^{n-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
These examples show that B-series can be used as
generating series for sums over trees.
\subsection{The antipode \label{sectionantipode}}
The Hopf algebra structure of the ART entails an antipode $S$.
If $\phi(t)$ is an homomorphism, the action of the antipode
on $\phi$ can be written as
$S(\phi)(t)=\phi(S(t))$.
If the Runge-Kutta method
for $\phi$ is $A_u$, $B$, then the Runge-Kutta method for
$\phi^S=S(\phi)$ is $A^S_u=A_u-B$, $B^S=-B$.
It is useful to see it working on simple cases:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi^S_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1=\phi_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})\\
\phi^S(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&B^S(\phi^S_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))=-B(\phi_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))=-\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})\\
\phi^S_u(\tdeux)&=&A^S_u(\phi^S_v(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))=A_u(\phi_v(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))-B(\phi_v(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))=
\phi_u(\tdeux)-\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})\\
\phi^S(\tdeux)&=&-B(\phi^S_u(\tdeux))=-\phi(\tdeux)+B(1)\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})=
-\phi(\tdeux)+\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{The convolution \label{sectionconvolution}}
The convolution of $\phi$ and $\phi'$ is defined as
$\phi''(t)=(\phi\star\phi')(t)=m[(\phi\otimes\phi')\Delta(t)]$.
Let $A_u$, $B$ and $A'_u$, $B'$ be the Runge-Kutta methods of,
respectively, $\phi(t)$ and $\phi'(t)$. To be specific, we
consider that $u$ varies from 0 to 1. Then
the Runge-Kutta method
for $\phi''$ is $A''_u$, $B''$, where $u$ varies from
0 to 2 and
\begin{eqnarray*}
A''_u(X_v)&=&A_u(X_v)\quad\mathrm{if}\quad 0\le u\le 1
\quad\mathrm{and}\quad 0\le v\le 1\\
A''_u(X_v)&=&0\quad\mathrm{if}\quad 0\le u\le 1
\quad\mathrm{and}\quad 1\le v\le 2\\
A''_u(X_v)&=&B(X_v) \quad\mathrm{if}\quad 1\le u\le 2
\quad\mathrm{and}\quad 0\le v\le 1\\
A''_u(X_v)&=&A'_{u-1}(X_{v-1}) \quad\mathrm{if}\quad 1\le u\le 2
\quad\mathrm{and}\quad 1\le v\le 2\\
B''(X_v)&=&B(X_v)\quad\mathrm{if}\quad 0\le v\le 1\\
B''(X_v)&=&B'(X_{v-1})\quad\mathrm{if}\quad 1\le v\le 2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Again, we show the formula in action:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi''_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi''(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&B(1)+B'(1)=\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})+\phi'(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})\\
\phi''_u(\tdeux)&=&A''_u(\phi''_v(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))=A_u(1) 1_{[0,1](u)}
+(B(1)+A'_{u-1}(1))1_{[1,2](u)}\\
\phi''(\tdeux)&=&B(A_u(1))+B'((B(1)+A'_{u-1}(1)))=
B(\phi_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))+B(1)B'(1)+B'(\phi'u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))\\
&=& \phi(\tdeux)+\phi(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})\phi'(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})+\phi'(\tdeux).
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Runge-Kutta methods for renormalization}
In this section, we shall follow closely Kreimer's paper
\cite{Kreimer} and define, for each operation on homomorphisms,
a corresponding transformation of the Runge-Kutta methods.
Instead of attempting a general theory, we consider a
specific example in detail.
\subsection{Runge-Kutta method for bare quantities}
We consider that a given bare physical quantity can be
calculated as a sum over trees, and that the corresponding
Runge-Kutta method has been found as
a pair of linear operators $A_u$ and $B$. The usual
combinatorial proof show that the solution of the equations
(we take $s_0=0$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_u(s) &=& x_0+s A_u[f(X_v(s))]\\
x(s) &=& x_0+s B[f(X_u(s))],
\end{eqnarray*}
is
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_u(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{s^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! A_u[\phi_v(t)] \delta_t\\
x(s)&=&x_0+\sum_t \frac{s^{|t|}}{|t|!}
\alpha(t) t! \phi(t) \delta_t,
\end{eqnarray*}
where, as usually,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi_u(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&A_u[\phi_{u_1}(t_1)]
\dots A_u[\phi_{u_k}(t_k)]\\
\phi(t)&=&B[\phi_u(t)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $x(s)$ is the sum giving the bare quantity of interest.
In the examples developed by Broadhurst and Kreimer \cite{Broadhurst},
the quantity of interest is
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(s)&=&\sum_t \frac{s^{|t|}}{|t|!} B_t,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $B_t$ is obtained recursively from given $B_n$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
B_\bullet &=& B_1 \nonumber\\
B_t &=& B_{|t|} \delta_{t_1} \delta_{t_2} \cdots \delta_{t_k}
\quad\mathrm{when}\quad t=B^+(t_1,t_2,\cdots,t_k).
\end{eqnarray}
In the renormalization problems considered by Broadhurst and Kreimer,
the $B_n$ are defined from a function
$L(\delta)$ regular (and equal to 1) at the origin, by
\begin{eqnarray*}
B_n &=&\frac{L(n\epsilon)}{n\epsilon}.
\end{eqnarray*}
A pair of operators giving $\phi(t)=B_t$ can be defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_u(X_v) &=& \frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_0^u L(\epsilon \frac{d}{dv}v)X_v,
\quad B(X_v)=A_1(X_v).
\end{eqnarray*}
The quantity of interest $x(s)$ is then obtained by tensoring
$A_u$ with the ``simple integral method'' to obtain $\phi(t)=B_t/t!$.
The only thing that we need in the following is the action of
$A_u$ on a monomial $v^{n-1}$
\begin{eqnarray}
A_u(v^{n-1}) &=& \frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_0^u L(\epsilon \frac{d}{dv}v)v^{n-1}=
\frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_0^u v^{n-1}dv L(n \epsilon )=B_n u^n. \label{actiondeAu}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{$S_R$, the ``renormalized antipode''}
In ref.\cite{Kreimer}, Kreimer defines recursively
a renormalized antipode\footnote{In Hopf algebra terms
$S_R(\phi)(t)=-R[\phi(t)+m[(S_R\otimes Id)(\phi\otimes \phi)P_2\Delta(t)]$.}
depending on a renormalization scheme $R$.
We take as an example the toy model used by Kreimer, where
$R[\phi]=\langle\phi\rangle$ is the projection of $\phi$ on
the pole part of the Laurent series in $\epsilon$ inside the
bracket.
Following the results of section \ref{sectionantipode},
the Runge-Kutta method for $S_R(\phi)$ can be obtained from the
Runge-Kutta method of $\phi$ by
$A^S_u(X)=A_u(X)-\langle A_1(X)\rangle $,
$B^S(X)=-\langle A_1(X)\rangle $.
Working out the first examples using Eq.(\ref{actiondeAu}), we find,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi^S_u(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&1\\
\phi^S(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&\langle A_1(1) \rangle=\langle B_1 \rangle\\
\phi^S_u(\tdeux)&=&A_u(\phi_v(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))-\langle A_1(\phi_v(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}))\rangle=
A_u(1)-\langle A_1(1)\rangle=B_1 u- \langle B_1 \rangle\\
\phi^S(\tdeux)&=&-\langle A_1(\phi^S_u(\tdeux))\rangle=
-\langle B_2 B_1 \rangle + \langle\langle B_1 \rangle B_1 \rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Renormalized quantities}
Finally, the renormalized quantities $x^R(s)$ are obtained from the
convolution of $S_R(\phi)$ with $\phi$.
To obtain the corresponding Runge-Kutta method, we use
the results of section \ref{sectionconvolution}. However,
the domain where $1\le u\le 2$ is not used, and the
Runge-Kutta method for the renormalized quantity is
$A^R_u(X)=A_u(X)-\langle A_1(X)\rangle $,
$B^R(X)=A_1(X)-\langle A_1(X)\rangle $.
It may seem surprising that such a simple equation
encodes the full combinatorial complexity of renormalization.
It is not even necessary to work examples out, because
$A^R_u(X)=A^S_u(X)$ so that $\phi^R_u(t)=\phi^S_u(t)$,
and the only difference comes from the action of $B^R$.
For a real calculation of $x^R(s)$,
we do not need $A^R_u$ and $B^R$ which give us $\phi(t)=\Gamma(t)$,
but the tensor product of this
method with the ``simple integral method'' to obtain
$\phi(t)=t! \Gamma(t)$.
In detail, the equation for the renormalized quantity
$x^R(s)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
X^R_{uu'}(s)&=&\frac{s}{\epsilon}\int_0^u dv \int_0^{u'} dv'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{vv'}(s)}-
\langle \frac{s}{\epsilon}\int_0^1 dv \int_0^{u'} dv'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{vv'}(s)}\rangle \\
x^R(s)&=&\frac{s}{\epsilon}\int_0^1 dv \int_0^{1} dv'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{vv'}(s)}-
\langle \frac{s}{\epsilon}\int_0^1 dv \int_0^{1} dv'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{vv'}(s)}\rangle.
\label{Req1}
\end{eqnarray}
For a general renormalization scheme $R$, one replaces
$\langle A_u(X) \rangle$ by $R[A_u(X)]$. Finally, Chen's
lemma for renormalization schemes \cite{Kreimer} is
obtained from Hairer and Wanner's theorem Eq.(\ref{Hairer2}).
\section{Renormalization of Kreimer's toy model}
In this section, we use Runge-Kutta methods to renormalized
explicitly Kreimer's toy model for even functions $L(\epsilon)$.
In \cite{Broadhurst}, remarkable properties of the renormalized sum
of diagrams with ``Connes-Moscovici weights'' were noticed.
\subsection{Equation for the renormalized quantity}
The role of the sum over $u'$ in Eq.(\ref{Req1}) is
to add a factor $1/t!$, as in
section{\ref{sectionothersum}}. Therefore, the same reasoning
can be used to show that $X^R_{uu'}(s)$ is in fact a function
of $su'$ and we write $X^R_{uu'}(s)=X^R_{u}(su')$, which defines
the function $X^R_{u}(s)$. The equation for $X^R_{u}(s)$ can be found
from Eq.(\ref{Req1}) and the relation $X^R_{u}(s)=X^R_{us}(1)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
X^R_{u}(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^u dv \int_0^{s} ds'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{v}(s')}-
\langle \frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^1 dv \int_0^{s} ds'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{v}(s')}\rangle \\
x^R(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^1 dv \int_0^{s} ds'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{v}(s')}-
\langle \frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^1 dv \int_0^{s} ds'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X_{v}(s')}\rangle.
\label{Req2}
\end{eqnarray}
To solve this equation, we expand $X^R_{u}(s)$ in a power series
over $u$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X^R_{u}(s)&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(s)u^n.
\end{eqnarray*}
A standard identity gives us
\begin{eqnarray*}
\exp(X^R_{u}(s))&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \lambda_n(a)u^n,\quad\mathrm{where}\\
\lambda_n(a)&=&\sum_{|\alpha|=n}\frac{a_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots a_n^{\alpha_n}}
{{\alpha_1}!\cdots{\alpha_n}!}\quad\mathrm{with}\quad
|\alpha|=a_1+2\alpha_2+\dots+n\alpha_n.
\end{eqnarray*}
$\lambda_n(a)$ depends on $s$ through its arguments $a_i(s)$.
The sets of $\alpha_i$ for a given $n$ can be obtained from the partitions
of $n$: $(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$, where
$\mu_1 \ge \cdots \ge \mu_n$ by $\alpha_n=\mu_n$,
$\alpha_i=\mu_i-\mu_{i+1}$ for $i<n$.
The first $\lambda_n(a)$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_0(a)&=&1\quad
\lambda_1(a)=a_1\quad
\lambda_2(a)=a_2+\frac{a_1^2}{2}\quad
\lambda_3(a)=a_3+a_1a_2+\frac{a_1^3}{6}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Solution of the equation}
Introducing the series expansions for $X^R_{u}(s)$ and
$\exp(X^R_{u}(s))$ into Eq.(\ref{Req2}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(s)u^n&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} B_{n+1}
\int_0^s e^{a_0(s')} \lambda_n(a) ds' u^{n+1}-
\langle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} B_{n+1}
\int_0^s e^{a_0(s')} \lambda_n(a) ds' \rangle
\end{eqnarray*}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
a_0(s)&=&-\langle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} B_{n+1}
\int_0^s e^{a_0(s')} \lambda_n(a) ds' \rangle\nonumber\\
a_n(s)&=&B_n \int_0^s e^{a_0(s')} \lambda_{n-1}(a) ds'\quad\mathrm{for}\quad n>0.
\label{eqa0an}
\end{eqnarray}
To solve this equation, we need to go back to the equation for the
bare quantity
\begin{eqnarray}
X^0_{u}(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^u dv \int_0^{s} ds'
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X^0_{v}(s')}.
\label{eqbare}
\end{eqnarray}
Again $X^0_{u}(s)$ is a function of $su$, we define
$X^0(s)=X^0_{s}(1)$ which satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
X^0(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^s \frac{du}{u} \int_0^{u} dv
L(\epsilon \partial_v v) e^{X^0(v)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The solution of this equation is given by the B-series
\begin{eqnarray}
X^0(s)&=&\sum_n {\bar{\alpha}}_n s^n\quad\mathrm{with}\quad
{\bar{\alpha}}_n = \sum_{|t|=n} \frac{\alpha(t)B_t}{|t|!}.
\label{bareeq}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, we can also expand $e^{X^0(v)}$ using
the functions $\lambda_n(\bar{a})$. Identifying both sides of
Eq.(\ref{bareeq}), we obtain the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bar{a}}_n&=&\frac{B_n}{n}\lambda_{n-1}(\bar{a}).\label{abar}
\end{eqnarray}
With this identity, we can now prove that, for the renormalized quantities,
\begin{eqnarray}
a_n(s)&=&(g(s))^n{\bar{a}}_n,\quad\mathrm{where}\quad g(s)=\int_0^s\exp(a_0(s'))ds'.
\label{aid}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\lambda_0(a)=1$ and ${\bar{a}}_n=B_1$, this equation is true for $n=1$, from
Eq.(\ref{eqa0an}). If Eq.(\ref{aid}) is true up to $n-1$, then
$\lambda_{n-1}(a)=(g(s))^{n-1}\lambda_{n-1}(\bar{a})$ and
the derivative of Eq.(\ref{eqa0an}) gives us
\begin{eqnarray*}
a'_n(s)&=&B_n e^{a_0(s)} \lambda_{n-1}(a)=
B_n g'(s) (g(s))^{n-1} \lambda_{n-1}(\bar{a})=n(g(s))^{n-1} \bar{a}_n,
\end{eqnarray*}
by Eq.(\ref{abar}). Integrating this equation with the condition $a_n(s)=0$
gives Eq.(\ref{aid}) at level $n$.
By this we have proved that the flow for the renormalized quantity is
a reparametrization of the flow for the bare quantity:
$X^R_u(s)=a_0(s)+X^0(u g(s))$ and
$X^R(s)=a_0(s)+X^0(g(s))$.
To determine $a_0(s)$ we proceed step by step. In Eq.(\ref{bareeq}) we
expand $L(\epsilon \partial_v v)$ over $\epsilon$.
The first term is just 1, and we obtain Eq.(\ref{doublefact}) with
the solution $x(s)=-2\log(1-s/(2\epsilon))$.
For the renormalized quantity, the most singular term
becomes $X^0(g(s))=-2\log(1-g(s)/(2\epsilon))$. Since $X^R(s)$ is regular,
this singular term must be compensated by a corresponding term in
$a_0(s)$. By equating the most singular terms we obtain
$a_0(s)=-2\log(1-g(s)/(2\epsilon))$. We know from Eq.(\ref{aid}) that
$a_0(s)=\log(g'(s))$, and we obtain the most singular terms as
the solution of $g'(s)=1/(1-g(s)/(2\epsilon))^2$, which is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(s)&=&\frac{s}{1+\frac{s}{2\epsilon}}\\
a_0(s)&=& -2\log(1+\frac{s}{2\epsilon}).
\end{eqnarray*}
By expanding $a_0(s)$ as a series in $s$, we obtain the most singular
term observed in \cite{Broadhurst} and proved in \cite{Kreimer}.
One notices that the singularity of the non-pertubative term
$a_0(s)$ is logarithmic, and much smoother than the singularities coming
from the expansion over $s$ (i.e. the perturbative expression).
\subsection{Differential equation for the finite part}
In general, one should proceed now with the next singular term.
To obtain it we denote $Y(s)=X^0(g(s))$, this change of variable gives
the equation for $Y(s)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^s \frac{g'(u)du}{g(u)} \int_0^{u} dv
g'(v) L(\epsilon+\epsilon \frac{g(v)}{g'(v)}
\partial_v ) e^{Y(v)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now we can write $Y(s)=X^R(s)-a_0(s)$, and notice that the term
$-a_0(s)$ on the left-hand side is compensated by a term on the
right-hand side where $L=1$ and $\exp(X^R(s))=1$.
We obtain the equation for $X^R(s)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X^R(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^s \frac{du}{u(1+\frac{u}{2\epsilon})}
\int_0^{u} dv\left[
\frac{1}{(1+\frac{v}{2\epsilon})^2}
L(\epsilon
\partial_v v+\frac{v^2}{2}
\partial_v){(1+\frac{v}{2\epsilon})}^2 e^{X^R(v)}
-1\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
The nice aspect of the previous equation is that it seems to
have a limit as $\epsilon$ goes to zero. In fact, it has a limit
when $L$ is even, as we shall show now.
Writing $\bar{X}(s)=\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}X^R(s)$, and
taking the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ in the previous equation,
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{X}(s)&=&2\int_0^s \frac{du}{u^2}
\int_0^{u} dv\left[
\frac{1}{v^2}
L(\frac{v^2}{2} \partial_v )v^2 e^{\bar{X}(v)}
-1\right],
\end{eqnarray*}
or, in differential form:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{2}(s^2\bar{X}'(s))'&=&\frac{1}{s^2}
L(\frac{s^2}{2}\frac{d}{ds})s^2 e^{\bar{X}(s)}
-1.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $\bar{X}(s)$ and $ L(\delta)$ are expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{X}(s)&=& \sum_{n=1}^\infty b_n s^n\quad\mathrm{and}\quad
L(\delta)= 1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty L_n \delta^n,\quad\mathrm{so that} \nonumber\\
L(\frac{s^2}{2}\frac{d}{ds})&=& 1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty L_n (\frac{s^2}{2}\frac{d}{ds})^n,
\label{renoreq}
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the following relation for the term in $s$:
$b_1s=(b_1+L_1/2)s$. If $L_1$ is not zero, we obtain a contradition and
must proceed with the withdrawal of divergences. For simplicity,
we shall assume that $L_1=0$. Then $b_1$ becomes a free parameter
of $\bar{X}(s)$. All terms $b_n$ with $n>1$ can now be
determined from $b_1$ and $L_n$ ($n>1$). All terms are regular.
In \cite{Broadhurst}, the function $L(\delta)$ was taken
even. Then $L_1=0$, and their results correspond to $b_1=0$.
Broadhurst and Kreimer have also used a function
$L(\epsilon,\delta)$. The present treatment can be
applied to this more general situation, with the
only change that
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_n=n!\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}
\frac{d^n}{d\delta^n} L(\epsilon,\delta).
\end{eqnarray*}
Clearly, Eq.(\ref{renoreq}) is much faster to solve than computing the sum
over trees. For instance, the expansion could be calculated up
to 20 loops (i.e. $b_{20}$) within a few seconds with a computer.
\subsection{Alternative point of view}
There is an alternative way to solve Eq.(\ref{eqbare}) for the
bare quantity. We define a function $f(s)$ from $L(\delta)$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(s)&=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{L(n\epsilon+\epsilon)}{n!} s^n=
L(\epsilon \frac{d}{ds}s) e^s.
\end{eqnarray*}
A relation between $f(s)$ and $L(\delta)$ can also be established
through the Mellin transforms of $f$ and $L$ as
$M(f)(z)=M(L)(\epsilon-\epsilon z)\Gamma(z)$.
With $f(s)$ we can write the equation for the bare quantity as
\begin{eqnarray}
X^0(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^s \frac{du}{u} \int_0^{u} dv
f(X^0(v)). \label{eqavecf}
\end{eqnarray}
Alternatively, one can go from $f$ to $L$ and
consider the results of the toy model as a method to
renormalize equations of the type (\ref{eqavecf}).
\section{n-dimensional problems}
For applications to classical field theory, we need to develop Runge-Kutta
methods for the n-dimensional analogue of the flow equation:
non-linear partial differential equations.
The purpose of the present section is to indicate how B-series
can be used for this case\footnote{Kreimer was independently aware
of the possibility to use B-series for non-linear partial differential
equations.}.
The method apply to equations of the form
$L\psi(\mathbf{r})= F[\psi(\mathbf{r})]$,
where $L$ is a differential operator (e.g.
the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation $\Delta\psi=\psi^3$).
\subsection{Formulation}
We need two starting elements: a function $\psi_0(\mathbf{r})$
which is the solution of $L\psi_0(\mathbf{r})=0$,
and a Green function $G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')$,
that is a solution of the equation
$L_rG(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')=\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')$,
with given boundary conditions. The function $\psi_0(\mathbf{r})$
will play the role of an initial value, and the Green function
will decide in which ``direction'' you move from the initial
value. It will also state, in some sense, the boundary conditions
of the solution $\psi(\mathbf{r})$.
Using these two functions, the differential equation
$L\psi(\mathbf{r})=F[\psi(\mathbf{r})]$ is transformed
into
$\psi(\mathbf{r})=\psi_0(\mathbf{r})+\int d\mathbf{r}'
G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')F[\psi(\mathbf{r}')]$. The action
of $L$ enables us to go from the second to the first equation.
The combinatorics is the same as for the standard
Runge-Kutta method, and the result is
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(\mathbf{r})&=&\psi_0(\mathbf{r})+\sum_t \frac{\alpha(t) t!}{|t|!}
\int d\mathbf{r}' G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')
\phi_{r'}(t),\label{Bseries_n}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_{r}(t)$ is defined recursively by
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_{r}(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&F[\psi_0(\mathbf{r})]\nonumber\\
\phi_{r}(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&F^{(k)}[\psi_0(\mathbf{r})]
\int dr_1 G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_1)\phi_{r_1}(t_1)
\dots \int dr_k G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_k)\phi_{r_k}(t_k). \label{Bphi_n}
\end{eqnarray}
If $\psi$ is a vector field, the solution is the same,
and equations (\ref{Bphi_n}) get indices:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi^i_{r}(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})&=&f^i[\psi_0(\mathbf{r})]\\
\phi^i_{r}(B^+(t_1\cdots t_k))&=&F^i_{j_1\dots j_k}[\psi_0(\mathbf{r})]
\int dr_1 G^{j_1}_{j'_1}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_1)\phi^{j'_1}_{r_1}(t_1)
\dots \int dr_k G^{j_k}_{j'_k}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_k)\phi^{j'_k}_{r_k}(t_k),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $G^i_j(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')$ is a component of the matrix Green function.
In the previous sections, the series (\ref{Bseries})
was written as a function of $\phi(t)$
(describing the effect of the Runge-Kutta method ($a$,$b$))
and $\delta_t$ (describing the effect of the
function $F[x]$). In the present case, this separation is no longer possible,
and $\phi(t)$ combines both pieces of information.
\subsection{Examples}
In this section, equation (\ref{Bseries_n}) is applied to the
one-dimensional problem and to the Schr\"odinger equation.
\subsubsection{The one-dimensional case}
It is instructive to observe how the one-dimensional case is
obtained from Eq.(\ref{Bseries_n}). The differential operator
is $L=d/ds$, so the initial function $\psi_0(s)$ must satisfy
$d/ds\psi_0(s)=0$: $\psi_0(s)$ is a constant that we write $x_0$.
For the Green function $G(s,s')$, we have the equation
$LG(s,s')=\delta(s-s')$, so $G(s,s')=\theta(s-s') +C(s')$,
where $\theta(s)$ is the step function and $C(s')$ a
function of $s'$. To determine $C(s')$,
we note that, in the ``simple integral method'',
there is an integral from $s_0$ to $s$.
From the Green function
$G(s,s')=\theta(s-s') -\theta(s_0-s')$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} G(s,s') f(s') ds'&=& \int_{s_0}^{s} f(s') ds'
\end{eqnarray*}
which is the required expression.
Now, the role of $\psi_0$ and the Green function is clear for the
one-dimensional case: $\psi_0$ gives the initial value $x_0$ and
$G$ specifies (among other things) the starting point $s_0$.
To complete the derivation of the one-dimensional case, we note
that $\psi_0(s)=x_0$ does not depend on $s$, so the
terms $F^{(k)}[\psi_0(s)]=F^{(k)}[x_0]$ are independent of $s$
and can be grouped together to build $\delta_t$ as in (\ref{defdeltat}).
On the other hand, the integration over Green functions build up
$(s-s_0)^{|t|}/t!$ and we obtain Eq.(\ref{Butcherflow}).
\subsubsection{The Schr\"odinger equation I}
If we write the Schr\"odinger equation as
$(E+\Delta)\psi(\mathbf{r})=V(\mathbf{r})\psi(\mathbf{r})$,
we can apply Eq.(\ref{Bseries_n}) with
$F[\psi]=V(\mathbf{r})\psi$. We take for $\phi_0(\mathbf{r})$
a solution of $(E+\Delta)\psi_0(\mathbf{r})=0$ and for
$G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')$ the scattering Green function
(e.g. $G(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')=-e^{i\sqrt{E}|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}/(4\pi
|\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}'|)$ in three dimensions).
The calculation of $\phi(t)$ is straightforward because, in a
such a linear problem, $F^{(k)}=0$ for $k>1$. Hence, the only
rooted trees that survive are those with one branch.
For these trees $\alpha(t)=1$ and $t!=|t|!$ and we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi(\mathbf{r})=\psi_0(\mathbf{r})+\int d\mathbf{r}_1
G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_1) V(\mathbf{r}_1)\psi_0(\mathbf{r}_1)+
\int d\mathbf{r}_1 d\mathbf{r}_2
G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_1) V(\mathbf{r}_1)
G(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2) V(\mathbf{r}_2)\psi_0(\mathbf{r}_2)+\cdots
\end{eqnarray*}
where we recognize the Born expansion of the Lippmann-Schwinger
equation.
\subsubsection{The Schr\"odinger equation II}
We can also treat the Schr\"odinger equation in an
alternative way as the system of equations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
(E+\Delta)\psi(\mathbf{r})&=& V(\rho)\psi(\mathbf{r}) \\
\frac{\partial \rho_i}{\partial r_j} &=& \delta_{ij}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This is a matrix differential equation. We give index 0 to the
first line, and index $i$ (running from 1 to the dimension of space)
to the other lines, called the space lines.
The purpose of the space lines is just to ensure that
$\rho=\mathbf{r}$. This is a standard trick to take the
$\mathbf{r}$ dependence of $V$ into account in the expansion
(see e.g. \cite{Hairer} p.143).
As initial value we take $\psi_0(\mathbf{r})$ and $\rho_0=0$,
the matrix Green function is diagonal and it is equal to the scattering
wave function for line 0 and to
$\theta(r_i-r'_i)-\theta(-r'_i)$ for line $i$.
For $\phi_r(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})$, the zero-th component is $V(0)\psi_0(\mathbf{r})$
and the space components are 1, for all the other trees, the
space components are 0 and the zero-th component of the simplest
tree is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_r(\tdeux)&=&V(0)^2 \int d\mathbf{r}'
G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') \psi_0(\mathbf{r}')+
\sum_i r_i\partial_i V(0) \psi_0(\mathbf{r})\\
\phi_r(\ttroisun)&=&V(0)^3 \int d\mathbf{r}_1 G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_1) +
V(0) \int d\mathbf{r}' G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')
\sum_i r'_i\partial_i V(0) \psi_0(\mathbf{r}')\\
\phi_r(\ttroisdeux)&=&2V(0)\sum_i r_i\partial_i V(0)
\int d\mathbf{r}'
G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') \psi_0(\mathbf{r}')+
\sum_{ij} r_i r_j\partial_i\partial_j V(0).
\end{eqnarray*}
The expressions become more and more complex, but their derivation
is made systematic by the recurrence relation.
\section{Conclusion}
Butcher's approach to Runge-Kutta methods was applied to some
simple renormalization problems. Since Cayley, it is clear
that the ART is ideally suited to treat differentials. This
was confirmed here by presenting a B-series solution of
a class of non-linear partial differential equations.
The recursive nature of B-series make them computationally
efficient: $\phi_u(t)$ can be obtained by a simple operation
from the $\phi_u(t')$ of smaller order $t'$. This is why
B-series can be automated and implemented in a computer.
Butcher's approach has still much to offer.
In the numerical analysis literature, B-series have
been generalized to treat flow equations on
Lie groups. The main change \cite{Munthe98}
is to replace the algebra of
rooted trees by the algebra of planar trees (also called
ordered trees \cite{Owren}).
The elementary differentials get then a ``quantized
calculus'' flavor, especially in the definition given
Munthe-Kaas \cite{Munthe95} in terms of commutators with
the vector field $F=f^i\partial_i$ (see also Ginocchio).
Using this generalized ART, extended work has been
carried out recently for the numerical solution of differential
equations on Lie groups (see Ref.\cite{Munthe98,Owren} and
the web site {\tt http://www.math.ntnu.no/num/synode}).
B-series have been generalized in other directions, e.g. stochastic differential
equations \cite{Komori} and differential equations
of the type $dy/ds=f(y,z)$, $g(y,z)=0$, which are called
differential algebraic equations \cite{HairerII}.
It is our hope that Butcher's approach can be applied to
quantum field theory.
\section{Acknowledgements}
It is my great pleasure to thank Dirk Kreimer and Alain
Connes for interest, encouragement and discussions.
\section{Appendix}
For further reference, the action of the coproduct and the
antipode on the first few trees are given here.
\subsection{Coproduct}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta 1 &=& 1 \otimes 1 \\
\Delta \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
&=& \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
\Delta \tdeux
&=& \tdeux\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
\Delta
\ttroisun
&=& \ttroisun\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\ttroisun +
\tdeux\otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\tdeux
\\
\Delta
\ttroisdeux
&=& \ttroisdeux\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\ttroisdeux +
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}+2
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\tdeux
\\
\Delta
\tquatreun
&=& \tquatreun\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\tquatreun +
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\ttroisun+
\ttroisun\otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}+
\tdeux\otimes
\tdeux
\\
\Delta
\tquatredeux
&=& \tquatredeux\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\tquatredeux + 2
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\ttroisun+
\ttroisdeux\otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\otimes
\tdeux
\\
\Delta
\tquatretrois
&=& \tquatretrois\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\tquatretrois +
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\ttroisun+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\ttroisdeux+
\tdeux\otimes
\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\otimes
\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tdeux\otimes\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
\Delta
\tquatrequatre
&=& \tquatrequatre\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\tquatrequatre +
3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\ttroisdeux+
3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\otimes
\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\otimes
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Antipode}
\begin{eqnarray*}
S(1) &=& 1 \\
S(\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$})
&=& -\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
S\left(\tdeux\right)
&=& -\tdeux+ \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
S\left( \ttroisun\right)
&=& -\ttroisun +2 \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tdeux -\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
S\left( \ttroisdeux\right)
&=& -\ttroisdeux +2 \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tdeux -\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}
\\
S\left( \tquatreun\right)
&=& -\tquatreun+2 \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \ttroisun+
\tdeux \tdeux-3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun
\\
S\left( \tquatredeux\right)
&=& -\tquatredeux+2 \parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \ttroisun+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \ttroisdeux-3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun
\\
S\left( \tquatretrois\right)
&=& -\,\tquatretrois+\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \ttroisun+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \ttroisdeux+
\tdeux \tdeux-3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun
\\
S\left( \tquatrequatre\right)
&=& -\tquatrequatre+
3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$} \ttroisdeux
-3\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\tdeux+
\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun\parbox{3mm}{$\bullet$}\tun
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{fmffile}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is now well known that the statistical analysis of weak lensing
effects on background galaxies due to foreground large scale
structure can be used as a probe of cosmological parameters,
such as the matter density and the cosmological constant, and the
projected mass distribution of the Universe (e.g.,
Bernadeau et al. 1997; Blandford et al. 1991;
Jain \& Seljak 1997; Kaiser 1998;
Miralda-Escud\'e 1991; Schneider et al. 1998).
Given that weak gravitational lensing results from the projected mass
distribution, the statistical properties of weak lensing,
such as the two point function of the shear distribution, reflects certain
aspects associated with the projected matter distribution.
With growing interest in weak gravitational lensing
surveys, several studies have now explored the accuracy to which
conventional cosmological parameters, such as the
mass density of the Universe and the cosmological constant
can be determined (e.g., Bartelmann \& Schneider 1999;
van Waerbeke et al. 1999).
Beyond primary cosmological parameters, such as the mass density,
the projected matter distribution is also affected by the presence of
neutrinos with non-zero masses. For example,
when non-zero mass neutrinos are present, a strong suppression of power
in the mass distribution occurs at scales below the
time-dependent free streaming scale (see, e.g., Hu \& Eisenstein 1998).
The detection of such suppression, say in the density power spectrum,
allows a direct measurement of the neutrino mass, in contrast to
various particle physics based neutrino experiments which only allow
measurements of mass differences, or splittings, between different
neutrino species (e.g., Super Kamiokande experiment; Fukuda et al. 1998).
The direct astrophysical probes of neutrino masses include
time-of-flight from a core-collapse supernova (e.g., Totani 1998;
Beacom \& Vogel 1998; see, Beacom 1999 for a review) and large scale
structure power spectrum. The suppression of power at small scales due to
neutrinos can easily
be investigated with the galaxy power spectrum from wide-field
redshift surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS\footnote{http://www.sdss.org/}; e.g., Hu et al. 1997), however,
such measurements are subjected to unknown biases between
galaxy and matter distribution and its evolution with redshift.
Therefore, an understanding of bias and its evolution may first
be necessary before making a reliable measurement of neutrino
mass using galaxy power spectra. On the contrary, a measurement
of the power spectrum unaffected by such effects allows
a strong possibility to measure the neutrino mass.
Such a possibility should soon be available with weak gravitational
lensing surveys through the
measured weak lensing power spectrum directly, which probes the matter
power spectrum through a convolution of the redshift distribution
of sources and distances.
Thus, it is expected that the weak lensing power
spectrum can also allow a determination of the suppression due to
neutrinos, and thus, a direct measurement of the neutrino mass.
In addition to neutrino mass, weak lensing also allows determination
of several cosmological parameters, including
matter density ($\Omega_m$) and the cosmological constant
($\Omega_\Lambda$). However, there are
large number of cosmological
probes that essentially measure these parameters. For
example, luminosity distance measurements to Type Ia supernovae
at high redshifts and gravitational lensing statistics
allow the determination of
$\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ (e.g., Cooray et al. 1998;
Perlmutter et al. 1998; Riess et al. 1998),
or rather $\Omega_m-\Omega_\Lambda$,
while the location of the first Doppler peak in the cosmic microwave
background (CMB) power spectrum allows a determination of these two
quantities in the orthogonal direction ($\Omega_m+\Omega_\Lambda$;
White 1998).
When combined (e.g., Lineweaver 1998),
these two parameters can be known to a high accuracy
reaching a level of $\sim$ 5\%, when the expected measurements on
SNe and CMB experiments over the next decade, such as MAP, are
considered (e.g.,
Tegmark et al. 1998). Since these measurements are not
sensitive to neutrinos, therefore, it is necessary that one returns to
probes which are strongly sensitive to neutrinos to obtain important
cosmological information on their presence. This is the primary
motivation of this paper: weak lensing is highly suitable
for a neutrino mass measurement when compared to various other probes
of cosmology, including CMB.
The direct measurement of galaxy power spectrum
also allows a measurement of neutrino mass, as has been discussed in
Hu et al. (1997), however as discussed
above, such a measurement can be contaminated by bias
and its evolution.
The other motivation for this paper comes through
the cosmological importance of neutrinos (see, Ma 1999 for a recent
review on this subject). Current upper bounds on neutrino masses
range from 23 eV based on SN 1987A neutrino arrival time delays
to 4.4 eV using recent oscillation experiments, assuming that
3 degenerate neutrino species are present (Vernon Barger,
priv. communication; Fogli et al. 1997. Recently, Croft et al.
(1999) determined that $m_\nu < 5.5$ eV at the 95\% level using
the Ly$\alpha$ forest for all $\Omega_m$ values and
$m_\nu < 2.4 (\Omega_m/0.17 - 1)$ eV for $0.2 \la \Omega_m \la 0.5$
(95\% confidence). A rather definite upper limit on
neutrino mass is 94 eV, which is the mass limit to
produce a normalized cosmological mass density of 1, while
according to Ma (1999), a rather conservative
cosmological limit on neutrino
mass presently is $\sim$ 5 eV.
However, apart from these limits, several
studies still suggest the possibility that the neutrino
mass can be as high as 15 eV (e.g., Shi \& Fuller 1999), therefore,
it is safe to say that neutrino mass or limit on its mass is not
strongly constrained. The neutrino mass is one of the important
cosmological parameters, and thus, it is necessary that suitable
probes which allow this measurement, beyond mass splitting
measurements allowed by particle physics experiments,
be studied.
In this paper, we explore the possibility for a neutrino
mass measurement with weak lensing surveys and suggest that weak lensing
can be used as a strong probe of the neutrino mass, provided
that one has adequate knowledge on
the uncertainties of basic cosmological parameters will other
techniques. In a recent paper, Hu \& Tegmark (1999)
explored the full parameter space of wide-field weak lensing surveys combined
with future cosmic microwave background (CMB) satellites.
A recent review on weak lensing could be found in Mellier (1998).
In Sect.~2, we discuss the effect of neutrinos in the
weak lensing convergence power spectrum and calculate accuracies
to which the neutrino mass can be determined.
We follow the conventions that the Hubble constant,
$H_0$, is 100\,$h$\ km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ and
$\Omega_i$ is the fraction of the critical
density contributed by the $i$th energy component: $b$ baryons, $\nu$
neutrinos, $m$ all matter species (including baryons and neutrinos)
and $\Lambda$ cosmological constant.
\section{Weak Lensing Power Spectrum}
\subsection{Effective Convergence Power Spectrum}
Following Kaiser (1998) and Jain \& Seljak (1997), we can write the
power spectrum of convergence due to weak gravitational lensing as:
\begin{equation}
P_\kappa(l) = l^4 \int d\chi \frac{g^2(\chi)}{r^6(\chi)}
P_\Phi\left(\frac{l}{r(\chi)},\chi\right),
\end{equation}
where $\chi$ is the radial comoving distance related to redshift
$z$ through:
\begin{equation}
\chi(z) = \frac{c}{H_0}\int_{0}^{z} dz' \left[ \Omega_m (1+z')^3 +
\Omega_k (1+z')^2 + \Omega_\Lambda \right]^{-1/2},
\end{equation}
and $r(\chi)$ is the comoving angular diameter distance
written as $r(\chi) = 1/\sqrt{-K} \sin \sqrt{-K}\chi,\chi,
1/\sqrt{K}\sinh \sqrt{K}\chi$ for closed, flat and open models
respectively with $K = (1-\Omega_{\rm tot})H_0^2/c^2$.
In Eq.~1, $P_\Phi(k=\frac{l}{r(\chi)},\chi)$ is the time-dependent
three dimensional power spectrum of the Newtonian potential
which is related to the density power spectrum, $P_\delta(k)$, through the
Poisson's equation (e.g., Eq.~2.6 of Schneider et al. 1998)
and $g(\chi)$ weights the background source distribution by the
lensing probability:
\begin{equation}
g(\chi) = r(\chi) \int_{\chi}^{\chi_H}
\frac{r(\chi'-\chi)}{r(\chi')} W_\chi(\chi')
d\chi'.
\end{equation}
Here, $\chi_H$ is the comoving distance to the horizon.
Following Kaiser (1998) and Hu \& Tegmark (1999),
we can write the expected uncertainties in the weak lensing
convergence power spectrum as:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(P_\kappa)(l) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{(2\l+1)f_{\rm sky}}}\left(
P_\kappa(l) + \frac{\langle \gamma^2 \rangle}{n_{\rm mag}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $f_{\rm sky}$ is the fraction of the sky covered by a survey,
$\sqrt{\langle \gamma^2 \rangle} \sim 0.4$ is the intrinsic non-zero
ellipticity of background galaxies and $n_{\rm mag}$
is the surface density of galaxies down to the magnitude limit
of the survey. Thus, Eq.~5, accounts for three sources of noise in the
weak lensing power spectrum: cosmic variance, shot-noise in the
ellipticity measurements and the number of galaxies available to make such
measurements from which the weak lensing properties are
derived (see, e.g., Schneider et al. 1998 and Kaiser 1998 for further details).
We take $n_{\rm mag}$ to be $6.5 \times 10^{8}$ sr$^{-1}$
down to R magnitude of 25 and $4 \times 10^{9}$ sr$^{-1}$ down to
R of 27, which were determined based on galaxy number counts of deep
surveys such as the Hubble Deep Field.
Following Schneider et al. (1998), we parameterize the source
distribution, $W_\chi(\chi)$, as a function of redshift,
$W_z(z)$:
\begin{equation}
W_z(z) =
\frac{\beta}{\Gamma\left[\frac{1+\alpha}{\beta}\right] z_0} \left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^\alpha
\exp\left[-\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^\beta\right].
\end{equation}
Such a distribution has been observed to provide a good fit to the
observed redshift distribution of galaxies (e.g., Smail et al. 1995).
\subsection{Linear and Nonlinear Power Spectra}
Since we are considering non-zero mass neutrinos, it is necessary that
both a linear and a nonlinear power spectrum which takes in
to account for such neutrinos be considered. In order to obtain the
linear power spectrum, we follow Hu \&
Eisenstein (1998) and Eisenstein \& Hu (1999)
and consider the MDM (mixed dark matter) transfer
and growth functions appropriate for massive neutrinos
as well as baryons. We use fitting formulae presented therein which agree
with numerical calculations at a level of 1\%. Both neutrinos
and baryons affect the standard power spectrum by
suppressing power at small scales below the free-streaming length.
The small scale suppression due to neutrinos can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\Delta P}{P}\right) \sim -8\frac{\Omega_\nu}{\Omega_m}
\sim
-0.8\left(\frac{m_\nu}{{\rm 1\,eV}}\right)\left(\frac{0.1N}{\Omega_m
h^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of degenerate neutrinos.
Assuming the standard model for neutrinos with a temperature $(4/11)^{1/3}$
that of the CMB, we can write $\Omega_\nu$ based on neutrino
mass, $m_\nu$ (in eV), and the number of degenerate neutrino species,
$N$, as $\Omega_\nu = N(m_\nu/94)h^{-2}$. We assume integer number of
neutrino species that can amount up to three.
The suppression of
power is proportional to the ratio of hot matter density of neutrinos
to cold matter density; in low $\Omega_m$ cosmological models,
currently preferred by observations, the suppression of power is
much larger than in an Einstein-de Sitter universe with the same
amount of neutrinos. In fact, for low $\Omega_m$ models, massive
neutrinos of mass $\sim$ 1 eV, contribute to a 100\% suppression of
power compared with no neutrinos.
In addition to the linear power spectrum,
given the time-dependence, it is necessary that the non-linear
evolution of the density power spectrum be fully taken into account
when calculating the convergence power spectrum given in Eq.~1. The
importance of the non linear evolution of the power spectrum on weak
lensing statistics was first discussed in Jain \& Seljak (1997)
for standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological models involving
$\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$.
There are several approaches to obtain the nonlinear evolution,
however, for analytical calculations, fitting functions
are strongly preferred over detailed numerical work.
In Peacock \& Dodds (1996), the evolved density power spectrum
was related to the linear power spectrum through a function
$F(x)$, where $x$ was calibrated against numerical simulations
in standard CDM models. According to Peacock \& Dodds (1996), the
nonlinear power spectrum $P_\delta$ is related to the linear power
spectrum, $P_\delta^L(k_L)$, through: $k^3P_\delta(k)/(2\pi^2) =
F\left[k_L^3P_\delta^L(k_L)/(2\pi^2)\right]$ where $k_L =
\left[1+ k^3P_\delta(k)/(2\pi^2)\right]^{-1/3}k$.
We refer the reader to Peacock \& Dodds (1996) for the functional
form of $F(x)$.
Since we are now allowing for the presence of
massive neutrinos, as well as baryons,
it is necessary that we consider whether the fitting
function given in Peacock \& Dodds (1996) is reliable for the
present calculation as these two species were not included in their
simulations; Smith et al. (1998) compared the
Peacock \& Dodds (1996) formulation against
MDM numerical simulations and suggested a possible agreement
between the two when spectral index for Peacock \& Dodds (1996)
fitting formula was calculated using MDM power spectrum.
However, recently, Ma (1998) suggested that this agreement was
only due to poor resolution of numerical simulations used in
Smith et al. (1998). According to Ma (1998), Peacock \& Dodds
(1996) formulation disagrees with numerical data at the level of
10\% to 50\%. Therefore, instead of the Peacock \& Dodds (1996)
approach, we use the fitting function given in Ma (1998) in the present
calculation which was now shown to agree with numerical simulations at a
level of 3\% to 10\% for $k \la 10\; h$ Mpc$^{-1}$
out to a redshift of $\sim 4$. For higher scales and redshifts,
agreement is only reached at a level of 15\% against
numerical simulations. For the present calculation
involving a redshift distribution that peaks at redshifts lower
than 4 with scales of interest lower than 10 $h^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
the fitted formulation is reasonably adequate.
Since this fitting formulae is still not widely used,
compared to Peacock \& Dodds (1996)
formulae, we reproduce them here for interested readers.
The nonlinear power spectrum is related to the linear power spectrum
through (Ma 1998):
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\Delta(k)\over \Delta_L(k_L)} = G\left({\Delta_L(k_L) \over
g_0^{1.5}\,\sigma_8^\beta} \right) \,,\nonumber\\ &&
G(x)=[1+\ln(1+0.5\,x)]\,{1+0.02\,x^4 + c_1\,x^8/g^3 \over
1+c_2\,x^{7.5}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta(k)\equiv k^3P_\delta(k)/(2\pi^2)$ is the density variance in the
linear and nonlinear regimes\footnote{The notations used
by Peacock \& Dodds (1996) and Ma (1998) differs in that $P(k)$ defined
in Ma (1998) refers to $P(k)/(2\pi)^3$ in Peacock \& Dodds (1996).}.
Similar to Peacock \& Dodds (1996),
the nonlinear scale is related to the linear scale through:
\begin{equation}
k_L =\left[1+ \Delta(k)\right]^{-1/3}k.
\end{equation}
Instead of the effective spectral index $n_{\rm eff}$ used in
Peacock \& Dodds (1996), the formalism uses $\sigma_8$
which is the rms linear mass fluctuation on $8\,h^{-1}$ Mpc scale
evaluated at the redshift of interest.
The numerical simulations suggest that $n_{\rm eff}+3$ is related to
$\sigma_8$ through $n_{\rm eff}+3 \sim \sigma_8^\beta$ where
$\beta=0.7+10\Omega_\nu^2$. The functions $g_0=g(\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda)$ and
$g=g(\Omega_m(z),\Omega_\Lambda(z))$ are,
respectively, the relative growth factor for
the linear density field evaluated at present
and at redshift $z$, for a model with a
present-day matter density $\Omega_m$ and a cosmological constant
$\Omega_\Lambda$. A fitting formula for
$g(\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda)$ is (Carroll et al. 1992):
\begin{eqnarray}
&& g ={5\over 2}\Omega_m(z) \, \\ && [
\Omega_m(z)^{4/7}-\Omega_\Lambda(z)+\left(1+ \Omega_m(z)/2\right) \left(1+ \Omega_\Lambda(z)/70
\right)]^{-1}\, \nonumber .
\end{eqnarray}
According to Ma (1998), for CDM and LCDM models, a
good fit is given by $c_1=1.08\times 10^{-4}$ and $c_2=2.10\times
10^{-5}$, while $c_1=3.16\times 10^{-3}$
and $c_2=3.49\times 10^{-4}$ for MDM models with $\Omega_\nu$
of $\sim$ 0.1 and $c_1 =6.96\times 10^{-3}$
and $c_2=4.39\times 10^{-4}$ for MDM models with $\Omega_\nu$
of $\sim$ 0.2. For all other $\Omega_\nu$ values, usually less than
0.1 for neutrino masses of current interest, we interpolate between
the published values of $c_1$ and $c_2$ by Ma (1998). This procedure
should be approximate, but for higher precision, numerical simulations
would be required to determine $c_1$ and $c_2$ at individual $\Omega_\nu$
values. In general, the weak lensing convergence power spectrum depends on six
cosmological parameters: $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Omega_b$,
$\Omega_\nu$, $n_s$ the primordial scalar tilt and $\delta_H$
the normalization of the density power spectrum.
Also, throughout this
paper, we take a flat model in which $\Omega_m+\Omega_\Lambda=1$.
Such a cosmology is motivated by both inflationary scenarios
and current observational data.
For $\delta_H$ we use COBE normalizations as presented by
Bunn \& White (1997) and also consider galaxy cluster based
normalizations, $\sigma_8$, from Viana \& Liddle (1998).
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig1.eps,width=5.0in,angle=-90}}
\caption{Weak Lensing Power Spectrum for two COBE normalized models
involving non-zero mass neutrinos. The upper set of curves correspond
to a flat cosmological model involving $\Omega_m=0.75$,
$\Omega_b=0.05$, $h=0.65$, $n_s=1$, while the lower set of curves are
for $\Omega_m=0.35$ with other parameters as above. In {\it grey},
we show weak lensing power spectra using Peacock \& Dodds
(1996) fitting function for nonlinear evolution of the power spectrum,
calculated assuming its validity for MDM cosmologies, while
dark lines show weak lensing power spectra
for recently updated fitting functions for MDM
cosmologies by Ma (1998). In {\it dot-dashed} lines, we show
expected errors in the power spectrum measurement from
a weak lensing survey of 25 $\times$ 25 deg$^{2}$ down to the
magnitude limits of 25 in R. Such a survey is expected to be available
in near future with wide-field cameras such as MEGACAM (Boulade et al. 1998).}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~1, we show two sets of COBE normalized weak lensing power spectra
considering the presence of non-zero mass neutrinos. The upper and
lower curves represent two cosmological models with high and low
$\Omega_m$ values and computed assuming the redshift of
background sources as given in Eq.~4, with $\beta=1.5$ and $\alpha=2.0$.
As shown, non-zero mass neutrinos suppress power
at large $l$ values, and this effect is significant for low
$\Omega_m$ models. This is primarily due to that fact that the
suppression of power is directly proportional to the ratio of
$\Omega_\nu/\Omega_m$. In addition, we have also
shown the expected 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the power spectrum
measurement for a survey of size 625 deg$^{2}$ down to magnitude
limit of 25 in R. It is likely that weak lensing surveys down
to R of 25 within an area of 100 deg$^2$ will be available in
the near future, and that
the area coverage would steadily grow as high as several thousand
square degrees over the next decade.
As shown in Fig.~1, reliable measurements of the power spectrum
is likely when $l$ is between 100 and 3000. This is the same range in
which neutrinos suppress power. Such effects do not exist, for
example, in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum;
low redshift probes of the matter power spectrum provide ideal ways to weigh
neutrinos.
\subsection{Cosmic Confusion?}
However, there are alternative possibilities which can mimic
neutrinos. In Fig.~2, as examples, we illustrate two possibilities
which can produce a similar power spectrum as a model
involving $\Omega_m$ of 0.35 and $m_\nu$ of 0.7 eV;
When $m_\nu$ is 1 eV, increasing the primordial scalar tilt by 30\% can
mimic the original power spectrum, while in a model with zero mass
neutrinos, increasing the baryon content by 80\% can produce essentially
the original power spectrum. Such effects are essentially what can be
described as {\it cosmic confusion}, and thus, careful measurements of
cosmological parameters are needed to weigh neutrinos even with weak
lensing.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig2.eps,width=3.6in,angle=-90}}
\caption{Cosmic confusion: Two alternate models involving
changes in the baryon content or the scalar tilt produce essentially the
same power spectrum as a model involving 0.7 eV neutrinos. The {\it grey}
curves are same as Fig.~1.}
\end{figure}
\section{Neutrino Mass Measurement}
In order to investigate the possibility for a neutrino mass
measurement, we consider the so-called Fisher information matrix
(e.g., Tegmark et al. 1997) with six cosmological parameters
that define the weak lensing
power spectrum. The Fisher matrix $F$ can be written as:
\begin{equation}
F_{ij} = -\left< \partial^2 \ln L \over \partial p_i \partial p_j
\right>_{\bf x},
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the likelihood of observing data set ${\bf x}$
given the parameters $p_1 \ldots p_n$.
Following the Cram\'er-Rao inequality,
no unbiased method can measure the {\it i}th parameter
with standard deviation less than $(F_{ii})^{-1/2}$ if other parameters
are known, and less than $[(F^{-1})_{ii}]^{1/2}$ if other parameters
are estimated from the data as well. Since Eq.~6 is usually
calculated assuming a prior cosmological model,
the estimated errors on the parameters of this
underlying model can be dependent on prior assumptions.
Assuming a Gaussian and uncorrelated distribution for uncertainties, one
can easily derive the Fisher matrix for weak lensing as\footnote
{Note the minor correction to Eq.~4 of Hu \& Tegmark (1999)}:
\begin{equation}
F_{ij} = \sum_{l=l_{\rm min}}^{l_{\rm max}} \frac{f_{\rm sky} (2l
+1)}{2 \left(P_\kappa(l)+\frac{\langle \gamma^2 \rangle}{n_{\rm mag}}\right)^2}
\frac{\partial P_\kappa(l)}{\partial p_i}
\frac{\partial P_\kappa(l)}{\partial p_j}.
\end{equation}
As illustrated in Fig.~2, in order to make a reliable measurement
of neutrino mass, it is necessary that one consider external
measurements of cosmological parameters. Such measurements can come from
variety of probes such as Type Ia supernovae, galaxy clusters, CMB,
gravitational lensing etc. Here, we take both a conservative approach
with large uncertainties for the cosmological parameters based on
other techniques and a more optimistic approach motivated by the
expected uncertainties from future surveys.
In our conservative model, we use following errors:
$\sigma(\Omega_m)=0.2$, $\sigma(\Omega_b) = 0.1 \Omega_b$,
$\sigma(h) =0.2$, $\sigma(n_s)=0.1$, $\sigma(\ln \delta_H) = 0.5$,
while in our optimistic model, we use
$\sigma(\Omega_m)=0.07$, $\sigma(\Omega_b) = 0.0025h^{-2}$,
$\sigma(h) =0.1$, $\sigma(n_s)=0.06$, $\sigma(\ln \delta_H) = 0.3$.
These errors are in fact worser than what is expected to be measured
from PLANCK\footnote{http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck/; also, ESA document D/SCI(96)3.},
but is similar to what could be achieved with
a mission such as MAP\footnote{http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/}. We consider
a fiducial model in which
$\Omega_b=0.019$, consistent with current observations, $h=0.65$ and
$n_s=1.0$ and
normalization based on COBE. In addition, we also consider an
alternative normalization to the power spectrum based on measurements
of $\sigma_8$ ($=0.56\Omega_m^{-0.47}$) following
Viana \& Liddle (1998). We also consider variations to the above
fudicial model and marginalize over the
uncertainties to obtain the 2$\sigma$ detection limit of neutrinos for
various weak lensing surveys. We only use the information on
the power spectrum between $l$ values of 100 and 5000. At $l$ values
below 100, cosmic variance dominate the measurement while
at $l > 5000$ the finite number of galaxies and their ellipticies
contribute to the increase in power spectrum measurement uncertainties.
In Fig.~3, we summarize our results: solid lines show the
expected 2$\sigma$ detection limit for our conservative errors
while dashed lines show the detection limits for more optimistic
errors. The dot-dashed line is for models in which the matter power
spectrum is normalized to 8 h$^{-1}$ Mpc scales. The high dependence
of its value and error on $\Omega_m$ causes the
$\sigma_8$ normalized limits to be different
from those in which power spectra are normalized to COBE measurements.
In Fig.~3, we have shown the limits assuming a survey of 100 $\times$
100 sqr. degrees down to a R band magnitude of 25.
However, for surveys with different areas,
especially for surveys in near future with small coverage,
the limits can be scaled by the reduction factor
in the observed area (see, Eq.~12). We assume uncorrelated errors in the
weak lensing power spectrum measurement.
For low $\Omega_m$ models ($\la 0.5$) normalized
to COBE, and using our conservative errors,
we can write the 2 $\sigma$ detection
limit on the neutrino mass as:
\begin{equation}
m_\nu^{2\sigma}
\sim 5.5 \left(\frac{\Omega_mh^2}{0.1 N}\right)^{0.8}
\left(\frac{10}{\theta_s}\right).
\end{equation}
This 2 $\sigma$ detection limit is comparable to current upper limits
at the 2 $\sigma$ level on the neutrino mass. Using more optimistic
errors decreases this limit by a factor of 2 to 3 depending
on $\Omega_m$, however, to obtain such optimistic errors on
cosmological parameters one require accurate measurements on the
CMB power spectrum such as to the level of MAP satellite.
In making this prediction we have assumed that the weak lensing
power spectrum can be measured to the expected uncertainty predicted
by simple arguments involving errors in ellipticities and
cosmic confusion and that the measurements are uncorrelated.
Also, in order to obtain a reliable measurement of the
weak lensing power spectrum, one require additional knowledge
on the redshift distribution of sources. Such information is
likely to be adequately obtained with photometric redshift
measurements of color data or by template fitting
techniques that has been developed for multicolor
surveys (e.g., Hogg et al. 1998). The accuracy to which
such measurements can be made should be adequate, however, if
no multicolor data is available then this may not be possible.
Therefore, it is likely that such a {\it clean} measurement of the weak lensing
power spectrum will not be directly possible in the near future.
In order to consider
such affects, we increased the expected uncertainties in the power
spectrum by a factor of 2 beyond what is predicted for a survey of
100 sqr. degrees down to a R band magnitude of 25. The expected
neutrino mass limit increases by an amount consistent with
what is expected from the Fisher matrix formalism. Even in such a
scenario with a poorly measured power spectrum, one can still put
interesting limits on the neutrino mass.
A small area survey such as 10 $\times$ 10
sqr. degrees is likely to be feasible
in the near future with upcoming observations from wide
field CCD cameras. There are several such instruments currently
either in the design or manufacturing stages: MEGACAM\footnote{
http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr:2001/projects/megacam/} which
will make observations from the Canada France Hawaii Telescope
(CFHT; Boulade et al. 1998), VLT-Survey-Telescope\footnote{
http://oacosf.na.astro.it/vst/} (VST). Other than these surveys,
which are likely to first produce deep weak lensing surveys over
small areas, two wide-field shallow surveys are currently ongoing
at optical (SDSS; Stebbins et al. 1997) and radio (FIRST;
Kamionkowski et al. 1997), however, it is still unclear as to what accuracy
these imaging data can be used for weak lensing studies.
Still, assuming that SDSS can in fact make weak lensing measurements
down to a R band magnitude of 22, we find that given its wide field
coverage, it can also be used to detect neutrinos down to a mass limit
of $\sim$ 3 eV at the 2$\sigma$ level,
or to put interesting limits at the same mass threshold.
For an ultimate survey of $100 \times 100$ deg$^2$, weak lensing
allows a detection of neutrinos down to a mass of $\sim$ 0.5 eV
when $\Omega_m \sim 0.3$ and $h \sim 0.65$. With expected errors
from CMB satellites, this limit can be lowered by a factor of 3 to 4
allowing a possibility for weak lensing surveys to probe neutrinos
with mass lower than 0.1 eV. These conclusions, generally, are
consistent with what was found by Hu \& Tegmark (1999); minor
differences are likely to arise from the fact that the present study
and Hu \& Tegmark (1999) used different fitting functions to describe
the non linear evolution of the potential power spectrum and
that fudicial cosmological models may be different.
We note here that using MAP
or PLANCK data with galaxy
redshift surveys such as from SDSS, and no weak lensing
measurements, only allow the determination of neutrino mass
to a limit of $\sim$ 1 eV and 0.3 eV respectively (Hu et al. 1997).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig3.eps,width=4.1in,angle=90}}
\caption{Expected 2$\sigma$ detection limit for 100 $\times$ 100 deg.$^2$ weak
lensing survey down to a magnitude limit of 25, assuming
a spatially flat Universe with a scalar tilt of 1. Solid line
represents detection with our conservative errors while
the dashed line represent detection with more optimistic errors.
The dot-dashed line is for models involving normalizations based
on current measurements of $\sigma_8$ and using more optimistic
errors.}
\end{figure}
Returning to much smaller surveys, we have only studied the accuracy to
which the neutrino mass can be measured. However, in making such
measurements one does not lose information to make other measurements
as well. For example, the conservative errors we assumed on other
cosmological parameters can also be improved by factors of 2 to 3 when
information on these parameters are also derived with weak lensing.
Also, one can abandon the assumption of a spatially flat
Universe, and determine the value of the cosmological constant
directly from weak lensing data, while also putting a limit on
the neutrino mass. However, if the assumption on a spatially
flat Universe is dropped in order to measure $\Omega_\Lambda$, then
the limit to which neutrino mass can be measured increases by a
factor of $\sim$ 1.5 for surveys of size 100 sqr. degrees. For now,
if one to measure or improve all other cosmological parameters
that can be studied with weak lensing surveys (and listed in
Sect.~2.1), then it is safe to say that neutrinos down to a mass limit of
$\sim$ 8 eV can be measured with weak lensing surveys of size 100
sqr. degrees down to a R band magnitude of 25. Such a possibility will
definitely be available with upcoming surveys from
MEGACAM. For still smaller surveys, such as 10 sqr. degrees, if one
attempts to make all cosmological measurements, such as
$\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ interesting limits on neutrino
mass can only be obtained at a mass level greater than 25 eV.
Since such neutrino masses may be ruled out, it is safe to ignore the
presence of neutrinos when making measurements with much smaller surveys.
Such surveys are likely to be first available with wide-field cameras,
with the coverage increasing afterwards.
\section{Discussion \& Summary}
Here, we have considered the possibility for a neutrino mass measurement
using weak gravitational lensing of background sources due
to foreground large scale structure. For survey of size 100
deg$^2$, neutrinos with masses greater than $\sim$ 5.5 eV could easily be
detected. This detection limit is comparable to the current
cosmological limits on neutrino mass, such as from the Ly$\alpha$ forest.
When compared to various ongoing experiments
to detect neutrinos, the advantage of weak lensing
is that one can directly obtain a measure of mass rather than mass
difference between two neutrino species.
For typical surveys of size $\sim$ ten square degrees, ignoring the
presence of neutrinos can lead to biased estimates for cosmological
parameters, e.g., cosmological mass density can be underestimated
by a factor as high as $\sim$ 15\% if neutrinos
with mass 5 eV are in fact present. However, if such weak lensing
surveys are solely used for the derivation of parameters such
as cosmological mass density, than the accuracy to which such
derivations can be made is less than the bias produced by
neutrinos. Therefore, for small area
surveys, the presence of neutrinos can be
safely ignored (assuming that their masses is less than $\sim$ 5 eV or so).
However, armed with cosmological parameters from other complimentary
techniques, even such small weak lensing surveys allow a strong
possibility to investigate the presence of non-zero mass neutrinos.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We acknowledge useful discussions with Wayne Hu
and Dragan Huterer. Wayne Hu is also thanked for communicating
the fitting code to evaluate the MDM transfer function.
We also thank an anonymous referee for comments which led to
several improvements in the presentation.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Massive black hole s (MBHs) have been postulated in quasars and active galaxies
(Lynden-Bell 1969, Rees 1984).
Evidence for the existence of MBHs has recently been found in the center of
our Galaxy (Ghez et al.\ 1998, Genzel et al.\ 1997) and in the weakly active galaxy
NGC 4258 (Miyoshi et al.\ 1995).
Compact dark masses, probably MBHs, have been detected in the cores of
many normal galaxies using stellar dynamics (Kormendy and Richstone 1995).
The MBH mass appears to correlate with the galactic
bulge luminosity, with the MBH
being about one percent of the mass of the spheroidal bulge
(Magorrian et al.\ 1998, Richstone et al.\ 1998).
The question whether AGN follow a similar black hole -bulge relation
as normal galaxies is a very interesting one, as it may shed light on the connection between the host galaxy and the active nucleus.
Wandel \& Mushotzky (1986) have found an excellent correlation between the
virial mass included within the narrow line region (of order of tens to hundreds
pc from the center) and the black hole~mass estimated from X-ray variability in a sample of Seyfert 1 galaxies.
A black hole -bulge relation similar to that of normal galaxies
has been reported between MBH of bright quasars and the
bulge of their host galaxies (Laor 1998), but the black hole~ and
bulge mass estimates have large uncertainties (section 3.2).
Seyfert 1 galaxies provide an opportunity to obtain more reliable
black hole -to- bulge mass ratios (BBRs): because of their lower nuclear brightness,
their bulge magnitudes can be measured directly. Also the black hole~ mass estimates
(Wandel 1998) are much more reliable for AGN with reverberation
data, which are more readily obtained for low luminosity AGN.
The relation between the bulge and the nonstellar central source has been
studied for many Seyfert
galaxies (Whittle 1992; Nelson \& Whittle 1996). These works find
a tight correlation between the stellar velocity dispersion and the
O[III] line and radio luminosity.
Reliable BLR size measurements are now possible through reverberation
mapping techniques (Blandford \& McKee 1982, recently reviewed by Netzer \& Peterson 1997).
High quality reverberation data and virial masses are presently available
for about twenty AGN, most of them Seyefert 1s (Wandel, Peterson and Malkan 1999, hereafter WPM). We combine the reverberation~ masses (section 2) with Whittle's bulge estimates
in order to study the BBR in low-luminosity AGN and compare it to MBHs in
normal galaxies and quasars (section 3). In section 4 we derive a
MBH-evolution theory that can explain our results.
\section{BLR reverberation as a probe of black hole masses in AGN}
Broad emission lines probably provide the
best probe of black hole s in AGN.
Assuming the line-emitting matter is gravitationally bound,
and hence has a near-Keplerian velocity dispersion (indicated by the line
width), it is possible to estimate the virial central mass:
$M\approx G^{-1}rv^2 .$
This remains true
for many models where the line emitting gas is not in Keplerian motion,
such as radiation-driven motions and disk-wind models (e.g. Murray et al.\ 1998):
in a diverging outflow the density (end hence the emissivity) decreases
outwards, the emission is dominated by the gas
close to the base of the flow, where the velocity is close to the escape
velocity.
(Note that if the velocity is actually larger
than Keplerian, the virial mass is an upper limit and the result that the Seyfert galaxies in our sample
have smaller black hole~ masses than MBHs detected in
normal galaxies becomes even stronger).
The main problem in estimating the virial mass from the emission-line data is to obtain
a reliable estimate of the size of the BLR, and to correctly identify the
line width with the velocity dispersion in the gas.
WPM use the continuum/emission-line cross-correlation function to measure the
responsivity-weighted radius $c\tau$ of the BLR (Koratkar \& Gaskell 1991),
and the variable (rms) component of the spectrum to measure the velocity dispersion in the same
part of the gas which is used to calculate the BLR size,
automatically
excluding constant features such as narrow emission lines and
Galactic absorption.
The line width and the BLR size yield the virial
"reverberation" mass estimate
$M_{rev} \approx (1.45\times 10^5M_{\odot} ) c\tau_{days}v_3^2$
where
$v_3$ is the rms FWHM in units of $10^3 \ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\fi$.
The virial assumption ($v \propto r^{-1/2}$) has been directly tested using
data for NGC 5548 (Krolik et al.\ 1991;
Peterson \& Wandel 1999).
The latter authors find that when the BLR reverberation size
is combined with the rms line width in multi-year data for NGC 5548, the
virial masses derived from different emission lines and epochs are
all consistent with a single value ($(6.3\pm 2)\times 10^7M_{\odot}$)
which demonstrates the case for a
Keplerian velocity dispersion in the line-width/time-delay data.
\section {The Black-Hole - Bulge Relation }
\subsection{Seyfert 1 galaxies}
We use the WPM sample with the virial mass derived from the H$\beta$ line by the reverberation-rms method (table 1).
For 13 of the objects in the WPM sample we obtain the bulge magnitudes
from the compilation of Whittle et al.\ (1992), who calculate
the bulge magnitude from the total blue magnitude, using
the empirical formula of Simien \& deVaucolours (1986), relating the galaxy
type to the bulge/total fraction. The bulge magnitudes are corrected for the nonstellar emission using the correlation between H$\beta$ and the
nonstellar continuum luminosity (Shuder 1981).
Mkn 110 and Mkn 335 have no estimated bulge magnitude in Whittle's compilation,
because they do not have well defined Hubble types. For these objects
we adopt a canonical Hubble type of Sa, which
has a bulge correction ($m_{bulge}-m_{gal}$) of 1.02 mag. For Mkn 335 there is already a fairly
large (and therefore uncertain) correction for the active nucleus (1.17 mags).
For 3C120 the bulge magnitude is taken from Nelson \& Whittle (1995) who
find a bulge magnitude of -22.12.
The uncertainties in the bulge magnitude were estimated from Whittle's (1992)
quality indicators. These indicators estimate the error in the subtraction
of the nonstellar luminosity and some other factors, which for most galaxies
amount to an uncertainty in the range 0.2-0.6 magnitudes. To the galaxies with
an uncertain Hubble type we assign an uncertainty of 1.2 mag.
\begin{table}
\caption{AGN Central Masses derived from BLR data, Compared with
Host Bulge magnitudes and corresponding mass.
Column (2) -- FWHM of (H$\beta$), rms profile, in $10^3$km/s. (3) -
log(lag) -- corresponding to the BLR size light days,
(4) -- absolute blue bulge magnitude from Whittle et al.\ (1992),
(5) -- log of the galactic bulge mass ($M_{bul}$) in $M_{\odot}$,
(6) -- black hole mass (from WPM),
(7) -- BH to bulge mass ratio, (8) -- the Eddinton ratio
of the ionizing luminosity.
\label{tbl-2}}
\begin{center
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\tableline
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
Name & FWHM & log($\tau$)& $-M_B$
& log$(M_{bul})$ & ${M_{bh}\over 10^7M_{\odot}}$
&log(${M_{bh}\over M_{bul}}$)& log(${L_{ion}\over L_E}$)\\
{(1)}&{(2)}&{(3)}&{(4)}&{(5)}&{(6)}&{(7)}&(8)\\
\tableline
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
3C\,120\tablenotemark{a} &$ 2.2$& 1.64& 20.3$\pm$ 1.2 & 10.77$\pm$ 0.5 & $ 3.1^{+2.0}_{-1.5}$ &-3.28&-0.57\\
3C\,390.3 &$ 10.5$& 1.38& 22.12$\pm$0.4 & 11.0$\pm$ 0.15 & $39.1^{+12.4}_{-14.8}$ &-2.41&-2.19\\
Akn\,120 &$ 5.85$& 1.59& 21.06$\pm$0.8& 11.12$\pm$0.3 & $19.4^{+4.1}_{-4.6}$&-2.83 &-1.48\\
F\,9 &$ 5.9$& 1.23& 22.25$\pm$0.6& 11.67$\pm$0.25 & $ 8.7^{+2.6}_{-4.5}$ &-3.73&-1.84\\
IC\,4329A &$ 5.96$& 0.15& 19.93$\pm$0.8& 10.60$\pm$0.3 & $<0.73$ &$<-3.73$ &$>-2.94$\\
Mrk\,79 &$ 6.28$& 1.26& 20.19$\pm$0.2& 10.72$\pm$0.1 & $10.4^{+4.0}_{-5.7}$ &-2.70&-1.87\\
Mrk\,110\tablenotemark{a} &$ 1.67$& 1.29& 20.76$\pm$1.0& 10.98$\pm$0.4 & $0.80^{+0.29}_{-0.30}$ &-4.07&-0.69 \\
Mrk\,335\tablenotemark{a} &$ 1.26$& 1.23& 20.02$\pm$1.0 & 10.64$\pm$0.4& $0.39^{+0.14}_{-0.11}$ &-4.06&-0.49\\
Mrk\,509 &$ 2.86$& 1.90& 21.75 $\pm$0.6& 11.44$\pm$0.25 & $9.5^{+1.1}_{-1.1}$ &-3.46&-0.54\\
Mrk\,590 &$ 2.17$& 1.31& 21.26$\pm$0.2 & 11.21$\pm$0.1 & $1.4^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ &-4.06&-0.89 \\
Mrk\,817 &$ 4.01$& 1.19& 21.17$\pm$0.4 & 11.17$\pm$0.15 & $
3.7^{+1.1}_{-0.9}$ &-3.61&-1.54\\
NGC\,3227 &$ 5.53$& 1.04& 20.46$\pm$0.4 & 10.84$\pm$0.25 & $4.9^{+2.7}_{-4.9}$ &-3.15 &-1.98\\
NGC\,3783 &$ 4.1$& 0.65& 20.07$\pm$0.2 & 10.66$\pm$0.1 & $1.1^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ &-3.62&-2.10\\
NGC\,4051 &$ 1.23$& 0.81& 19.70$\pm$0.2 & 10.62$\pm$0.1 & $0.14^{+ 0.15}_{-0.09}$ &-4.42&-0.86\\
NGC\,4151 &$ 5.23$& 0.48& 19.98$\pm$0.4 & 11.04$\pm$0.15 & $1.2^{+ 0.8}_{-0.7}$ &-3.54 &-2.49\\
NGC\,5548 &$ 5.50$& 1.26& 20.89$\pm$0.2& 11.05$\pm$0.1 & $6.8^{+ 1.5}_{-1.0}$ &-3.06&-1.83\\
NGC\,7469 &$ 3.2$& 0.70&20.90$\pm$0.2& 11.05$\pm$0.1 & $0.76^{+ 0
.75}_{-0.76}$& -4.15& -1.85\\
PG\,0953+414&$ 3.14$& 2.03& 20.29$\pm$1.0\tablenotemark{b}& 11.49$\pm$0.4 & $15.5^{+ 10.8}_{-9.1}$ &-2.57&-0.49\\
{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{a}{Unknown Hubble type, bulge correction estimated assuming Sa}
\tablenotetext{b}{From Bahcall et al.\ (1997)}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We relate the bulge luminosity to the magnitude by the standard expression
${\rm log} (L_{bulge}/L_\odot )= 0.4 (-M_v + 4.83)$.
The bulge mass is then calculated using the mass-to-light relation for normal
galaxies,
${M/M_{\odot} \over L/L_\odot}~\approx 5 (L/10^{10}L_\odot )^{0.15}$
(see Faber et al.\ 1997).
Fig. 1 shows the black hole~ mass as a function of the bulge mass.
All the objects in our sample have BBRs lower than 0.006,
the average value found for normal galaxies (Magorrian et al.\ 1998, represented
by a dashed line), and the
sample average is
$<M_{BH}>= 3\times 10^{-4} <M_{bulge}>$.
Also shown is NGC 1068 (a Seyfert 2), with the MBH mass estimated by
maser dynamics.
The narrow-line Seyfert galaxy NGC 4051, which has by far the lowest BBR
in our sample, may indicate that narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies have
smaller black hole s than ordinary Seyfert 1 galaxies
(Wandel and Boller 1998).
\myfig {12} 1 {fig1pc.eps}
{1. The virial black hole ~mass calculated by the reverberation BLR
method (from Wandel, Peterson \& Malkan 1999) vs. the bulge magnitude
(from Whittle 1992) for the
Seyfert 1 galaxies in our sample (diamond), the masing Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 1068
(square) and PG0953+414 (triangle). Open diamonds indicate an unknown Hubble
type (and therefore a large uncertainty in the bulge magnitude).
The dashed diagonal lines are the average BBRs for normal galaxies
(Magorrian et al.\ 1998) and Seyfert 1s (this work).
}
\subsection {Quasars}
Laor (1998) has studied the black hole -host bulge relation for a sample
of 15 bright PG quasars.
Estimating the bulge masses from the Bahcall et al.\ (1997) study of
quasar host galaxies he admits the uncertainty
in estimating bulge luminosity, dominated by the much
brighter nonstellar source.
Laor estimates the black hole~ mass using the H$\beta$ line width and the empirical
relation
$r_{BLR}=15 L_{44}^{1/2}~ ~{\rm light-days}$
(Kaspi et al.\ 1997),
where $L_{44}=L(0.1-1\micron )$ in units of $10^{44}\ifmmode {\rm erg\ s}^{-1} \else erg s$^{-1}$\fi$.
As this relation has been derived for less than a dozen low- and medium
luminosity objects (mainly Seyferts) with measured reverberation sizes,
it is not obvious that it may be extrapolated to more luminous quasars.
The BLR size is also dependent on the ionizing and soft X-ray continua
(Wandel 1997).
The WPM sample (which includes Kaspi's sample)
indicates that the slope of the BLR-size
luminosity relation may flatter than 0.5; WPM find
$r\sim 17L_{44}^{0.36\pm 0.09}{\rm l-d}$.
If this result is correct,
extrapolating the $r\sim L^{1/2}$ relation over two orders of magnitude
(the difference between the average luminosity of the PG quasars used by Laor and Kaspi's sample average) overestimates the black hole~ mass.
Indeed, for the only object common to the Laor and WPM samples -
the quasar PG 0953+414 - Laor finds 3$\times 10^8M_{\odot}$, while the reverberation~ -rms method gives $(1.5^{+1.1}_{-0.9})\times 10^8 M_{\odot}$.
\subsection {Comparing Normal Galaxies, Seyferts and Quasars}
Fig. 2 shows the three groups in the plane of black hole~mass vs.
bulge luminosity.
The best fits and the corresponding standard deviations to the
data in the three groups are
($M_8=M_{BH}/10^8M_{\odot}$ and $L_{10}=L_{bulge}/10^{10}L_\odot$):
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Normal galaxies (Magorrian et al.\ 1998, table 2, excluding upper limits) -
$M_8= 2.9 L_{10}^{1.26}$, $\sigma = 0.47$
\item
PG quasars (Laor 1998, all objects in his table 1) -
$M_8= 1.6 L_{10}^{1.10}$, $\sigma = 0.38$
\item
Seyfert 1s (this work, excluding NGC 4051)
$M_8= 0.2 L_{10}^{0.83}$, $\sigma = 0.43$
\end{enumerate}
\myfig {13} {1} {fig2pc.eps}
{2. Mass estimates of MBHs plotted against the
luminosity of the bulge of the host galaxy.
Squares: MBH candidates from Magorrian et al.\ (1998),
open squares - MBHs detected by maser dynamics
triangles -
PG quasars from Laor (1998), diamonds - Seyfert 1 galaxies (this work).
MW denotes our Galaxy.
Also given are the best linear fits for each class (see text).
The dashed long line is the estimate of
dead black hole s from integrated AGN light.
}
As a group Seyfert 1 galaxies have a significantly lower BBR
than normal galaxies and bright quasars.
This lower value agrees with the remnant black hole~ density derived from
integrating the emission from quasars (Chokshi and Turner 1992):
$\rho_{BH}=\int\int (L/\epsilon c^2)\Phi(L,t)dLdt =2\times 10^5(\epsilon /0.1)
M_{\odot} {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$,
($\Phi$ is the quasar luminosity function and $\epsilon$ is the efficiency),
which
compared to the density of starlight in galaxies ( $\rho_{gl}$) gives
$\rho_{BH}/\rho_{gl}= 2\times 10^{-3} (0.1/\epsilon )(M_{\odot} /L_\odot )$
(shown as a dashed line in Fig. 2).
\section {Black hole Evolution and the Black Hole - Bulge ratio}
\subsection{Demography}
While Seyfert 1 galaxies seem to have a lower BBR than bright quasars and the galaxies with {\it detected} MBHs in the Magorrian et al.\ (1998) sample,
they are in good agreement with the BBRs of the {\it upper limits} and of our Galaxy, and with remnant quasar black~holes.
It is plausible therefore that the Seyfert galaxies in our sample represent a larger
population of galaxies with low BBRs, which is under-represented in
the Magorrian et al.\ sample.
This hypothesis is supported by the distribution of black hole~ masses in Fig. 2:
the only MBHs under
~$2\times 10^8M_{\odot}$ detected by stellar dynamical methods are in the Milky Way, in Andromeda and its satellite M32, and in NGC 3377 (the latter being nearly $10^8M_{\odot} $). These galaxies, as well as
NGC1068 and at least two of the three upper limit in Magorrian's sample
do have low BBRs, comparable to our Seyfert 1 average.
Actually for angular-resolution limited methods, the MBH detection limit
is correlated with bulge luminosity: for more luminous
bulges the detection limit is higher, because the stellar velocity
dispersion is higher (the Faber-Jackson relation). In order to detect the
dynamic effect of a MBH it is necessary to observe closer to the center,
while the most luminous galaxies tend to be at larger distances, so for
a given angular resolution, the MBH detection limit is higher.
This may imply that Magorrian et al.\ `s sample is biased towards larger
MBHs, as present stellar-dynamical methods are ineffective
for detecting MBHs below $\sim 10^8M_{\odot}$ (except in the nearest galaxies).
The BLR method
is not subject to this constraint,
making Seyfert 1 galaxies good candidates for detecting
low-mass MBHs.
(Note however that by the same token the WPM sample may be biased towards
Seyferts with low black hole~masses, which tend to vary on shorter timescales
and hence are more likely to be chosen for reverberation studies).
\subsection{Black Hole Growth by Accretion}
Fig. 2 shows that Seyfert 1 galaxies have relatively small MBHs compared
MBHs in normal galaxies and to quasars, yet they have comparable bulges.
Below we suggest a possible explanation.
Consider MBH growth by accretion from the host galaxy.
Since the accretion radius, $R_{acc}\approx 0.3 M_6 v_2^{-2} $pc
(where $M_6=M_{BH}/10^6M_{\odot} $ and $v_2=v_*/100\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\fi$ is the stellar velocity
dispersion) is small compared with the size of the
bulge, we may assume the mass supply to the black hole~is given by the
spherical accretion rate,
$\dot M= 4\pi\lambda R_{acc}{v_*}^2 \rho = (10^{-4}M_{\odot} /{\rm yr})
\lambda M_6^2v_2^{-3}\rho_*$,
where $\rho_*$ is the stellar (or gas) mass density in units of
$ M_{\odot} pc^{-3}$ (corresponding to $4.4 g/cm^3$) and
$\lambda<1$ is the Bondi parameter combined with a possible reduction factor
due to angular momentum.
Integrating we find the time required for growing from a mass $M_i$ to $M_f$
by accretion of gas or stars,
$t_{acc}= (10^{16} yr) v_2^3\rho_*^{-1}\lambda^{-1} ( M_{\odot} / {M_i} -
M_{\odot} / {M_f} ) \approx (10^8 {\rm yr})M_8^{-1}v_2^3\rho_*^{-1}$.
For masses $<10^6\rho_*^{-1}M_{\odot}$ this is larger than the Hubble time,
so seed MBHs must grow by black hole~
coalescence
which, even for dense clusters, is of the order of the Hubble time (Lee, 1993;
Quinlan \& Shapiro 1987). For densities as high as
in the central parsec of the Milky Way (few$\times 10^7 M_{\odot} pc^-3$; Genzel et al.\ 1997) or for NGC 4256 (Miyoshi et al.\ 1995)
accretion-dominated growth becomes feasible
for masses as low as 100-1000$M_{\odot}$.
While the accretion rate is growing as $M^2$ and the growth time decreases as $M^{-1}$, the MBH eventually becomes large enough for accretion-dominated growth
time $t_g=t_{acc}$.
This phase may be applicable for the Seyfert population.
Since the luminosity is $L\propto\dot M\propto M^2$, the Eddington ratio
increases as $L/L_{Edd}\propto M\propto L^{1/2}$.
The black hole~growth slows down when the Eddington ratio approaches unity,
$t_g$ being bound by the Eddington time,
$
t_g\sim t_E=M/ {\dot M_E} = 4.5\times 10^7 ( \epsilon /{0.1} )^{-1} {\rm yr}
$
where $\dot M_E$ is the accretion rate that would produce an Eddington luminosity.
Equating $t_E$ to $t_{acc}$ we find that the growth rate flattens at
a BH mass of $M_{t}\approx (2\times 10^8M_{\odot} )
v_2^{3}\rho_*^{-1}(\epsilon/0.1\lambda)$.
In the Eddington~ -limited era, which may correspond to quasars,
the growth rate is exponential,
depleeting the available matter in the
bulge on the relatively short time scale $t_{Edd}$. This leads to
an asymptotic BBR,
which is likely to be similar for luminous quasars and their largest remnant
MBHs in normal galaxies.
This scenario predicts that on average quasars should have higher
Eddington~ ratios (near unity) than Seyferts, and larger BBRs.
We can test the prediction from the data at hand.
Estimating the bolometric luminosity of AGN with reverberation data from the lag (WPM),
and of PG quasars from the relation $L_{bol}\approx 8 \nu
L_\nu(3000\AA)$ (Laor 1998),
we find a correlation between the Eddington~ ratio and the BBR,
with Seyferts having Eddington~ ratios in the $10^{-3}-0.1$ range and a low BBR,
and quasars with Eddington ratios close
to unity and higher BBRs.
From the Eddington~ ratio we can also infer the actual growth time,
$t_g\approx t_E L/L_{E}$. For most objects in our sample
$t_g$ is in the range $10^8-{\rm few}\times 10^9$ yr.
\acknowledgments
I acknowledge valuable discussions with Mark Whittle Gary Kriss,
Geremy Goodman, Doug Richstone and Mark Morris
and the hospitality of the Astronomy Department at UCLA.
|
\section{Natural Emergence of Optimized Configurations}
Every day, enormous efforts are devoted to organizing the supply and
demand of limited resources, so as to optimize
their utility. Examples include the supply of foods and services
to consumers, the scheduling of a transportation fleet, or the flow of
information in communication networks within society or within a
parallel computer. By contrast, {\em without\/} any intelligent
organizing facility, many natural systems have evolved into amazingly
complex structures that optimize the utilization of resources in
surprisingly sophisticated ways (Bak 1996). For instance, driven
merely by sunlight, biological evolution has developed efficient and
strongly interdependent networks in which resources rarely go to
waste. Even the inanimate morphology of natural landscapes exhibits
patterns far from random that often seem to serve a purpose, such as
the efficient drainage of water (Rodriguez-Iturbe 1997). The physical properties
of these fractal patterns have aroused the interest of statistical
physicists in recent times (Mandelbrot 1983).
Natural systems that exhibit such self-organizing qualities often
possess common features: they generally consist of a large number of
strongly coupled entities with very similar properties (like
species in biological evolution, despite their apparent differences).
Hence, they permit a statistical description at some coarse level. An
external resource (such as sunlight) drives the system which then
takes its direction purely by chance. If we were to rerun evolution,
there may not be trees and elephants, say, but other complex structures. Like
flowing water breaking through the weakest of all barriers in its
wake, species are coupled in a global comparative process that
persistently washes away the least fit. In this process, unlikely but
highly adapted structures surface inadvertently, as Darwin observed
(Darwin 1859). Optimal adaptation thus emerges naturally, without
divine intervention, from the dynamics through a selection {\em
against\/} the extremely ``bad''. In fact, this process prevents the
inflexibility that would inevitably arise in a controlled breeding of the
``good''.
Certain models relying on extremal processes have been proposed
to explain self-organizing systems in nature (Paczuski 1996). In
particular, the Bak-Sneppen model of biological evolution is based on
this principle (Bak 1993, Sneppen 1995). It is happily devoid of any specificity
about the nature of interactions between species, yet produces
salient nontrivial features of paleontological data such as
broadly distributed lifetimes of species, large extinction events, and
punctuated equilibrium (Gould 1977).
\begin{figure}
\vskip 4.40truein
\special{psfile=fig1a.ps angle=-90 hoffset=-40
voffset=360 hscale=40 vscale=38}
\smallskip
\special{psfile=fig1b.ps angle=-90
hoffset=-40 voffset=203 hscale=40 vscale=38}
\caption{Two random geometric graphs, $N=500$, with connectivities
$\alpha\approx4$ (top) and $\alpha\approx8$ (bottom) in an optimized
configuration found by EO. At $\alpha=4$ the
graph barely percolates, with only one ``bad'' edge connecting the set of
250 round points with the set of 250 square points (diamonds show the two
ends of the edge), thus $m_{\rm opt}=1$. For the
denser graph on the bottom, EO obtained the cutsize $m_{\rm opt}=13$.
}
\label{geograph}
\end{figure}
Species in the Bak-Sneppen model
are located on the sites of a lattice, and each is represented by a value
between 0 and 1 indicating its ``fitness''. At each update step, the
smallest value (representing the worst adapted species) is discarded
and replaced with a new value drawn randomly from a flat distribution on
$[0,1]$. Without any interactions, all the fitnesses in the system
would eventually become 1. But obvious interdependencies between species
provide constraints for balancing the system's overall fitness with that of
its members: the change in fitness of one species impacts the fitness
of an interrelated species. Therefore, at each update step in the
Bak-Sneppen model, the fitness values on the sites {\em neighboring\/}
the smallest value are replaced with new random numbers as well. No
explicit definition is given of the mechanism by which these neighboring
species are related. Yet after
a certain number of updates, the system organizes itself into a
highly correlated state known as self-organized criticality (SOC)
(Bak 1987). In that state, almost all species have reached a fitness
above a certain threshold. But these also species possess what is called
punctuated equilibrium (Gould 1977): since one's weakened neighbor can undermine
one's own fitness, co-evolutionary activity gives rise to chain reactions.
Fluctuations that rearrange the fitness of many species occur routinely.
These fluctuations can be of the scale of the system itself, making any
possible configuration accessible.
In the Bak-Sneppen model, the high degree of adaptation of most
species is obtained by the elimination of badly adapted ones instead
of a particular ``engineering'' of better ones. While such dynamics
might not lead to as optimal a solution as could be engineered in
specific circumstances, it provides near-optimal solutions with a
high degree of latency for a rapid adaptation response to changes
in the resources that drive the system.
In the following we will describe an optimization method inspired
by these insights (Boettcher, submitted, and Boettcher, to appear), called
{\em extremal optimization\/}, and study its performance for graph
partitioning and the traveling salesman problem.
\section{Extremal Optimization and Graph Partitioning}
In graph (bi-)partitioning, we are given a set of $N$ points, where
$N$ is even, and ``edges'' connecting certain pairs of
points. The problem is to partition the points into two
equal subsets, each of size $N/2$, with a minimal number of edges
cutting across the partition. (Call the number of these edges
the ``cutsize'' $m$, and the optimal cutsize $m=m_{\rm opt}$.)
The points themselves could, for instance, be associated with
positions in the unit square. A ``geometric'' graph of
average connectivity $\alpha$ would then be formed by connecting any two
points within Euclidean distance $d$, where $N\pi d^2=\alpha$ (see
Fig.~\ref{geograph}). Constraining the partitioned subsets to be of
fixed (equal) size makes the solution to the problem particularly
difficult. This geometric problem resembles those found in
VLSI design, concerning the optimal partitioning of gates between
integrated circuits (Dunlop 1985).
Graph partitioning is an {\em NP-hard\/} optimization
problem (Garey 1979): it is believed that for large $N$ the
number of steps necessary for an algorithm to find the {\em exact\/}
optimum must, in general, grow faster than any polynomial in $N$. In
practice, however, the goal is usually to find near-optimal
solutions quickly. Special-purpose heuristics to find approximate
solutions to specific NP-hard problems abound (Alpert 1995, Johnson 1997).
Alternatively, general-purpose
optimization approaches based on stochastic procedures have been
proposed, most notably {\em simulated annealing\/} (Kirkpatrick 1983,
{\v C}erny 1985) and {\em genetic algorithms\/} (Holland 1975). These methods,
although slower, are applicable to
problems for which no specialized heuristic exists. Extremal
optimization (EO) falls into
the latter category, adaptable to a wide range of combinatorial
optimizations problems rather than crafted for a specific application.
In close analogy to the Bak-Sneppen model of SOC, the EO algorithm
proceeds as follows for the case of graph bi-partitioning:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initially, partition the $N$ points at will into two equal subsets.
\item Rank each point $i$ according to its fitness,
$\lambda_i=g_i/(g_i+b_i)$, where $g_i$ is the number of (good) edges
connecting $i$ to points within the same subset, and $b_i$ is the number
of (bad) edges connecting $i$ to the other subset. If point $i$ has no
connections at all ($g_i=b_i=0$), let $\lambda_i=1$.
\item Pick the least fit point, {\em i.e.\/}, the point (from either subset)
with the smallest $\lambda_i\in [0,1]$. Pick a second point at random
from the other subset, and interchange these two points so that each
one is in the opposite subset from where it started.
\item Repeat at (2) for a preset number of times [assume $O(N)$ updates].
\end{enumerate}
\noindent The result of an EO run is defined as the best (minimum cutsize)
configuration seen so far. All that is necessary to keep track of, then,
is the current configuration and the best so far.
EO, like simulated annealing (SA) and genetic algorithms (GA), is
inspired by observations of physical systems [for a comparison of SA and
GA, see e. g. (de Groot 1991)]. However, SA emulates
the behavior of frustrated systems in thermal equilibrium: if one
couples such a system to a heat bath of adjustable temperature, by
cooling the system slowly one may come close to attaining a state of
minimal energy. SA accepts or rejects local changes to a
configuration according to the Metropolis algorithm (Metropolis 1953) at a
given temperature, enforcing equilibrium dynamics (``detailed
balance'') and requiring a carefully tuned ``temperature schedule''.
In contrast, EO takes the system far from equilibrium: it applies no
decision criteria, and all new configurations are accepted
indiscriminately. It may appear that EO's results would resemble an
ineffective random search. But in fact, by persistent selection
against the worst fitnesses, one quickly approaches near-optimal
solutions. At the same time, significant fluctuations still remain at
late run-times (unlike in SA), crossing sizable barriers to access new
regions in configuration space, as shown in Fig.~\ref{runtime}. EO and
genetic algorithms are equally contrasted. GAs keep track of
entire ``gene pools'' of solutions from which to select and
``breed'' an improved generation of global approximations. By
comparison, EO operates only with local updates on a single copy of
the system, with improvements achieved instead by elimination of the bad.
\begin{figure}
\vskip 2.2truein
\special{psfile=fig2.ps angle=-90 hoffset=-10 voffset=180 hscale=35 vscale=30}
\caption{Evolution of the cutsize during an extremal optimization run on an
$N=500$ geometric graph with $\alpha=5$ (see Fig.~\protect\ref{geograph}). The
shaded area
marks the range of cutsizes explored in the respective time bins. The
best cutsize ever found is 2, which is visited repeatedly in this run.
In contrast to simulated annealing, which has large fluctuations in
early stages of the run and then converges much later, extremal optimization
quickly approaches a stage where broadly distributed fluctuations allow
it to probe many local optima. In this run, a random initial partition was
used, and the runtime on a 200MHz Pentium was 9sec.
}
\label{runtime}
\end{figure}
Further improvements may be obtained through a slight modification of the EO
procedure. Step (2) of the algorithm establishes a fitness rank for all
points, going from rank $n=1$ for the worst fitness $\lambda$ to rank $n=N$
for the best. (For points with degenerate values of $\lambda$, the
ranks may be assigned in random order.) Now relax step (3) so that the
points to be interchanged are both chosen from a probability distribution
over the rank order: from each subset, we pick a point having rank $n$
with probability $P(n)\propto n^{-\tau},~1\leq n\leq N$. The choice of a
power-law distribution for $P(n)$ ensures that no regime of fitness gets
excluded from further evolution, since $P(n)$ varies in a gradual,
scale-free manner over rank. Universally, for a wide range of graphs, we
obtain best results for $\tau\approx 1.2-1.6$. What is the physical
meaning of an optimal value for $\tau$? If $\tau$ is too small, we often
dislodge already well-adapted points of high rank: ``good'' results get
destroyed too frequently and the progress of the search becomes
undirected. On the other hand, if $\tau$ is too large, the process
approaches a deterministic local search and gets stuck near a local
optimum of poor quality. At the optimal value of $\tau$, the more fit
components of the solution are allowed to survive, without the search
being too narrow. Our numerical studies have indicated that the best
choice for $\tau$ is closely related to a transition from ergodic to
non-ergodic behavior, with optimal performance of EO obtained near
the edge of ergodicity.
To evaluate EO, we tested the algorithm on a testbed of well-studied large
graphs\footnote{These instances are available at\newline
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/\~{}sboettc/graphs.html} discussed in
(Hendrickson 1996, Merz 1998).
Table~\ref{tab1} summarizes EO's results on these, using 30 runs of at most
$200N$ update steps (in several cases far fewer were necessary; see below).
On the first four large graphs, SA's performance is extremely poor; we
therefore substitute results given in (Hendrickson 1996) using a variety of
specialized heuristics. EO significantly improves upon these cutsizes,
though at longer runtimes. The best results to date on the graphs are
due to various GAs (Merz 1998). EO reproduces all of these cutsizes,
displaying an increasing runtime advantage as $N$ increases. On the
final four graphs, for which no GA results were available, EO matches or
dramatically improves upon SA's cutsizes. And although increasing $\alpha$
generally slows down
EO and speeds up SA, EO's runtime is still nearly competitive with SA's
on the high-connectivity {\em Nasa\/} graphs.
Several factors account for EO's speed. First of all, in step (1) we employ
a simple ``greedy'' start to form the initial partition, clustering
connected points into the same partition from a random seed. This helps
EO to succeed rapidly. By contrast, greedy initialization improves
the performance of SA only for the smallest
and sparsest graphs. Second of all, in step (2) we use a stochastic sorting
process to accelerate the algorithm. At each update step, instead of
perfectly ordering the fitnesses $\lambda_i$, we arrange them on an ordered
binary tree called a ``heap''. We then select members from the heap such
that {\em on average\/}, the actual rank selection approximates
$P(n)\sim n^{-\tau}$. This stochastic rank sorting introduces a runtime
factor of only $\alpha\log{N}$ per update step. Finally, EO requires significantly
fewer update steps (Fig.~\ref{runtime}) than, say, a complete SA temperature
schedule. The quality of our large $N$ results confirms that $O(N)$ update
steps are indeed sufficient for convergence. In the case of the {\em Nasa\/}
graphs, only $30N$ update steps (rather than the full $200N$) were in fact
required for EO to reach its best results, and in the case of the
{\em Brack2\/} graph, only $2N$ steps were required.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Best cutsizes and runtimes for our testbed of graphs.
EO and SA results are from our runs (SA parameters
as determined by Johnson {\em et al.\/} (Johnson 1989)), using a 200MHz
Pentium. GA results are from Merz and Freisleben (Merz 1998), using a 300MHz
Pentium. Comparison data for three of the large graphs are due to results
from heuristics by Hendrickson (Hendrickson 1996), using a 50MHz Sparc20.
}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lr@{\ }lr@{\ }lr@{\ }l}
Graph & \multicolumn{2}{c}{EO} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{GA} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{heuristics} \\
\hline
{\em Hammond\/} & 90 & (42s) & 90 & (1s) & 97 & (8s) \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=4720$; $\alpha=5.8$)} \\
{\em Barth5\/} & 139 & (64s) & 139 & (44s) & 146 & (28s) \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=15606$; $\alpha=5.8$)} \\
{\em Brack2\/} & 731 & (12s) & 731 & (255s) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=62632$; $\alpha=11.7$)} \\
{\em Ocean\/} & 464 & (200s) & 464 & (1200s) & 499 & (38s) \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=143437$; $\alpha=5.7$)} \\
\hline
\hline
Graph &&& \multicolumn{2}{c}{EO} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{SA} \\
\hline
{\em Nasa1824\/} &&& 739 & (6s) & 739 & (3s)\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=1824$; $\alpha=20.5$)} \\
{\em Nasa2146\/} &&& 870 & (10s) & 870 & (2s)\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=2146$; $\alpha=32.7$)} \\
{\em Nasa4704\/} &&& 1292 & (15s) & 1292 & (13s)\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=4704$; $\alpha=21.3$)} \\
{\em Stufe10\/} &&& 51 & (180s) & 371 & (200s) \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\quad($N=24010$; $\alpha=3.8$)} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
\section{Optimizing near Critical Points}
Further comparison of EO and SA, averaged over a large sample of a
particular type of graph, shows EO to be especially
useful near critical points (Boettcher, to appear).
It has been observed that many optimization problems exhibit critical
points delimiting ``easy'' phases of a generally hard
problem (Cheeseman 1991). Near such a critical point, finding solutions
becomes particularly difficult for local search methods that explore
some neighborhood in configuration space starting from an existing state.
Near-optimal solutions become widely
separated with diverging barrier heights between them. It is not
surprising that equilibrium search methods based on heat-bath techniques
like SA are not particularly successful here
(Binder 1987). In contrast, the driven dynamics of EO does not possess
any temperature control parameters that could increasingly limit the scale
of fluctuations. A non-equilibrium approach like EO thus provides
a general-purpose optimization method that is complementary to SA,
which would be expected to freeze quickly into a poor local optimum
``where the {\em really\/} hard problems are'' (Cheeseman 1991).
\begin{figure}
\vskip 2.0truein
\special{psfile=geomerror.ps angle=-90 hoffset=-10 voffset=180 hscale=35 vscale=30}
\caption{Plot of SA's error relative to the best result found on
geometric graphs, as a function of the mean connectivity $\alpha$. }
\label{error}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vskip 2.0truein
\special{psfile=geomscal.ps angle=-90 hoffset=-10 voffset=180 hscale=35 vscale=30}
\caption{Scaling plot of the data from EO according to Eq.~\protect\ref{scaleq}
for geometric graphs, as a function of the mean connectivity $\alpha$. The
scaling parameters and the fit are as discussed in the text.
}
\label{scaling}
\end{figure}
As an example, we explore this critical point for the equal
partitioning of geometric graphs, as a function of their
connectivity.\footnote{More
results of this study, including many different types of graphs, can be found
in (Boettcher, to appear).} It is
hopeless to obtain reliable benchmarks for the exact optimal partition
of large graphs. Instead, by averaging over many
instances we can try to reproduce well-known results from the
percolation properties of this class of graphs. For instance, when the
average connectivity $\alpha$ of a geometric graph is much below
$\alpha_{\rm crit}\approx4.5$, the percolation threshold found for these
graphs (Balberg 1985), the graph most likely consists of many small clusters.
These can easily be sorted into equal sized partitions with vanishing cutsize,
at a cost of at most O($N^2$). When, on the other hand, the connectivity is
large, the graph is dense and almost homogeneous with many near-optimal
solutions in close
proximity. But for connectivities near $\alpha_{\rm crit}$, a ``percolating''
cluster of size O($N$) appears with very widely separated minima (see
Fig.~\ref{geograph}), making both the decision problem and the
actual search very costly (Cheeseman 1991).
We have generated geometric graphs of connectivities between $\alpha=4$
and $\alpha=10$ (by varying the threshold distance $d$ below which points
are connected), at $N=500$, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000,
and 16000. For each $\alpha$ we generated 16 different instances of
graphs, identical for SA and EO. We performed 32 optimization runs for
each method on each instance. On each run, we used a different random seed to
establish an initial partition of the points. SA was run using
the algorithm developed by Johnson {\em et al.\/} (Johnson 1989) for this case,
but with a temperature length four times longer, to improve results.
EO was run for $200N$ update steps to produce a comparable runtime.
For each method, we have taken only the best result from all runs on a
given instance. We average those best results,
for a particular connectivity $\alpha$, to obtain the mean cutsize for
that method as a function of $\alpha$ and $N$. To compare EO and SA,
we determine the relative error of SA with respect to the best result found
by either method (most often by EO!) for $\alpha\geq\alpha_{\rm crit}$.
Fig.~\ref{error} suggests that the error of SA diverges about linearly with
increasing $N$, near $\alpha_{\rm crit}$.
For the data obtained with EO, we make an Ansatz
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle m_{\rm opt}\rangle\sim N^\nu\left(\alpha-\alpha_{\rm
0}\right)^\beta
\label{scaleq}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\nu=0.6$, in order to scale the data for all $N$ onto a single curve
(see Fig.~\ref{scaling}). The remaining parameters are established according
to a data fit, yielding $\alpha_0=4.1$ and $\beta=1.4$. The fact that
$\alpha_0 < \alpha_{\rm crit}$ indicates that below the percolation threshold
EO's cutsizes are already non-vanishing, and so even EO does not always find
optimal partitions there.
\section{Extremal Optimization of the TSP}
In the graph partitioning problem, the implementation of EO is
particularly straightforward. The concept of fitness, however, is
equally meaningful in any optimization problem whose cost function can
be decomposed into $N$ equivalent degrees of freedom. Thus, EO may be
applied to many other NP-hard problems, even those where the choice of
quantities for the fitness function, as well as the choice of
elementary move, is less clear than in graph partitioning. One case
where these choices are far from obvious is the traveling salesman
problem. Even so, we have found there that EO presents a challenge
to more finely tuned methods (Boettcher, submitted).
In the traveling salesman problem (TSP), $N$ points (``cities'') are
given, and every pair of cities $i$ and $j$ is separated by a distance
$d_{ij}$. The problem is to connect the cities using the {\em
shortest\/} closed ``tour'', passing through each city exactly once.
For our purposes, take the $N\times N$ distance matrix $d_{ij}$ to be
symmetric. Its entries could be the Euclidean distances between cities
in a plane --- or alternatively, random numbers drawn from some
distribution, making the problem non-Euclidean. (The former case
might correspond to a business traveler trying to minimize driving
time; the latter to a traveler trying to minimize expenses on a string
of airline flights, whose prices certainly do not obey triangle
inequalities!)
For the TSP, we implement EO in the following way. Consider each city
$i$ as a degree of freedom, with a fitness based on the two links
emerging from it. Ideally, a city would want to be connected to its
first and second nearest neighbor, but is often ``frustrated'' by the
competition of other cities, causing it to be connected instead to
(say) its $p$th and $q$th neighbors, $1\leq p\neq q\leq
N-1$. Let us define the fitness of city $i$ to be
$\lambda_i=3/(p_i+q_i)$, so that $\lambda_i=1$ in the ideal
case.
Defining a move class (step (3) in EO's algorithm) is more difficult
for the TSP than for graph partitioning, since the constraint of a
closed tour requires an update procedure that changes several links at
once. One possibility, used by SA among other local search methods,
is a ``two-change'' rearrangement of a pair of non-adjacent segments in
an existing tour. There are $O(N^2)$ possible choices for a
two-change. Most of these, however, lead to even worse results.
For EO, it would not be sufficient to select two independent cities of
poor fitness from the rank list, as the resulting two-change would
destroy more good links than it creates. Instead, let us select one
city $i$ according to its fitness rank $n_i$, using the distribution
$P(n)\sim n^{-\tau}$ as before, and eliminate the longer of the two
links emerging from it. Then, reconnect $i$ to a close neighbor,
using the {\em same\/} distribution function $P(n)$ as for the rank
list of fitnesses, but now applied instead to a rank list of $i$'s
neighbors ($n=1$ for first neighbor, $n=2$ for second neighbor, and so
on). Finally, to form a valid closed tour, one of the old links to
the new (neighbor) city must be replaced; there is a unique way of doing so.
For the
optimal choice of $\tau$, this move class allows us the opportunity to
produce many good neighborhood connections, while maintaining enough
fluctuations to explore the configuration space.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Best tour-lengths found for the Euclidean (top) and the
random-distance TSP (bottom). Results for each value of $N$ are
averaged over 10 instances, using on each instance an exact algorithm
(except for $N=256$ Euclidean where none was available), the best-of-ten
EO runs, and the
best-of-ten SA runs. Euclidean tour-lengths are rescaled by $1/\sqrt{N}$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrrr}
$N$ & Exact & EO$_{10}$ & SA$_{10}$\\
\hline
Euclidean\qquad
16& 0.71453& 0.71453& 0.71453\\
32& 0.72185& 0.72237& 0.72185\\
64& 0.72476& 0.72749& 0.72648\\
128& 0.72024& 0.72792& 0.72395\\
256& \qquad --- & 0.72707& 0.71854\\
\hline
Rand.\ Dist.\qquad
16& 1.9368& 1.9368& 1.9368\\
32& 2.1941& 2.1989& 2.1953\\
64& 2.0771& 2.0915& 2.1656\\
128& 2.0097& 2.0728& 2.3451\\
256& 2.0625& 2.1912& 2.7803
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab2}
\end{table}
We performed simulations at $N=16$, 32, 64, 128, and 256, in each case
generating ten random instances for both the Euclidean and
non-Euclidean TSP. The Euclidean case consisted of $N$ points placed
at random in the unit square with periodic boundary conditions; the
non-Euclidean case consisted of a symmetric $N\times N$ distance
matrix with elements drawn randomly from a uniform distribution on the
unit interval. On each instance we ran both EO and SA, selecting for
both methods the best of 10 runs from random initial conditions. EO
used $\tau=4$ (Eucl.) and $\tau=4.4$ (non-Eucl.), with $16N^2$ update
steps. SA used an annealing schedule with $\Delta T/T=0.9$ and
temperature length $32N^2$. The results are given in
Table~\ref{tab2}, along with baseline results using an exact
algorithm. While the EO results trail those of SA by up
to about 1\% in the Euclidean case, EO significantly outperforms SA
for the non-Euclidean (random distance) TSP. Surprisingly, using
increased run times (longer temperature schedules) diminishes rather
than improves SA's performance in the latter case. Finally, note that
one would not expect a general method such as EO to be competitive
here with specialized optimization algorithms designed particularly
with the TSP in mind. But remarkably, EO's performance in both the
Euclidean and non-Euclidean cases --- within several percent of
optimality for $N\le 256$ --- places it not far behind the leading
specially-crafted TSP heuristics (Johnson 1997).
\section{Extremal Optimization and Learning}
Our results therefore indicate that a simple extremal optimization approach
based on self-organizing dynamics can outperform state-of-the-art
(and far more complicated or finely tuned) general-purpose algorithms on
hard optimization problems.
Based on its success on the generic and broadly applicable graph partitioning
problem, as well as on the TSP, we believe the concept will be applicable to
numerous other NP-hard problems. It is worth stressing that the rank ordering
approach employed by EO is inherently non-equilibrium. Such an approach
could not, for instance, be used to enhance SA, whose temperature schedule
requires equilibrium conditions. This rank ordering serves as a sort of
``memory'', allowing EO to retain well-adapted pieces of a solution. In this
respect it mirrors one of the crucial properties noted in the Bak-Sneppen
model (Boettcher 1996). At the same time, EO maintains enough flexibility to
explore further reaches of the configuration space and to ``change its mind''.
Its success at this complex task provides motivation for the use of extremal
dynamics to model mechanisms such as learning, as has been suggested recently
to explain the high degree of adaptation observed in the brain (Chialvo 1999).
\subsubsection*{References}
C.~J.~Alpert and A.~B.~Kahng,
{\em Integration: the VLSI Journal\/} {\bf 19}, 1 (1995).
P.~Bak, {\em How Nature Works\/} (Springer, New York, 1996).
P.~Bak, C.~Tang, and K.~Wiesenfeld,
{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 59}, 381 (1987).
P.~Bak and K.~Sneppen, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 71}, 4083
(1993).
I.~Balberg, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 31}, R4053 (1985).
K.~Binder, {\em Applications of the Monte Carlo
Method in Statistical Physics\/}, K.~Binder, Ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1987).
S.~Boettcher and M.~Paczuski, {\em Phys. Rev. E\/} {\bf 54}, 1082
(1996), and {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 79}, 889 (1997).
S.~Boettcher, {\em J.~Phys.~A:~Math.~Gen\/}, to appear; available
at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9901353.
S.~Boettcher and A.~G.~Percus, submitted to \hfil\break
{\em Artificial~Intelligence\/};~available~at \hfil\break
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9901351.
V.~{\v C}erny, {\em J.~Optimization Theory Appl.\/} {\bf 45}, 41 (1985).
P.~Cheeseman, B.~Kanefsky, and W.~M.~Taylor, in {\em
Proc. of IJCAI-91}, J.~Mylopoulos and R.~Rediter, Eds. (Morgan
Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991), pp.\ 331--337.
D.~R.~Chialvo and P.~Bak, {\em J. Neurosci.\/}, to appear.
C.~Darwin, {\em The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection\/}
(Murray, London, 1859).
A.~E.~Dunlop and B.~W.~Kernighan, {\em IEEE Trans.
on Computer-Aided Design\/} {\bf CAD--4}, 92 (1985).
M.~R.~Garey and D.~S.~Johnson, {\em Computers
and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness\/} (Freeman,
New York, 1979).
S.~J.~Gould and N.~Eldridge, {\em Paleobiology\/} {\bf 3}, 115--151 (1977).
C. de Groot, D. Wuertz, K. H. Hoffmann,
{\em Lecture Notes in Computer Science\/} {\bf 496}, 445-454 (1991).
B.~A.~Hendrickson and R.~Leland, in {\em Proceedings of the 1995
ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference (Supercomputing '95)\/}, San Diego,
CA, December 3--8, 1995 (ACM Press, New York, 1996).
J.~Holland, {\em Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems\/} (University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975).
D.~S.~Johnson, C.~R.~Aragon, L.~A.~McGeoch, and
C.~Schevon, {\em Operations Research\/} {\bf 37}, 865 (1989).
D.~S.~Johnson and L.~A.~McGeoch, in {\em Local Search in Combinatorial
Optimization\/}, E.~H.~L.~Aarts and J.~K.~Lenstra, Eds. (Wiley, New York,
1997), chap.~8.
S.~Kirkpatrick, C.~D.~Gelatt, and M.~P.~Vecchi, {\em
Science\/} {\bf 220}, 671 (1983).
B. B. Mandelbrot, {\em The Fractal
Geometry of Nature\/} (Freeman, New York, 1983).
P.~Merz and B.~Freisleben,
in {\em Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Parallel Problem Solving From
Nature --- PPSN V\/}, A.~E.~Eiben, T.~B\"ack, M.~Schoenauer, and H.-P.~Schwefel,
Eds. (Springer, Berlin, 1998), vol. 1498, pp.\ 765--774, and
{\em Technical Report No. TR--98--01\/}
(Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of
Siegen, Siegen, Germany, 1998), available at
http://www.informatik.uni-siegen.de/\~{}pmerz/publications.html.
N.~Metropolis, A.~W.~Rosenbluth, M.~N.~Rosenbluth,
A.~H.~Teller, and E.~Teller, {\em J.~Chem. Phys.\/} {\bf 21}, 1087 (1953).
M.~Paczuski, S.~Maslov, and
P.~Bak, {\em Phys. Rev. E\/} {\bf 53}, 414 (1996).
I. Rodriguez-Iturbe and A. Rinaldo, {\em
Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-Organization\/} (Cambridge, New
York, 1997).
K.~Sneppen, P.~Bak, H.~Flyvbjerg, and M.~H.~Jensen,
{\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\/} {\bf 92}, 5209 (1995).
\end{document}
|
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The author appreciatively acknowledges that this research is partially supported
by Chinese Nature Science Foundation, by Chinese Ministry of Science \& Technology
under the State Key Project of Basic Research on Rare Earth,
and by Chinese Ministry of Education.
|
\section{Introduction}
Metal cluster (MC) is a bound system consisting of atoms of some metal. The
amount of atoms can vary from a few to many thousands. Some MC, mainly of
alkali (Li, K, Na, ...) and noble (Ag, Au, ...) metals, demonstrate a
striking similarity to atomic nuclei (see reviews$^{1-5}$). In these
clusters the valence electrons are {\it weakly} coupled to the ions and,
like nucleons in nuclei, are not strongly localized. The mean free path of
valence electrons is of the same order of magnitude as the size of the
cluster. This favors the valence electrons to form a mean field of the same
kind as in nuclei (with the similar shell structure and magic numbers). In
addition to the mean field, MC demonstrate other similarities with atomic
nuclei: deformation in the case of open shells, variety of giant resonances
(GR), fission, etc.. As a result, many theoretical ideas and methods of
nuclear physics can, after a certain modification, be applied to MC \cite
{Ne92,Br93,Ne_Dub}.
This review is devoted to collective oscillations of valence electrons in
MC. Valence electrons can be considered as the counterparts of nucleons in
nuclei, and their oscillations as the counterparts of nuclear GR.
Investigation of GR in MC is interesting in two aspects: it allows to
understand deeper general properties of collective modes in finite Fermi
systems and, simultaneously, allows to study striking peculiarities of MC.
GR in clusters and atomic nuclei are well overlapped. However, some
specific properties of MC cause considerable differences in the behavior of
GR in these two systems.
For example: the Coulomb interaction and the ''spill-out'' effect provide a
specific dependence of GR properties on the mass number; the negligible
character of the spin-orbital interaction leads to the decoupling of spin
and orbital magnetic modes; clusters can have much more particles (atoms)
than nuclei, which favors very strong orbital magnetic resonances; for most
of the clusters the role of the ionic subsystem is important; at different
temperatures MC can be in solid, liquid and even ''boiling'' phases, which
greatly influences GR properties; characteristics of GR vary considerably
whether the clusters are charged or neutral, free or embedded to a
substrate, pure or with impurities atoms, etc..
Our consideration will be limited by certain physical conditions.
-- i) The modern techniques allow to fabricate atomic clusters from atoms of
about any element of the periodic table. However, the conception of the mean
field for valence electrons is realized only for a minority, -- mainly for
clusters of alkali and noble metals and, in a less extent, for neighboring
elements. So, we should limit ourselves by this MC region.
-- ii) In some alkali metals (Na and K) the ionic lattice can, to good
accuracy, be replaced by a uniform distribution of the positive charge over
cluster's volume. This is so-called jellium approximation which greatly
simplifies the analysis and calculations. This approximation is enough for
the description of many properties of alkali MC and will widely be used in
the review. However, it often fails beyond Na and K and then a more explicit
treatment of the ionic structure is necessary \cite{Br93,Bre_94rev}.
-- iii) The ionic subsystem is supposed to be ''frozen''.
In the review only collective oscillations of valence electrons will be
considered.
-- iv) The validity of jellium approximation is supported by temperature
fluctuations of ions, which smooth ion positions. It fails in the low
temperature region (approximately at $T<100$ K) where the explicit treatment
of the ionic structure is important. At too high temperatures ($T>1000$ K)
the quantum shells of the mean field are washed out, what establishes an
upper limit for our considerations. We will consider GR in a temperature
interval between these extreme cases.
\section{Theoretical Grounds}
\label{sec:the}
Due to the similarity between MC and nuclei, many models of nuclear theory
have been applied to study MC\cite{Ne92,Br93}. In due time, some of them
have been introduced to nuclear physics from solid body field and then
subsequently modified to describe {\it finite} Fermi systems. Now they turn
out to be useful for clusters. In particular, a large variety of the RPA
methods have been adopted , scaling from simple versions, like the sum rule
approach$^{6-9}$
and the local RPA \cite{RB90,ReGB_AP96}, to sophisticated full RPA models,
like time-dependent Hartree-Fock \cite{GJ92} and time-dependent local
density approximation (TD-LDA)$^{13-26}$ (for a more complete list of
citation see Refs.\cite{Ne92,Br93,Rubrev}). The simple models can describe
the gross structure of GR but not the fragmentation of the collective
strength. The full RPA models can describe the fragmentation but are very
time consuming. The last shortcoming becomes crucial for deformed and large
spherical clusters where the number of particles, and thus the size of the
configuration space, is very large. In this connection, the intermediate
class of the models, the RPA with {\it separable} residual forces (SRPA),
seems to be very promising$^{7,27-35}$.
The separable ansatz allows one to turn the RPA matrix into a simple
dispersion relation. This drastically simplifies the eigenvalue problem
preserving, at the same time, the main advantage of the full RPA to describe
the fragmentation of the collective strength. The SRPA version derived in
Refs.$^{27-33}$ provides the accuracy of full RPA calculations \cite
{KNRS_EPJ98}, can be applied to systems of any shape \cite
{Ne_ZPD,Ne_PRC,NK_Tsu,NKK_Pra}, and allows to treat GR in MC and atomic
nuclei on the same microscopic footing \cite{NK_PS,Ne_PRC,NKK_Pra}. The
results obtained within this SRPA version will be widely used in the review
as illustrative examples.
For the description of collective oscillations, the SRPA, and most of the
other models, exploit, as a starting point, the Kohn-Sham energy functional
\cite{KS65,GL76} for a system of $N_e$ valence electrons:
\[
E\{n({\bf r},t),m({\bf r},t),\tau ({\bf r},t)\} =1/2\int \tau ({\bf r},t)d%
{\bf r}+\int v_{xc}(n({\bf r},t),m({\bf r},t))d{\bf r}
\]
\begin{equation}
+1/2\int \int \frac{(n({\bf r},t)-n_i({\bf r}))(n({\bf r_1},t)-n_i({\bf r_1}%
))}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r_1}|}d{\bf r}d{\bf r_1},
\end{equation}
which includes the kinetic energy, the exchange-correlation term in the
local density approximation (LDA) \cite{GL76,VWN80} and the Coulomb
interaction, respectively. Here, $n({\bf r},t)=n({\bf r},t)\uparrow +n({\bf r%
},t)\downarrow =\sum\nolimits_l|{\phi }_l({\bf r},t)|^2$, $m({\bf r},t)=n(%
{\bf r},t)\uparrow -n({\bf r},t)\downarrow $ and $\tau ({\bf r}%
,t)=\sum\nolimits_l|\bigtriangledown {\phi }_l({\bf r},t)|^2$ are the
density, magnetization density (z-component) and kinetic energy density of
valence electrons, respectively; $n_i({\bf r})$ is the ionic density in the
jellium approximation; $\phi _l({\bf r},t)$ is a single-particle wave
function. The convention $e=m_e=\hbar =1$ is used. The functional (1) can
have additional terms if the ionic structure is treated beyond the jellium
approximation.
The time-dependent single-particle Hamiltonian is obtained as
\begin{equation}
H({\bf r},t)\phi _l({\bf r},t)=\frac{\delta E}{\delta \phi _l^{*}({\bf r},t)}%
.
\end{equation}
In the small-amplitude limit of a collective motion, the densities can be
written as $n({\bf r},t)=n_{{0}}({\bf r})+\delta n({\bf r},t)$ and $m({\bf r}%
,t)=m_{{0}}({\bf r})+\delta m({\bf r},t)$ where $n_0({\bf r})$ and $m_0({\bf %
r})$ are the static ground state densities ($m_0({\bf r})=0$ in spherical
and unpolarized clusters) and the values $\delta n({\bf r},t)$ and $\delta m(%
{\bf r},t)$ are small time-dependent density variations (transition
densities). Then, in the linear approximation to the density variations, the
Hamiltonian (2) is a sum of the static and dynamical parts. The static part
\begin{equation}
H_0({\bf r})=T+V_0({\bf r})=-\frac{\triangle }2+(\frac{dv_{xc}}{dn})_{n=n_{{0%
}},m=m_{{0}}}+\int \frac{n_{{0}}({\bf r_1})-n_i({\bf r_1})}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r_1%
}|}d{\bf r_1}
\end{equation}
constitutes the Kohn-Sham single-particle potential. It can be approximated
with a good accuracy by phenomenological potentials, such as the harmonic
oscillator\cite{LiS89_ZPD} (for small spherical MC), Nillson-Clemenger\cite
{C85,RFB95} (for deformed MC) or Woods-Saxon \cite{Ne_PRA,NHM90,FP96} (for
spherical and deformed MC .
In the electric channel, the dynamic part of the Hamiltonian (residual
interaction) has the form
\begin{equation}
\delta H({\bf r},t)=(\frac{d^2v_{xc}}{dn^2})_{n=n_0}\delta n({\bf r},t)+\int
\frac{\delta n({\bf r_1},t)}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r_1}|}d{\bf r_1}.
\label{eq:ELres}
\end{equation}
The dominant term here is the Coulomb interaction. The residual interaction
in this channel is always positive (repulsive) and shifts the unperturbed
electrical multipole strength from the typical particle-hole (ph) values $%
\omega _{ph}=0.9-1.5$ eV to higher energies 2.6-3.2 eV.
In the spin channel, the dynamical part is
\begin{equation}
\delta H({\bf r},t)=(\frac{d^2v_{xc}}{dndm})_{n=n_0,m=m_0}\delta n({\bf r}%
,t)\delta m({\bf r},t). \label{eq:MLres}
\end{equation}
Here, the residual interaction is determined by the exchange-correlation
term. It is always negative (attractive) and shifts the unperturbed magnetic
multipole strength from $\omega _{ph}=0.9-1.5$ eV to lower energies 0.2-0.8
eV. The residual interactions (4) and (5) are typical for the TD-LDA
calculation scheme.
In what follows we will mainly consider clusters constituted from monovalent
atoms, like alkali metals, for which the numbers of valence electrons and
atoms coincide, $N_e=N$.
\section{Electric Dipole Giant Resonance (E1 GR)}
Unlike nuclei, where different kinds of GR are well investigated both
experimentally and theoretically, our knowledge in clusters is mainly
limited by the electric dipole resonance (dipole plasmon). Experimentally
the E1 GR has been observed in a variety of clusters: small and large,
spherical and deformed, neutral and charged, hot and cooled (see, for
example, Refs.$^{43-49}$).
As a rule, the photoabsorption cross section was measured by methods of the
depletion spectroscopy. For other GR ($EL(L\ne 1)$, $ML$) there are only
theoretical predictions$^{6-9,28,30,32,50,51}$.
Physical interpretations of E1 GR in clusters and nuclei are very similar:
while in nuclei it is caused by translations of neutrons against and
protons, then in clusters it is a result of translations of the valence
electron against ions \cite{YanB_PR91}. In spite of this similarity, the
dipole resonance in clusters exhibits many interesting peculiarities which
will be discussed below.
\subsection{Energy of E1 GR: Step by Step}
The description of E1 energy for clusters is a rather complicated task. For
example, while in nuclei its energy depends on the mass number as $A^{-1/3}$%
, in clusters the E1-energy can both decrease (Ag clusters) and increase
(alkali MC) with the number of atoms. Let us consider this important
characteristic step by step.
{\bf Step one: Mie frequency and spill-out effect}. In the simplest
approximation, MC can be considered as a {\it classical} metallic drop.
Then, the E1-energy is described by Mie expression \cite{Mie}: $\omega
_{Mie}=\omega _p/\sqrt{3}$ where $\omega _p$ is the plasma frequency. For Na
clusters $\omega _{Mie}=3.41eV$. This value is much higher than the
experimental E1-energy which is 2.5-2.8 eV for spherical Na clusters with $%
N<100$.
The agreement with the experiment is considerably improved if we take into
account the {\it quantum} spill-out effect. This effect means that since the
valence electrons are quantum entities, they are not well localized and so,
unlike the classical ionic jellium,
can be partly {\it spilled out } beyond the jellium boundary. In principle,
this effect takes place in any two-component quantum system including atomic
nuclei and atoms (a ''neutron skin'' in small nuclei is a relevant example).
With the spill-out, the E1 energy in MC is described as \cite{LiS89_ZPD}
\begin{equation}
\omega _{E1}=\omega _{Mie}(1-\frac 12\frac{\delta N_e}{N_e})
\end{equation}
where $\delta N_e$ is the number of spilled out valence electrons. As a
result, the discrepancy with the experiment reduces to 0.2-0.3 eV. The
spill-out effect allows to explain the increase of the E1-energy with N,
observed in alkali MC. The value $\delta N_e$ decreases with the size (for
example, $\delta N_e=1.5(19\%)$ and $9.5(7\%)$in $Na_8$ and $Na_{138}$,
respectively \cite{Ar_NC89}) leading to the corresponding increase in the
E1-energy.
{\bf Step two: beyond jellium approximation, ionic structure, local and
nonlocal effects.} The remaining discrepancy can be removed in a large
extent by the explicit treatment of the ionic subsystem. First of all, we
should take into account that ions are not the points but have a size.
Inside this size, ion core electrons (ICE) (do not confuse them with the
valence electrons) screen the pure Coulomb interaction of ions and valence
electrons. To take into account this screening, the atomic pseudopotentials
(PP) are used (see, for instance, \cite{BG95,CCG95,YB96,BHS82}). They allow
to describe correctly the spectrum of valence electrons in isolated atoms
{\it without} the solution of the complicated many-body atomic task. Being a
sum of contributions of ICE with different orbital momenta, PP have {\it %
local} (s-electrons) and {\it nonlocal} (p and d electrons) parts \cite
{BHS82}. To avoid dealing with nonlocal functions, the Pseudo-Hamiltonians
(PH) were introduced as the next simplifying step \cite{BCC89,L96}. PH,
being derived from PP, lead to less involved (but with the same accuracy)
calculations since, unlike the PP, they treat the nonlocality only through
the differential operators. Folding atomic PH with jellium, one gets PH for
{\it atomic clusters}$^{19-21}$. PH have the additional advantage to be
easily incorporated to the common calculation schemes.
As compared to the conventional Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian, PH include the
additional local and two non-local (the orbital contribution and the
effective mass) terms. As is seen from Figure~1, in K
clusters (the same for Na) the nonlocal contributions are negligible and the
local term is enough to get good description of the E1-energy\cite
{KNRS_EPJ98}. This is not the case for Li clusters, where only both, local
and nonlocal, contributions provide the agreement with the experiment \cite
{KNRS_EPJ98}. In some studies (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{BG95}) the ICE effects
are taken into account together with some averaged treatment of the ionic
arrays in a cluster. The latter leads to an additional, but rather moderate,
redshift of the E1-energy.
{\bf Step three: direct dynamical ICE contribution.} The ICE effects
discussed above are realized through the change of the single-particle
characteristics with the subsequent
renormalization of the residual interaction. Besides this {\it indirect}
way, the ICE can {\it directly} influence the dynamics and thus lead to new
peculiarities of the E1 GR. This can be well demonstrated for Ag clusters
where, like atomic nuclei and {\it unlike} alkali MC, the E1-energy {\it %
decreases} with a size \cite{Ti_92GR}. The physics behind is that in these
clusters the energy of ICE excitations is comparable to the E1-energy. The
coupling of these two modes additionally screens the interaction of valence
electrons with ions (direct dynamical ICE contribution) and finally causes
the redshift (decrease) of the E1-energy \cite{SR97}. This effect is mainly
of a volume character and so intensifies with a cluster size. As a result,
the E1 energy in Ag clusters decreases with N. This tendency overpowers the
opposite one caused by the spill-out effect.
In alkali clusters, where the ICE excitations have energies much higher than
the E1 GR, the direct dynamical ICE contribution can be neglected and the
evolution of the E1-energy with the cluster size is determined mainly by the
spill-out effect.
\section{Landau Damping and Width of E1 GR}
The main physical mechanisms forming the plasmon width are the thermal
fluctuations of a cluster shape and the Landau damping (RPA fragmentation of
the collective strength) \cite
{Br93,YVB93,KNRS_EPJ98,R_SRPA,YB_APNY91,BL95,MonRei_temp}. The relative
contributions of these two mechanisms change with a cluster size. As is seen
from Figure~2, in small clusters, like $Na_{21}^{+}$, where
the Landau damping is negligible, the thermal fluctuations determine about
all the width. In clusters of moderate size, like $Na_{59}^{+}$, the Landau
damping is stronger and greatly contributes to the width. This is especially
the case for deformed clusters. In large clusters, like $Na_{441}^{+}$, the
Landau damping is weaker though its contribution to the width remains to be
considerable.
Figure~2 (bottom) shows that the Landau damping is closely
related with the shell structure \cite{KNRS_EPJ98}. In $Na_{21}^{+}$ the
dipole plasmon lies in the wide gap between the bunches of $\Delta {\cal N}$%
=1 and $\Delta {\cal N}$=3 particle-hole (ph) states and remains almost
unperturbed as a collective peak. With increasing the cluster size, the
resonance approaches the bunch $\Delta {\cal N}$=3 and, in $Na_{59}^{+}$, is
already interferes with ph states of this bunch, which leads to the
considerable Landau damping. For larger clusters, the plasmon runs to the
swamp of ph states. This leads to a general trend of increasing the width
which is, however, overlaid by sizeable fluctuations \cite{KNRS_EPJ98,R_SRPA}%
. But here a further mechanism comes into play: the coupling between the
resonance and ph states fades away due to increasing mismatch of $\Delta
{\cal N}$=1 ph configurations (which mainly generate the plasmon) and
surrounding ph states with much larger values of $\Delta {\cal N}$. This
finally leads to a decrease of the plasmon width $\propto N_e^{-1/3}$
estimated analytically in the wall formula \cite{YB_APNY91} and tested in
the RPA calculations \cite{R_SRPA}.
The Landau damping in MC with $N<40$ is rather sensitive to cluster charge:
being strongest in negatively charged ones (anions), the Landau damping is
considerably reduced while passing to neutral and then to positively charged
clusters (cations) \cite{Yan_CPL}. This effect is caused by a strong
dependence of the single-particle potential depth $V_0$ on the cluster
charge. In anions the potential is shallow ($V_0\simeq -2$ eV), the energy
gaps between $\Delta {\cal N}$ bunches are very smooth and, so, there are
good conditions for a sizeable Landau damping (see discussion above). In
neutral clusters and more in cations, the potential depth is increased to
about -7 eV, the gaps between $\Delta {\cal N}$ bunches in the ph spectrum
become more distinctive, which weakens the Landau damping.
\section{Temperature Effects}
In most of experiments with GR in MC, the typical cluster temperature is
estimated to be in the interval 300-900 K which corresponds to the thermal
energy $kT=0.03-0.09$ eV. At these temperatures, ions behave as classical
particles and quantum properties of the cluster are mainly determined by
valence electrons. This can be easily proved \cite{B90} by using the
uncertainty relation $\Delta x\Delta p\geq \hbar $. This relation gives
lower bounds for the momentum and energy of a particle in a system: $\Delta
p=\hbar /\Delta x$ and $\Delta E=(\Delta p)^2/2m$, respectively. Taking $%
\Delta x\leq 1.5\AA $ (the diameter of $Na_{20}$) for both ions and valence
electrons, one gets
\[
\Delta E_e\geq 0.16eV\qquad \mbox{for electrons,}
\]
\[
\Delta E_i\geq 10^{-4}eV\quad \mbox{for ions.}
\]
The energy of a quantum motion of valence electrons considerably exceeds the
thermal energy, which favors their quantum behavior. The opposite situation
takes place for ions which, therefore, should exhibit the classical
behavior. Such result takes place because the ionic mass is much larger than
the electron one.
The difference in ionic and electron masses leads to other interesting
consequence. Namely, almost all the thermal energy is contained in the ionic
subsystem. Valence electrons are embedded to the thermal ionic bath. So,
unlike atomic nuclei, MC represent the case of the canonical ensemble.
The bulk melting points for K, Na and Li are $T_b=336$, 371 and 452 K,
respectively. This means that most of the measurements for GR in MC have
been done for clusters in a liquid-like phase.
As was mentioned above, in small clusters, thermal shape fluctuations
provide the dominate contribution to the plasmon width. It is interesting
that, while in nuclei these fluctuations are mainly of a quadrupole form, in
MC they are mainly octupole \cite{MonRei_temp}. The reason is that spherical
and neighboring MC are soft to the octupole deformation.
Photoexcitation is a rapid process in the ionic time scale. So, every
response of a cluster represents its instantaneous shape and the
experimental cross section gives a properly weighted response of all allowed
shapes \cite{BL95}.
The higher the temperature, the larger the plasmon width and the smaller the
plasmon energy. The temperature shift is estimated as about $1\%$ of the
plasmon energy per 100 K \cite{Bre91,HB67}. It can be explained by the
effectively increase of the cluster size with temperature. The larger the
size, the bigger the static dipole polarizability which is expressed through
the cluster radius as $\alpha _{E1}=R^3$. The polarizability is connected
with the plasmon energy through the inverse sum rule, $\alpha
_{E1}=2m_{-1}\simeq <E1>^2/\omega _{E1}$. So, the higher the temperature,
the larger $\alpha _{E1}$ and, consequently, the smaller $\omega _{E1}$.
Recent experiments show that at sufficiently low temperatures the
gross-structure of the E1 GR drastically changes \cite{Na10_PRL}. For
example, the axially deformed cluster $Na_{11}^{+}$ at 380 K demonstrates
the typical two-peak spectrum determined by the deformation splitting of E1
GR. At 35 K the same resonance exhibits much more complicated structure
including at least 6 well-distinguished peaks. This structure reflects the
ionic arrangement which is not washed out at so low temperature by
variations of ions. In this case, the jellium approximation is not valid and
models based on this cannot be applied. The E1 GR in small clusters at low
temperature seems to be best described by {\it ab initio} quantum-chemical
calculations \cite{BK_Pra}.
\section{E1 GR in Deformed Clusters}
Like nuclei, MC with open shells have quadrupole deformation$^{45-49,64-68}$%
.
There are experimental indications of both prolate and oblate axial
quadrupole shapes, as well as of $\gamma $-deformation$^{45-49}$.
In the framework of different methods (Strutinski's shell correction method,
ultimate jellium model, etc.) hexadecapole and octupole deformations as well
as high isomerism have been predicted$^{64-68}$. Rather strong quadrupole,
hexadecapole and octupole deformations should take place at least up to MC
with $N\sim 700$ \cite{FP96Er}.
Like in nuclei, E1 GR in axially deformed MC exhibits the deformation
splitting in two peaks (see Figure~3). The right peak is about
twice larger than the left one in prolate clusters (see $Na_{11}^{+}$, $%
Na_{15}^{+}$, $Na_{27}^{+}$) and, vice versa, in oblate clusters (see $%
Na_{35}^{+}$).
Most of MC are deformed. But getting an experimental information on a
cluster shape, even in the simplest case of a quadrupole deformation, is
rather nontrivial problem. In nuclei rotational bands serve as source of
such information. In principle, deformed clusters can rotate. But, due to a
large value of the moment of inertia, rotational energies are very small
and, being of the same order of magnitude as the thermal energy, fail to be
observed. In this connection, the splitting of E1 GR in deformed clusters is
now a {\it single direct} manifestation of quadrupole deformation and the
main source of the information about it.
\section{Multipole GR, Asymptotic Trends, Restoring Forces}
So far, the depletion spectroscopy methods (photoabsorption and
photofragmentation) were mainly exploited for observation of E1 GR in MC
\cite{He93}. The other reactions $((e,e^{\prime }),(\gamma ,\gamma ^{\prime
})$ and etc.) are not yet sufficiently developed, which impedes the
observation of other GR. The similar situation took place in nuclear physics
in early seventies. For this reason an investigation of EL GR with $L\ne 1$
is yet limited to theoretical predictions$^{6-9,28,30,32,50,51}$. In Figure
4, E2 and E3 GR in spherical $Na_{59}^{+}$, calculated within
the SRPA, are presented as typical examples.
It is instructive to consider the main trends of electrical multipole giant
resonance with the size (N) and multipolarity (L), and also the origin of
the GR restoring forces. Such analysis has been done within the sum rule
approach (SRA) in Ref.\cite{Se_SRA_PRB89}. In the jellium approximation for
valence electrons, $n_{{0}}(r)=n_i(r)=n^{+}\theta (r-R)$ (the spill-out
effect is neglected), the energy of $EL(L\ne 0)$ GR can be written as \cite
{Se_SRA_PRB89}
\begin{equation}
\omega _{EL}=\sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}}=\hbar \sqrt{\frac 23(2L+1)(L-1)\frac{%
\beta _F^2}{R^2}+\omega _p^2\frac L{2L+1}} \label{eq:omEL}
\end{equation}
where $m_1=\sum_iB(EL,gr\to i)\omega _i$ and $m_3=\sum_iB(EL,gr\to i)\omega
_i^3$ are the sum rules, $\beta _F=(3/5)^{1/2}(3\pi ^2)^{1/3}\frac
1mn_0^{1/3}$ and R is the radius of a cluster. The first term in Eq. \ref
{eq:omEL} is the contribution of the kinetic energy (the similar expression
have been obtained earlier in Ref. \cite{NS80}). The second term is
determined by the Coulomb interaction between valence electrons (ee) and
valence electrons and ions (ei). Eq. \ref{eq:omEL} shows that E1 GR is
determined only by the Coulomb interaction.
In the limit of large R, one has
\begin{equation}
\omega _{EL}\to \hbar \omega _p\sqrt{\frac L{2L+1}}.
\end{equation}
The larger $L$, the higher the excitation energy of the GR. In general, due
to the first term in Eq. \ref{eq:omEL}, the energy of $EL(L\ne 0,1)$ GR is
decreased with N. For low L in small clusters this tendency is changed by
the spill-out effect.
The separate analysis for E0 GR gives the increase of the E0 energy with N
to the limit $\omega _{E0}\to \hbar \omega _p$.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\caption{Relative contributions to $m_3$ for $Na_{92}$: kinetic energy $%
(m_3(T))$, exchange and correlations $(m_3(xc))$, electron-electron
interaction $(m_3(ee)$, electron-ion interaction $(m_3(ei))$ and total
Coulomb interaction $(m_3(C)=m_3(ee)+m_3(ei))$ \protect\cite{Se_SRA_PRB89}. }
\label{tab:m3EL}\vspace{0.4cm}
\par
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
L & $m_3(T)$ & $m_3(xc)$ & $m_3(ee)$ & $m_3(ei)$ & $m_3(C)$ \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
2 & 0.08 & 0 & -0.77 & 1.69 & 0.92 \\
5 & 0.51 & 0 & -2.29 & 2.78 & 0.49 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
It is seen from Eq. \ref{eq:omEL} that the value $m_3$ has the meaning of a
restoring force \cite{RB90}. In Table \ref{tab:m3EL} the contributions to $%
m_3$ from different terms of the Kohn-Sham functional (1) are presented. It
is seen that the restoring force for E1 GR is determined by the electron-ion
interaction (ei) only. With increasing L, the electron-electron contribution
(ee) raises and starts to compensate the (ei) Coulomb part. Simultaneously,
the kinetic energy term grows. For high L, the contribution of the total
Coulomb interaction goes to zero and all the restoring force is determined
by the kinetic energy. The purely volume exchange correlation term (xc)
which within the LDA depends only on the electron density does not
contribute to $m_3$.
The restoring force should not be confused with the residual interaction. As
is seen from Eq. \ref{eq:ELres}, the residual interaction, unlike the
restoring force, has only the (ee)- and (xc)-terms for any L (where the
(ee)-term dominates).
\section{Anharmonicity and Multiphonon GR}
How much harmonic are the GR in metal clusters? How strong is the mixing of
one and two phonon states? Investigations performed within different
approaches$^{71-73}$ give contradictory answers for one-phonon GR. While the
shell-model calculations
found for E1 GR in $Na_{20}$ some signals of anharmonicity \cite{KML_94},
other studies predict the harmonic character for M2(spin-dipole) and EL GR
\cite{Cat_93,CRS97}. It should be noted that these studies have been done
for rather small clusters with $N\le 20$. In this size region the GR energy
lies safely below the lowest 2p-2h configurations, what does not favor the
anharmonic effects. This picture can change in larger clusters where GR
approach the region of 2p-2h configurations.
The calculations \cite{Cat_93} predict a noticeable anharmonicity for most
of {\it double} (two-phonon) GR placed at 8-15 eV. These GR exhibit a weak
mixing with one-phonon states but a considerable fragmentation between
two-phonon configurations. Most strong effect is expected for some $0^{+}$
double GR, for example, for $(1^{-}\otimes 1^{-})_{0^{+}}$ in $Na_{21}^{+}$.
With the appearance of new experimental techniques allowing investigation of
multiple GR these predictions are quite important. The techniques use
non-intense femtosecond lasers \cite{S98} or exploit collisions of a cluster
with highly charged ions \cite{G97}. Quite recently the multiple GR
constructed from 3-4 dipole plasmons has been observed in $Na_{93}^{+}$ \cite
{S98}.
\section{Magnetic GR}
Like in atoms, the spin-orbital interaction in metal clusters is negligible
and thus spin and orbital collective magnetic modes are well decoupled. The
separation of these two modes in MC is easier than in nuclei.
\subsection{Spin-Multipole GR}
Magnetic multipole resonances (ML) of spin character caused by the external
field $Q_L=\sum_{j=1}^Nr_j^LY_{L0}\sigma _j^z$
were studied within the SRA and RPA \cite
{LiC_96spin,SL_97spin,SBBN_93spin,MCSRe_96spin}.
For $L=1$ the operator $Q_1\sim \sum_{j=1}^Nz_j\sigma _j^z$ provides the
opposite shifts of spin-up and spin-down electrons in z-direction. Unlike
the electric resonances , the residual interaction for ML GR is defined only
by the exchange and correlations ((xc)-term) since only the (xc)-term
depends on the magnetization density (see Eq. \ref{eq:MLres}) . Therefore
the study of ML resonances can provide a valuable information about
(xc)-effects in clusters.
Approximating the electron density by
the expression $n_0=n_{00}/(1+exp((r-R)/a)$, one gets the energy for ML GR
\cite{SL_97spin}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega _{ML} &=&\sqrt{\frac{m_3}{m_1}}=\hbar [\frac 25(2L+1)(L-1)\frac{\beta
_F^2}{R^2}+\frac{e^2}{m}4\pi aL\frac{n_0}{R^{2L-1}} \nonumber \\
&+&\frac 1mL(v_{xc}^{(02)}(n_0,m_0)-v_{xc}^{(20)}(n_0,m_0))\frac{n_0}{6aR}%
]^{1/2} \label{eq:omML}
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_{xc}^{(pq)}(n_0,m_0)=\frac{d^p}{dn^p}\frac{d^q}{dm^q}%
v_{xc}^{(pq)}(n,m)\mid _{(n=n_0,m=m_0)}$. For other notation see Eq. \ref
{eq:omEL}. As compared to Eq. \ref{eq:omEL} for EL GR, Eq. (9),
was derived taking into account the spill-out effect. Furthermore, due to
the presence of the spin in the operator $Q_L$, the (xc)-term now
contributes to $m_3$, unlike the case of EL GR. However, the exchange
contributions (Pauli principle) to $v_{xc}^{20}$ and $v_{xc}^{02}$ are the
same and then, only correlation effects enter Eq. \ref{eq:omML}. The
energies of spin ML resonances decrease with N and go to zero for large
sizes. The larger $L$, the higher the GR energy. The behavior of ML GR much
depends on the diffuseness parameter $a$.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{ Relative contributions to $m_3$ for $Na_{92}$ and $Na_{912}$ :
kinetic energy $(m_3(T))$, correlation $(m_3(c))$ and total Coulomb
interaction $(m_3(C))$. The data are extracted from the Fig. 1 of Ref.
\protect\cite{SL_97spin}. }
\label{tab:m3ML}\vspace{0.4cm}
\par
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$Na_{92}$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$Na_{912}$} \\
\cline{2-7}
L & $m_3(T)$ & $m_3(c)$ & $m_3(C)$ & $m_3(T)$ & $m_3(c)$ & $m_3(C)$ \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0.77 & 0.23 & 0 & 0.30 & 0.70 \\
2 & 0.50 & 0.49 & 0.01 & 0.31 & 0.68 & 0.01 \\
5 & 0.76 & 0.20 & 0.04 & 0.59 & 0.38 & 0.03 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:m3ML} demonstrates that the restoring force for
spin-multipole GR differs from the electrical GR case. Namely, the
contribution of correlations\cite{VWN80} dominates for $L=1$ and 2 and
remains to be considerable for larger $L$.
The correlation term includes long-range RPA correlations$^{76-78}$,
short-range correlations \cite{LST94} and others. The correlations greatly
influence both static and dynamical characteristics of MC$^{37,38,76-78}$
and their investigation is very important.
\subsection{Orbital GR}
Since the number of atoms in MC can be much more than the number of nucleons
in nuclei, much larger values of the single-particle orbital moment can be
achieved what can give origin to very strong orbital magnetic multipole
resonances, orbital ML GR. That is, clusters, as nuclei, can exhibit orbital
ML GR like,``scissors'', twist mode, etc., nevertheless with a much stronger
strength \cite{LiS89_ZPD,Ba94}.
Investigations of the specific low-energy orbital M1 GR, which can exist
only in {\it deformed} clusters demonstrated that it can serve as a good
indicator of the cluster quadrupole deformation $^{7,81-83}$.
Indeed, in some cases the deformation splitting of E1 GR is washed out by
other effects and is not enough distinctive to get a reliable information on
cluster deformation. Then the orbital M1 GR can be used for this aim.
Macroscopically, this resonance is treated as small-angle rigid rotations of
the ellipsoid of valence electrons against the ionic ellipsoid. Such
collective mode was shown to be coupled with the quadrupole component, $%
\bigtriangledown (yz)$, of the displacement field \cite{LiS89_ZPD,LS89}. The
orbital M1 GR has the counterpart in deformed nuclei, well known as the
''scissors'' mode\cite{IP78}. The latter describes the rotations of the
neutron ellipsoid against the proton one. The orbital M1 GR is represented
by $K^\pi =1^{+}$ states ($K$ is the angular-momentum projection) with a low
excitation energy and strong M1 transitions to the ground state. For Na
clusters these characteristics are estimated
as \cite{LiS89_ZPD,LS89} $\omega _{M1}=4.6\beta _2N_e^{-1/3}(1+5\frac{\omega
_0}{\omega _p})^{-1/2}$ eV and $B(M1)=1.1\beta _2N_e^{4/3}\mu _b^2$ where $%
\beta _2$ is the deformation parameter, $B(M1)$ is the reduced transition
probability and $\omega _0$ is the harmonic oscillator frequency. Both $%
\omega _{M1}$ and $B(M1)$ are proportional to the deformation parameter and
so the orbital M1 GR survives only in deformed clusters.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{The excitation energy and strength (within the interval 0-1 eV) of
orbital M1 GR, calculated within the SRPA \protect\cite{NKS_Nas,NKSI_SN}.
See the text for notation. }
\label{tab:OM1}\vspace{0.4cm}
\par
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $Na^+_{15}$ & $Na^+_{27}$ & $Na^+_{35}$ & $Na^+_{119}$ & $Na^+_{295}$ \\
\hline
$\beta_2$ & 0.32 & 0.23 & -0.23 & 0.25 & 0.24 \\
$\omega _{M1}$, eV & 0.63 & 0.29 & 0.35 & 0.26 & 0.21 \\
$B(M1), \mu_b^2$ & 27 & 56 & 41 & 229 & 757 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The results of the first realistic RPA calculations for orbital M1 GR \cite
{NKS_Nas,NKSI_SN} are given in Table 3. It is seen that this resonance has
low excitation energies. The most remarkable result is that already in
clusters with about 300 atoms, the orbital M1 GR strength reaches very high
values, 700-800 $\mu _b^2$. This GR is described in detail in Ref.\cite
{NKSI_SN} of the present Proceedings.
\section{Other GR in Atomic Clusters}
As compared to nuclei, atomic clusters provide many specific manifestations
of E1 GR. For example, clusters embedded in a dielectric matrix demonstrate
a strong screening effect: the matrix screens the residual interaction
between valence electrons in a cluster, which results in the considerable
decrease of E1-energy \cite{RS93}. In mixed and coated clusters the impurity
(or coated) atoms much influence both the ground state and properties of E1
GR (see, e.g. Refs.$^{86-88}$).
In the fullerene $C_{60}$, two E1 GR are known as determined by weakly
bonded $\pi $ electrons and strongly bonded $\sigma $ electrons (see, e.g.
Ref. \cite{GL93_C60}).
$^3He$ and $^4He$ clusters representing collections of fermions ($^3He$
atoms) and bosons ($^4He$ atoms), respectively, should be mentioned. In $%
^3He $ clusters just $^3He$ atoms (not valence electrons) form a mean field
with quantum shells \cite{B90,S91,WR93}. These clusters are characterized by
strong surface effects. Unlike nuclei and MC, $^3He$ clusters represent the
case of {\it one-component} Fermi-system and, so, have no E1 GR. At the same
time, the study of other EL GR reveals new possibilities, for instance, the
comparison of the GR properties in Fermi ($^3He$ clusters) \cite{WR92,S91_He}
and Bose ($^4He$ clusters)\cite{CS90} systems.
\section*{Summary}
Giant resonances in atomic clusters have been observed. Being much similar
to their counterparts in atomic nuclei, GR in MC demonstrate, at the same
time, numerous exciting peculiarities.
The unique situation takes place now in many-body physics where, in addition
to atoms and atomic nuclei, a new family of small Fermi systems (MC,
fullerenes, $He^3$ clusters, quantum dots) appears. This greatly enlarges
our possibilities in many-body studies.
All mentioned systems possess, in a different extent, a mean field with
quantum shells.
It should be noted that atomic clusters are attractive both for fundamental
studies and practical applications \cite{Ne_JINR}. Last achievements
(creation of new materials, machinning superhard surfaces, creation of
extremely large energy densities in a matter, catalysis, microelectronics,
microcomputering, etc.) show that, due to atomic clusters, one may expect in
a recent future a remarkable progress in many high-tech fields.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to M. Schmidt and H. Haberland for communication the
experimental results and to the Organizing Committee of the Workshop for the
financial support of the attendance. The work was also partly supported by
CAPES (V.O.N.) and FINEP Brasil (V.O.N. and F.F.S.C.).
\section*{References}
|
\section*{I. Introduction}
Recently, a method based on successive canonical transformations has been
used to obtain exact solution of the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
i\frac{d}{dt}|\psi(t)\rangle=H(t)|\psi(t)\rangle
\label{sch-eq}
\end{equation}
for a class of dipole Hamiltonians \cite{pla97-1,pra97-1,jmp97-2} and
time-dependent harmonic oscillators \cite{pra97-2}. For these systems the
Hamiltonian is a nondegenrate Hermitian operator. The purpose of the
present article is to extend the application of this method to the cases where
the Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian and involves degenerate eigenvalues.
Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians have been used to model a variety of physical
systems involving decaying states, \cite{nhh-application}. The solution
of the Schr\"odinger equation for a time-dependent two-level non-Hermitian
Hamiltonian has been considered in Refs.~\cite{da-to-mi,kv-pu}. Another
motivations for the study of the Schr\"odinger equation for a
time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonian is the fact that the solution of
every linear ordinary differential equation (ODE) may be reduced to the
solution of a system of first order linear ODEs which can be written in the
form of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{sch-eq}) or
alternatively
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi(t)\rangle&=&U(t)|\psi(0)\rangle\;,
\label{psi=}\\
i\frac{d}{dt}U(t)&=&H(t)U(t)\;,
\label{sch-eq-u}\\
U(t)&=&1\;,
\label{ini-condi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $U(t)$ is the evolution operator. For a general linear ODE
the corresponding Hamiltonian $H(t)$ may be a non-Hermitian matrix with
degenerate eigenvalues.
The method of {\em adiabatic product expansion} developed in
Refs.~\cite{pla97-1,pra97-1} does not directly apply to quantum systems
with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. In this article we shall present a
generalization of this method which applies to arbitrary (possibly)
non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with degenerate as well as nondegenerate
eigenvalues.
The organization of the article is as follows. In section~II we review the
basic results concerning the adiabatic approximation for degenerate and
non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. In section~III we discuss the generalization of
the method of adiabatic product expansion to these Hamiltonians. In
section~IV we use the results of section~III to study the solution of the
Schr\"odinger equation for a general nondegenerate non-Hermitian two-level
Hamiltonian. In section~V, we apply the general results obtained in
section~IV to treat the classical equation of motion for a harmonic
oscillator with a time-dependent frequency. In section~VI, we discuss the
application of the adiabatic product expansion to study the quadrupole
interaction of a spin 1 particle with a time-dependent electric field
$\vec{\cal E} =({\cal E}_1(t), {\cal E}_2(t),0)$. We show that the
corresponding Hamiltonian which has a degenerate and a nondegenerate
eigenvalue is canonically equivalent to a Hamiltonian which has only
nondegenerate eigenvalues. Furthermore, we show that if the direction of the
electric field depends in a particular way on its magnitude, then our method
yields the exact solution of the Schr\"odinger equation. Finally we present our
conclusions in section~VII.
\section*{II. Adiabatic Approximation for Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians}
Let $H=H[R]$ be a parametric Hamiltonian which depends on a set of real
parameters $R=(R^1,R^2,\cdots,R^d)$ labelling the points of a smooth
manifold $M$. Let $E_n[R]$ denote the eigenvalues of $H[R]$
and ${\cal H}_{n}[R]$ be the degeneracy subspace associated with
$E_n[R]$. Let $\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}$ denote the degree of degeneracy of $E_n[R]$, i.e.,
the complex dimension of ${\cal H}_{n}[R]$. We shall assume that the
spectrum of $H[R]$ is discrete and $\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}$ does not depend on $R$.
Now let $|\psi_n,a;R\rangle$ and $|\phi_n,a;R\rangle$ form a complete
biorthonormal basis of the Hilbert space \cite{wong,ga-wr}. This means that
$|\psi_n,a;R\rangle$ with $a\in\{1,2,\cdots,\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}\}$ form a basis of
${\cal H}_{n}[R]$, in particular
\begin{equation}
H[R]|\psi_n,a;R\rangle=E_n[R]|\psi_n,a;R\rangle\;,
\label{eg-va-eq-H}
\end{equation}
and $|\phi_n,a;R\rangle$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&H[R]^\dagger|\phi_n,a;R\rangle=E_n^*[R]|\phi_n,a;R\rangle\;,
\label{eg-va-eq-H*}\\
&&\langle\phi_m,b;R|\psi_n,a;R\rangle=\delta_{mn}\delta_{ab}\;,
\label{biorthonormal}\\
&&\sum_{n}\sum_{a=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}}|\psi_n,a;R\rangle\langle\phi_n,a;R|=1\;.
\label{complete}
\end{eqnarray}
Next suppose that the parameters $R^i$ depend on time $t$, then $R(t)$
defines a curve ${\cal C}$ in the parameter space $M$, and the Hamiltonian, its
eigenvalues and eigenvectors become time-dependent. In this case we use
the notation $H(t):=H[R(t)]$, $E_n(t):=E_n[R(t)]$, $|\psi_n,a;t\rangle:=
|\psi_n,a;R(t)\rangle$, and $|\phi_n,a;t\rangle:=|\phi_n,a;R(t)\rangle$. We shall
assume that $E_n(t),~|\psi_n,a;t\rangle$ and $|\phi_n,a;t\rangle$ are smooth
functions of $t$ and that during the evolution of the system the eigenvalues
of the Hamiltonian do not cross, i.e., if $E_m(0)<E_n(0)$, then for all $t\in
[0,\tau]$, $E_m(t)<E_n(t)$, where $\tau$ denotes the duration of the
evolution of the system.
Differentiating both sides of Eq.~(\ref{eg-va-eq-H}) with respect to $t$,
taking the inner product of both sides of the resulting equation with
$|\phi_m,b;t\rangle$, for arbitrary $m$ and $b$, and using
Eqs.~(\ref{eg-va-eq-H}) -- (\ref{biorthonormal}), we have
\begin{equation}
[E_m(t)-E_n(t)]\langle\phi_m,b;t|\frac{d}{dt}|\psi_n,a;t\rangle+
\langle\phi_m,b;t|\dot H(t)|\psi_n,a;t\rangle
-\delta_{mn}\delta_{ab}\dot E(t)=0\;.
\label{1}
\end{equation}
Here a dot denotes differentiation with respect to $t$. For $m\neq n$,
Eq.~(\ref{1}) reads
\begin{equation}
\langle\phi_m,b;t|\frac{d}{dt}|\psi_n,a;t\rangle=\frac{
\langle\phi_m,b;t|\dot H(t)|\psi_n,a;t\rangle}{E_n(t)-E_m(t)}~~~
{\rm for}~~~m\neq n.
\label{2}
\end{equation}
Now let us express the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{sch-eq})
in the basis $\{|\psi_n,a;t\rangle\}$. Then
\begin{equation}
|\psi(t)\rangle=\sum_{n}\sum_{a=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}}C_a^n(t)|\psi_n,a;t\rangle\;,
\label{3}
\end{equation}
where $C_a^n(t)$ are complex coefficients. Substituting Eq.~(\ref{3}) in the
Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{sch-eq}), taking the inner product of both sides
of the resulting equation with $|\phi_m,b;t\rangle$, and making use of
Eqs.~(\ref{eg-va-eq-H}), (\ref{eg-va-eq-H*}), (\ref{biorthonormal}),
and (\ref{2}), we find
\begin{equation}
i\dot C_b^m-E_m C_b^m+\sum_{a=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}} i\langle\phi_m,b;t|\frac{d}{dt}
\psi_m,a;t\rangle C_a^m=-i\sum_{n\neq m}\sum_{a=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}}
\frac{\langle\phi_m,b;t|\dot H(t)|\psi_n,a;t\rangle}{E_n(t)-E_m(t)}\;.
\label{4}
\end{equation}
The special case of this equation with $\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}=1$, i.e., the nondegenerate case,
has been originally derived by Garrison and Wright \cite{ga-wr} in their
investigation of the adiabatic geometric phase \cite{berry1984} for
non-Hermitian Hamiltonians \cite{ga-wr,da-mi-to,mi-si-ba-be,mo-he,p28}.
If the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{4}) is negligible, then one says that the
system undergoes an {\rm adiabatic evolution},
\cite{bo-fo,kato,pra97-1,ga-wr,ne-ra}. In this
case, the equations for $C_a^n$ decouple and their solution is given by
\begin{equation}
C^n_a(t)=\sum_{b=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}} K^n_{ab}(t)C^n_b(0)\;,
\label{5}
\end{equation}
where $K_{ab}^n(t)$ are entries of the invertible matrix
\begin{equation}
K^n(t):=e^{-i\int_0^tE_n(s)ds}\;{\cal P}
\exp \left[i\int_{R(0)}^{R(t)} {\cal A}^n[R]\right]\;,
\label{6}
\end{equation}
${\cal P}$ denotes the path-ordering operator, ${\cal A}^n$
is the matrix of one-forms with entries
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^n_{ab}[R]:=i\langle\phi_n,a;R|d|\psi_n,b;R\rangle\;,
\label{a=}
\end{equation}
$d$ stands for the exterior derivative with respect to $R^i$, and
the line intergral in Eq.~(\ref{6}) is evaluated along the curve
${\cal C}$ defined by $R(t)$. If ${\cal C}$ is a closed curve in $M$, the
Hamiltonian has a periodic time-dependence and the path-ordered exponential
in Eq.~(\ref{6}), which takes the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}\exp \left[i\oint_{\cal C}{\cal A}^n[R]\right]\;,
\label{gp}
\end{equation}
is the {\em non-Hermitian} analogue of the {\em non-Abelian adiabatic
geometric phase} \cite{wi-ze}.
Note that if the initial vector $|\psi(0)\rangle$ is an eigenvector of the
initial Hamiltonian $H(0)$, then the adiabaticity of the evolution implies
that $|\psi(t)\rangle$ is an eigenvector of $H(t)$ for all $t\in[0,\tau]$. In terms
of the time-evolution operator $U(t)$ of Eq.~(\ref{sch-eq-u}) this is
expressed by
\begin{eqnarray}
U(t)&\approx& U^{(0)}(t)\;,~~~{\rm where}
\label{7}\\
U^{(0)}(t)&:=&\sum_{n}\sum_{a,b=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}} K^n_{ab}(t)
|\psi_n,a;t\rangle\langle\phi_n,b;0|\;.
\label{u0}
\end{eqnarray}
One can easily show that $U^{(0)}(t)$ is invertible, and its inverse is
given by
\begin{equation}
U^{(0)^{-1}}(t)=\sum_n\sum_{a,b=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}} K^{n^{-1}}_{ab}(t)
|\psi_n,a;0\rangle\langle\phi_n,b;t|\;,
\label{u0-1}
\end{equation}
where $K^{n^{-1}}(t)$ is the inverse of $K^n(t)$.
\section*{III. Adiabatic Canonical Transformations and the Generalized
Adiabatic Product Expansion}
Let $g(t)$ be an invertible linear operator acting on the Hilbert space.
Then the transformations:
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi(t)\rangle&\to& |\psi'(t)\rangle:=g(t)|\psi(t)\rangle\;,
\label{psi-trans}\\
H(t)&\to& H'(t):=g(t)H(t)g(t)^{-1}-ig(t)\frac{d}{dt}g(t)^{-1}\;,
\label{H-trans}\\
U(t)&\to&U'(t):=g(t)U(t)g(0)^{-1}\;,
\label{u-trans}
\end{eqnarray}
leave the form of the Schr\"odinger equation invariant. We shall call
such a transformation a {\em canonical transformation.}
Now let us investigate the consequences of the canonical transformation
defined by $g(t)=U^{(0)}(t)^{-1}$. We shall call this transformation the
{\em adiabatic canonical transformation.} Denoting the transformed
Hamiltonian $H'$ by $H^{(1)}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{(1)}(t)&=&\sum_{n,m\neq n}\sum_{a=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}}
\sum_{b=1}^{\cal M}H^{(1)^{nm}}_{ab}(t)|\psi_n,a;0\rangle\langle
\phi_m,b;0|\;,~~~{\rm where}
\label{H1}\\
H^{(1){nm}}_{ab}(t)&:=&-K_{ac}^{n}(t)^{-1}A_{cd}^{nm}(t)
K_{db}^m(t)\;,~~~{\rm and}~~~
A_{cd}^{nm}(t):=i\langle\phi_n,c;t|\frac{d}{dt}|\psi_m,d;t\rangle\;.
\label{H1-ab}
\end{eqnarray}
Because $g(0)=U^{(0)}(0)^{-1}=1$, the transformed evolution operator is
given by
\begin{equation}
U'(t)=U^{(0)}(t)^{-1} U(t) \;.
\label{u'=}
\end{equation}
Clearly if the adiabatic approximation is valid, $H^{(1)}(t)\approx 0$
and $U'(t)\approx 1$.
Let us suppose that $H^{(1)}(t)$ has a discrete spectrum and denote
by $E^{(1)}_{n_1}(t)$ and $\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}_1$ the eigenvalues of $H^{(1)}(t)$ and
their degree of degeneracy. Furthermore, let $\{|\psi_{n_1}^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle,
|\phi_n^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle\}$ be a biorthonormal eigenbasis of the Hilbert
space, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&H^{(1)}(t)|\psi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t\rangle=E^{(1)}_{n_1}[R]
|\psi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
&&H^{(1)}(t)^\dagger|\phi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t\rangle=E^{(1)*}_{n_1}(t)
|\phi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
&&\langle\phi^{(1)}_{m_1},b_1;t|\psi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t\rangle=
\delta_{m_1n_1}\delta_{a_1b_1}\;,\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{n_1}\sum_{a_1=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}_1}|\psi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t\rangle
\langle\phi^{(1)}_{n_1},a_1;t|=1\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then $H^{(1)}(t)$ shares the properties of the original Hamiltonian $H(t)$,
and we can repeat the above analysis using $H^{(1)}(t)$ in place of $H(t)$.
In this way the adiabatic approximation yields the approximate evolution
operator
\begin{equation}
U^{(1)}(t)=\sum_{n_1}\sum_{a_1,b_1=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize${\cal N}$}_1}
K^{(1)n_1}_{a_1b_1}(t)|\psi_{n_1}^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle
\langle\phi_{n_1}^{(1)},b_1;0|
\label{u1=}
\end{equation}
for $H^{(1)}(t)$, where $K^{(1)n_1}_{a_1b_1}(t)$ are the entries of the
matrix $K^{(1)n_1}$ obtained by replacing $E_n(t),~ |\psi_n,a;t\rangle$ and
$|\phi_n,a;t\rangle$ in Eqs.~(\ref{6}) and (\ref{a=}) by $E_{n_1}^{(1)}(t)$,
$|\psi_{n_1}^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle$, and $|\phi_{n_1}^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle$,
respectively.
Next we perform the adiabatic canonical transformation defined by $g(t)=
U^{(1)}(t)^{-1}$. This leads to a transformed Hamiltonian $H^{(2)}(t)$
which is related to $H^{(1)}(t)$ according to Eqs.~(\ref{H1}) and
(\ref{H1-ab}) with $K^n,~|\psi_n,a;t\rangle$ and $|\phi_n,b;t\rangle$ replaced
by $K^{(1)^{n_1}},~|\psi_{n_1}^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle$ and
$|\phi_{n_1}^{(1)},a_1;t\rangle$. The transformed evolution operator is given
by
\[U^{(1)}(t)^{-1}U^{(0)}(t)^{-1}U(t)\;.\]
Repeating this procedure we obtain, after $N$ successive adiabatic canonical
transformations, a transformed Hamiltonian $H^{(N)}(t)$ and a transformed
evolution operator which is given by
\[U^{(N-1)}(t)^{-1}U^{(N-2)}(t)^{-1}\cdots U^{(0)}(t)^{-1}U(t)\;.\]
Here $U^{(\ell)}(t)$, with $\ell\in\{1,2,\cdots,N-1\}$, denotes the approximate
evolution operator obtained by performing adiabatic approximation on the
Hamiltonian $H^{(\ell)}(t)$.
If for some $N$ the adiabatic approximation yields the exact solution
of the Schr\"odinger equation for the Hamiltonian $H^{(N)}(t)$, then by
construction $H^{(N+1)}(t)=0$ and $U^{(N+1)}(t)=1$. In this case, the
original evolution operator is given by
\begin{equation}
U(t)=U^{(0)}(t)U^{(1)}(t)\cdots U^{(N)}(t)\;.
\label{u=approx}
\end{equation}
If the adiabatic approximation fails for all $H^{(N)}(t)$, then there are
two possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)] one obtains an infinite product expansion for the evolution
operator
\begin{equation}
U(t)=\prod_{\ell=0}^{\infty} U^{(\ell)}(t):=
U^{(0)}(t)U^{(1)}(t)\cdots U^{(\ell)}(t)\cdots\;.
\label{u=exact}
\end{equation}
In this case, one may view Eq.~(\ref{u=approx}) as a {\em
generalization} of the adiabatic approximation.
\item[ii)] one obtains $H^{(i)}(t)=H^{(j)}(t)$ for some $i$ and $j$
with $i\neq j$.
In this case a direct application of the method of adiabatic product
expansion does not produce a solution. However, as we shall see in
the following section, sometimes it is possible to modify this method
by combining the adiabatic canonical transformation with other
canonical transformations, so that one obtains a finite or an infinite
product expansion with distinct terms.
\end{itemize}
\section*{IV. Application to Two-Level Hamiltonians}
Two-level nondegenerate Hamiltonians provide the simplest nontrivial
quantum systems. This has been one of the main reasons for the study of
these Hamiltonians since the early days of quantum mechanics. In this
section we shall consider the most general nondegenerate two-level
Hamiltonian which may or may not be Hermitian.
In an arbitrary basis of the Hilbert space ($\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}^2$), the Hamiltonian
is given by a two-by-two complex matrix $\bar H$. One can perform a quantum
canonical transformation (\ref{H-trans}) defined by $g(t)=\exp\{i\int_0^t
[{\rm tr}~\bar H(s)] ds/2\}$ to map the Hamiltonian $\bar H$ to a traceless
Hamiltonian of the form
\begin{equation}
H:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\
c&-a
\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{2-level-H-traceless}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm tr}~ \bar H$ denotes the trace of $\bar H$, and $a=a(t),~b=b(t),~c=c(t)$
are complex-valued smooth functions of $t$.
We can easily solve the eigenvalue problem for the Hamiltonian (\ref{2-level-H-traceless}). The
eigenvalues are given by
\begin{equation}
E_1(t):=-E(t),~~~E_2(t):=E(t)\;,~~~{\rm where}~~~E:=\sqrt{a^2+bc}.
\label{2-level-eg-va}
\end{equation}
We shall demand that during the time interval $[0,\tau]$ of interest $E\neq 0$,
so that the eigenvalues are nondegenerate. In particular, no level
crossings occur. Then a possible choice for a biorthonormal eigenbasis is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|\psi_1;R\rangle=\left(\begin{array}{c}
-b\\
a+E\end{array}\right)\,,~~~
|\psi_2;R\rangle=\left(\begin{array}{c}
a+E\\
c\end{array}\right)\,
\label{eg-vec}\\
&&|\phi_1;R\rangle=\frac{1}{N^*}\left(\begin{array}{c}
-c^*\\
a^*+E^*\end{array}\right)\,,~~~
|\phi_2;R\rangle=\frac{1}{N^*}\left(\begin{array}{c}
a^*+E^*\\
b*\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{dual-eg-vec}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R=(a,b,c)$ and $N:=2E(a+E)$.
Next we compute $U^{(0)}$ and $H^{(1)}$. Using Eqs.~(\ref{u0}),
(\ref{6}), (\ref{a=}), and ({\ref{H1}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{(0)}(t)&=&K^1(t)|\psi_1;t\rangle\langle\phi_1;0|+
K^2(t)|\psi_2;t\rangle\langle\phi_2;0|\;,
\label{u0-2}\\
H^{(1)}(t)&=&\xi(t)|\psi_1;0\rangle\langle\phi_2;0|+\zeta(t)
|\psi_2;0\rangle\langle\phi_1;0|\;,
\label{H1-2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
K^1(t)&:=&K^1_{11}(t)=\exp\left( \frac{i\eta(t)}{2}-
\int_{R(0)}^{R(t)}\left[(2E)^{-1}(da+dE+\frac{cdb}{a+E})\right]
\right)\;,\nonumber\\
K^2(t)&:=&K^2_{11}(t)=\exp\left( \frac{-i\eta(t)}{2}-
\int_{R(0)}^{R(t)}\left[(2E)^{-1}(da+dE+\frac{bdc}{a+E})\right]
\right)\;,\nonumber\\
\eta(t)&:=&2\int_0^t E(s)ds\;,
\label{eta}\\
\xi(t)&:=&H^{12}_{11}(t)=(-\frac{ie^{-2i\alpha(t)}}{2})
\left[1+\frac{a(t)}{E(t)}\right]
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{c(t)}{a(t)+E(t)}\right]\;,
\label{xi}\\
\zeta(t)&:=&H^{21}_{11}(t)=(\frac{ie^{2i\alpha(t)}}{2})
\left[1+\frac{a(t)}{E(t)}\right]
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{b(t)}{a(t)+E(t)}\right]\;,
\label{zeta}\\
\alpha(t)&:=&\frac{\eta(t)}{2}+\frac{i}{4}\int_{R(0)}^{R(t)}\frac{
cdb-bdc}{E(E+a)}\;.
\label{alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
The transformed Hamiltonian has the following matrix expression
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc} a^{(1)}(t) & b^{(1)}(t)\\
c^{(1)}(t) & -a^{(1)}(t)\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{H1-2-matrix}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
a^{(1)}(t)&:=&-\frac{b_0\xi(t)+c_0\zeta(t)}{2E_0}\;,
\label{a1}\\
b^{(1)}(t)&:=&-\frac{b_0^2\xi(t)-(a_0+E_0)^2\zeta(t)}{2E_0(E_0+a_0)}\;,
\label{b1}\\
c^{(1)}(t)&:=&-\frac{-(a_0+E_0)^2\xi(t)+c_0^2\zeta(t)}{2E_0(E_0+a_0)}\;,
\label{c1}\\
a_0&:=&a(0)\;,~~~b_0:=b(0)\;,~~~c_0:=c(0)\;,~~~E_0:=E(0)\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and we have used Eqs.~(\ref{eg-vec}), (\ref{dual-eg-vec}), and (\ref{H1-2}).
Note that the transformed Hamiltonian $H^{(1)}(t)$ is traceless, and
one can obtain $H^{(2)}(t)$ by substituting $a^{(1)}$ for $a$,
$b^{(1)}$ for $b$, $c^{(1)}$ for $c$, and $E^{(1)}:=\sqrt{(a^{(1)})^2+
b^{(1)}c^{(1)}}$ for $E$ in Eqs.~(\ref{H1-2}), and (\ref{xi}) --
(\ref{alpha}). Clearly this can be repeated indefinitely, and one
can compute $H^{(\ell)}$ for arbitrary $\ell$.
The adiabatic approximation corresponds to the cases where the matrix
elements of $H^{(1)}(t)$ can be neglected. As seen from
Eqs.~(\ref{H1-2-matrix}) -- (\ref{c1}) this happens whenever both $\xi$
and $\zeta$ are negligible. One can also check that if only one of these
quantities is negligible, then $H^{(1)}(t)$ is equal to the other times a constant
matrix. This means that $H^{(1)}(t)$ has essentially stationary eigenvectors
and the adiabatic approximation would yield the solution of the Schr\"odinger
equation for $H^{(1)}$. In fact, it is not difficult to check that for the cases
that either $\xi$ or $\zeta$ is negligible, $H^{(2)}(t)\approx 0$. In particular,
setting $\xi=0$ or $\zeta=0$ implies $H^{(2)}(t)= 0$ and the evolution
operator is given by
\begin{equation}
U(t)=U^{(0)}(t)U^{(1)}(t)\;.
\label{u=uu}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the conditions $\xi=0$ and $\zeta=0$ each define a class of
exactly solvable two-level systems. In view of Eqs.~(\ref{xi}) and
(\ref{zeta}), these are
\begin{itemize}
\item[] Class 1: The two level systems for which $\frac{c}{a+E}=\mu
=$ constant, or alternatively $c=\mu(\mu b+\sqrt{4a^2+\mu^2 b^2})/2$;
\item[] Class 2: The two level systems for which $\frac{b}{a+E}=\nu=$
constant, or alternatively $c=b/\nu^2-a^2/b$.
\end{itemize}
In general $\xi$ and $\zeta$ do not vanish and the adiabatic product expansion
does not terminate. There is also a special class of two-level systems for which the
product expansion has a periodic structure in the sense of case (ii) of the preceding
section. This is
\begin{itemize}
\item[] Class 3: The two level systems for which $a=0$.
\end{itemize}
Setting $a=0$ in Eqs.~(\ref{alpha}),~(\ref{eta}), (\ref{xi}), and (\ref{zeta}) and
defining $f(t):=i\sqrt{c(t)/b(t)}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha(t)&=&\frac{\eta(t)}{2}+\frac{i}{4}\ln\left(\frac{c_0b(t)}{
b_0c(t)}\right)\;,~~~~
\eta(t)=2\int_0^t\sqrt{b(s)c(s)}ds\nonumber\\
\xi(t)&=& -\frac{f_0\dot f(t) e^{-i\eta(t)}}{2f(t)}\;,~~~~
\zeta(t)=\frac{\dot f(t) e^{i\eta(t)}}{2f_0f(t)}\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_0:=f(0)$. Substituting these equations in Eq.~(\ref{H1-2-matrix}),
we obtain
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}(t)=E^{(1)}(t) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\eta(t)&f_0^{-1}\sin\eta(t)\\
f_0\sin\eta(t)&-\cos\eta(t)\end{array}\right)\;,~~{\rm where}~~
E^{(1)}(t)=\frac{i\dot f(t)}{2f(t)}\;.
\label{H1-a=0}
\end{equation}
This Hamiltonian has two interesting properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] If $b_0=c_0$, then $f_0=i$ and
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}(t) =E^{(1)}(t) \left[ \sin\eta(t)\sigma_2+
\cos\eta(t)\sigma_3\right]=E^{(1)}(t) e^{i\eta(t)\sigma_1/2}
\sigma_3e^{-i\eta(t)\sigma_1/2}\;,
\label{pauli}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_i$ are Pauli matrices, and we have used the
identity
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\varphi\sigma_i}\sigma_je^{i\varphi\sigma_i}=
\cos(2\varphi)\sigma_j+\sin(2\varphi)\sum_{k=1}^3\epsilon_{ijk}
\sigma_k\;,~~~~{\rm for}~~~i\neq k\;.
\label{identity}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{identity}), $\varphi$ is an arbitrary complex variable
and $\epsilon_{ijk}$ is the totally anti-symmetric Levi Civita symbol
with $\epsilon_{123}=1$. For the time periods during which
$\sqrt{b(t)c(t)}$ is real, $\eta(t)$ is real, and the Hamiltonian
(\ref{pauli}) is anti-Hermitian. In particular, its eigenvectors are
orthogonal. Up to a factor of $i$ this Hamiltonian describes the
interaction of a spin 1/2 magnetic dipole with a changing magnetic field.
This system has a $SU(2)$ dynamical group
\cite{su2,su,pla97-1,jmp97-2}. For the time periods
during which $\sqrt{b(t)c(t)}$ is imaginary, $\eta(t)$ is imaginary, and
up to a factor of $i$ the Hamiltonian (\ref{pauli}) describes a quantum
system with a $SU(1,1)$ dynamical group. A Hermitian analogue of
such a system is the time-dependent generalized harmonic oscillator
\cite{su1-1,su,jackiw}.
\item[2.] Performing the adiabatic canonical transformation on
(\ref{pauli}), we arrive at the unexpected result
\begin{equation}
H^{(2)}(t)=H(t).
\label{H2=H}
\end{equation}
Therefore, direct application of the method of adiabatic product
expansion does not lead to a solution.
\end{itemize}
Next we shall describe a modification of the method of adiabatic product
expansion which yields an infinite product expansion for the evolution
operator of the Class~3 systems which involve distinct terms.
Consider the transformed Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-a=0}). We can express this
Hamiltonian using Eq.~(\ref{H1-2-matrix}) with
\begin{equation}
a^{(1)}(t)=E^{(1)}(t)\cos\eta(t)\;,~~~
b^{(1)}(t)=f_0^{-1}E^{(1)}(t)\sin\eta(t)\;,~~~
c^{(1)}(t)=f_0E^{(1)}(t)\sin\eta(t)\;.
\label{a1-b1-c1}
\end{equation}
Although this Hamiltonian does not belong to Class~3, it can be canonically
transformed to a Hamiltonian which belongs to Class~3, i.e., its diagonal
matrix elements vanish. This transformation is defined by
$g(t)=\exp\{i\int_0^ta^{(1)}(s)ds\sigma_3\} $. The corresponding
transformed Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
H_1(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & b_1(t) \\
c_1(t) & 0 \end{array}\right) \;,
\label{H_1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
b_1(t):=b^{(1)}(t)e^{i\gamma_1(t)}\;,~~~
c_1(t):=c^{(1)}(t)e^{-i\gamma_1(t)}\;,~~
{\rm and}~~\gamma_1 (t):=2\int_0^ta^{(1)}(s)ds\;.
\label{a_1-b_1-gamma_1}
\end{equation}
The evolution operator $U_1$ of $H_1$ is related to the evolution operator
of the original Hamiltonian $H$ according to
\begin{equation}
U_1(t)=e^{i\int_0^ta^{(1)}(s)ds\sigma_3}~U^{(0)}(t)^\dagger ~U(t)\;,
\label{u_1}
\end{equation}
where we have used Eq.~(\ref{u-trans}).
Now since $H_1$ has the same form as $H$, we can repeat the above
analysis using $H_1$ in place of $ H$. Performing an adiabatic canonical
transformation on $H_1$ we obtain the transformed Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_1^{(1)}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_1^{(1)}(t) & b_1^{(1)}(t)\\
c_1^{(1)}(t) & -a_1^{(1)}(t)\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{H1-2-matrix-2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
a_1^{(1)}(t)&:=&E_1^{(1)}(t)\cos\eta_1(t)\;,~~~
b_1^{(1)}(t):=f_{1,0}^{-1}E_1^{(1)}(t)\sin\eta_1(t)\;,\nonumber\\
c_1^{(1)}(t)&:=&f_{1,0}E_1^{(1)}(t)\sin\eta_1(t)\;,~~~
E_1^{(1)}(t):=E^{(1)}(t)\cos\eta(t)\;,\nonumber\\
f_1(t)&:=&i\sqrt{\frac{c_1(t)}{b_1(t)}}=if_0e^{-i\gamma_1(t)}\;,~~~
f_{1,0}:=f_1(0)=if_0\;,\nonumber\\
\eta_1(t)&:=&2\int_0^tE^{(1)}(s)\sin\eta(s)ds\;.
\label{eta1}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly we can repeat this procedure indefinitely and construct
an infinite product expansion for the evolution operator. Again if we
compute only a finite number of terms in this expansion, then we obtain
a generalization of the adiabatic approximation. The validity of this
approximation may be checked by computing the transformed
Hamiltonians. It is not difficult to show that the transformed Hamiltonian
obtained after $\ell$ adiabatic canonical transformations is of the form
\[H_\ell^{(1)}(t)= h_\ell(t) S(t)\;,\]
where
\begin{eqnarray}
h_\ell(t)&=&E^{(1)}(t)\cos\eta(t)\cos\eta_1(t)\cos\eta_2(t)
\cdots\cos\eta_{\ell-1}(t)\;,~~~{\rm and}\nonumber\\
\eta_j(t)&:=&2\int_0^t E^{(1)}(s)\cos\eta(s)\cos\eta_1(s)\cdots
\cos\eta_{j-1}(s)\sin\eta_{j-1}(s)ds\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $j\in\{2,3,\cdots,\ell-1\}$ and $S(t)$ is a two-by-two matrix of
unit determinant. Clearly if for some $\ell$, $h_\ell(t)$ is negligible, then
the above mentioned generalization of the adiabatic approximation is valid.
Finally let us note that in general the initial Hamiltonian
(\ref{2-level-H-traceless}) can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
H(t)=\alpha_1(t)\sigma_1+\alpha_2(t)\sigma_2+a(t)\sigma_3\;,
\label{linear-H}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_1=(b+c)/2$ and $\alpha_2=i(b-c)/2$. Performing the
canonical transformation (\ref{H-trans}) defined by $g(t)=\exp\{i\int_0^t
\alpha_2(s)ds\sigma_2\}$, we transform the Hamiltonian (\ref{linear-H})
into
\begin{eqnarray}
H'(t)&=&\alpha'(t)\sigma_1+a'(t)\sigma_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a'(t) & \alpha'(t)\\
\alpha'(t) & -a'(t)\end{array}\right)\;,~~~{\rm where}
\label{linear-H'}\\
\alpha'(t)&:=&\alpha_1(t)\cos\xi(t)-a(t)\sin\xi(t)\;,~~~~
a'(t):=\alpha_1(t)\sin\xi(t)+a(t)\cos\xi(t)\;,\nonumber\\
\xi(t)&:=&\int_0^t\alpha_2(s)ds\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used Eqs.~(\ref{H-trans}) and (\ref{identity}). Next we
perform another canonical transformation, namely the one defined by $g(t)
=\exp\{i\int_0^t a'(s)ds\sigma_3\}$. This transformation maps the Hamiltonian
(\ref{linear-H'}) into
\begin{equation}
H''(t)=\alpha'(t) e^{i\eta'(t)\sigma_3/2} \sigma_1
e^{-i\eta'(t)\sigma_3/2}=
\alpha'(t) [\cos\eta'(t)\sigma_1-\sin\eta'(t)\sigma_2]=\alpha'(t)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
o& e^{i\eta'(t)}\\
e^{-i\eta'(t)} & 0\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{linear-H''}
\end{equation}
where $\eta'(t):=2\int_0^t a'(s)ds$. This Hamiltonian is not only a member of
Class~3 Hamiltonians, but initially (at $t=0$) its off-diagonal matrix elements
are equal. In particular, it has the properties 1. in the above list. Note that we
can carry out these canonical transformations on any two-level Hamiltonian.
Therefore, every two-level Hamiltonian is canonically equivalent to a Class~3
Hamiltonian of the form~(\ref{linear-H''}). This means that the results obtained
for Class~3 Hamiltonians apply to arbitrary two-level Hamiltonians.
\section*{V. Time-dependent Simple Harmonic Oscillator}
It is well-known that the solution of every second order linear ODE
\cite{ode} can be reduced to the classical equation of motion for a simple
harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency $\omega=\omega(t)$,
\begin{equation}
\ddot x(t)+\omega^2(t) x(t)=0\;.
\label{sho}
\end{equation}
It is also well-known that one can reduce
both the classical and quantum equations of motion for a generalized
harmonic oscillator to Eq.~(\ref{sho}), \cite{hoso,manko,jackiw,jpa98-1}.
This equation has, therefore, many physical applications
\cite{manko,application}. Yet an exact analytic expression for the general
solution of this equation is not known even for the case of real frequency
\cite{belman}.
\footnote{The lack of an exact analytic solution of Eq.~(\ref{sho}) is not
surprising. One way to see this is to recall that the time-independent
Schr\"odinger equation for an arbitrary potential $V(x)$ in one dimension is
given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2\psi_n}{dx^2}+\left(\frac{\hbar^2[E_n-V(x)]}{2m}\right)\psi_n=0,
\label{time-indep}
\end{equation}
where $E_n$ and $\psi_n$ are the energy eigenvalues and eigenfunctions,
respectively. Eq.~(\ref{time-indep}) can be easily identified with Eq.~(\ref{sho})
provided that one makes the change of variables: $x\to t,~\psi_n\to x$,
and $\{\hbar^2[E-V(x)]\}/(2m)\to \omega^2(t)$. This shows that if one was
able to find the exact analytic solution of Eq.~(\ref{sho}) for arbitrary
frequency $\omega$, then one would have been able to find the general
solution of the time-independent Schr\"odinger equation for any potential
$V$.}
In the following we shall consider the case of an ordinary time-dependent
harmonic oscillator (\ref{sho}) with real frequency. In order to apply the
results of the preceding section to Eq.~(\ref{sho}), we first express it in the
form of a system of first order ODEs. Defining,
\[ |\psi(t)\rangle:=\left(\begin{array}{c} x(t)\\ v(t)\end{array}\right)\;,~~~
{\rm and}~~~v(t):=\dot x(t)\;,\]
we can write Eq.~(\ref{sho}) in the form of the Schr\"odinger equation
(\ref{sch-eq}) with a two-level Hamiltonian of the form
(\ref{2-level-H-traceless}) with
\begin{equation}
a=0\;,~~~~b=i\;,~~~~c=-i\omega(t)^2\;,~~{\rm and}~~E=\omega(t)\;.
\label{abc-sho}
\end{equation}
Since $a=0$, this system belongs to the Class~3 of the preceding section
with
\begin{eqnarray}
f(t)&=&\omega(t)\;,~~~\eta(t)=2\int_0^t\omega(s)ds\;,\nonumber\\
H^{(1)}&=&E^{(1)}(t)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\eta(t)&\frac{\sin\eta(t)}{\omega_0}\\
\omega_0\sin\eta(t)&\cos\eta(t)\end{array}\right)\;,~~~
{\rm and}~~~E^{(1)}(t):=\frac{i\dot\omega(t)}{2\omega(t)}.
\label{H1-sho}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, for real frequency $\omega(t)$ we can scale the time variable $t$
so that $\omega_0=1$. Then the transformed Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-sho})
takes the form
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}(t)=E^{(1)}(t) \left[\sin\eta(t)\sigma_1+\cos\eta(t)\sigma_3
\right]=E^{(1)}(t) e^{-i\eta(t)\sigma_2/2}\sigma_3
e^{i\eta(t)\sigma_2/2}\;.
\label{H1-sho-0}
\end{equation}
Note that since $\eta(t)$ is real, the Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-sho-0}) is an
anti-Hermitian matrix with orthogonal eigenvectors. Therefore, up to a
factor of $i$ it describes a two-level spin system with a $SU(2)$
dynamical group \cite{su2,jmp97-2}.\footnote{Note that one can absorb
the factor of $i$ in the definition of the time variable $t$, i.e., by defining
the imaginary time variable $\tau:=-it$. Therefore, the dynamics given by
the Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-sho-0}) may be viewed as the dynamics of a
spin system with imaginary time.} This is rather surprising, for it is
well-known that the quantum harmonic oscillator has a $SU(1,1)$
dynamical group and that its Schr\"odinger equation may be reduced to
Eq.~(\ref{sho}) by means of a quantum canonical transformation
corresponding to a time-dependent dilatation \cite{jpa98-1}.
In view of the fact that $E^{(1)}$ is proportional to the derivative of
$\ln\omega$, we can make a change of independent variable, namely
$t\to\eta$. Note that $\eta$ is the integral of a positive real function of $t$.
Hence, it is a monotonically increasing function of $t$. Making this change
of variable the Schr\"odinger equation for the Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-sho-0})
becomes
\[i\frac{d}{d\eta}\tilde U(\eta)=\tilde H(\eta)\tilde U(\eta)\;,~~~
\tilde U(\eta)=1,\]
where $\tilde U(\eta):=U'(t(\eta))$, $U'(t)$ is the evolution operator for the
the Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-sho-0}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde H(\eta)&:=&\tilde E(\eta) e^{-i\eta\sigma_2/2}\sigma_3
e^{i\eta\sigma_2/2}=\tilde E(\eta)(\sin\eta\sigma_1+\cos\eta\sigma_3)\;,
\label{tilde-h}\\
\tilde E(\eta)&:=&\frac{i\omega'(\eta)}{2\omega(\eta)}\;,~~{\rm and}~~
\omega':=\frac{d\omega}{d\eta}\;.
\label{E-eta}
\end{eqnarray}
Up to a factor of $i$, the Hamiltonian (\ref{tilde-h}) describes the interaction
of a spin 1/2 magnetic dipole with a changing magnetic field whose direction
rotates uniformly in the $x-z$ plane.
As we mentioned in the preceding section for the Class 3 systems
$H^{(2)}(t)=H(t)$. Hence direct application of the method of the adiabatic
product expansion does not lead to a solution of the Schr\"odinger equation
for the Hamiltonian (\ref{H1-sho-0}) or (\ref{tilde-h}). In this case, either one
constructs the modified adiabatic product expansion of the preceding section
or examines the adiabatic series expansion of Ref.~\cite{pra97-1}. The latter
yields a series expansion for the evolution operator $\tilde U(\eta)$ of the
Hamiltonian $\tilde H(\eta)$, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde U(\eta)={\cal T}e^{-i\int_0^\eta \tilde H(s)ds}&=&
1-i\int_0^\eta \tilde H(s)ds+\frac{(-i)^2}{2} \int_0^\eta\int_0^\eta
{\cal T}[\tilde H(s_1)\tilde H(s_2)]ds_1ds_2+\cdots+\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2mm}\frac{(-i)^n}{n!}\int_0^\eta\cdots\int_0^\eta
{\cal T}[\tilde H(s_1) \cdots \tilde H(s_n)] ds_1\cdots ds_n
+\cdots\;,
\label{dyson}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal T}$ stands for the time-ordering operator. Since $\tilde H(\eta)$
is proportional to $\omega'(\eta)$, for slowly varying $\omega$ one obtains
an approximate expression for $\tilde U(\eta)$ by computing a finite number
of terms in this series. This is in fact another generalization of the adiabatic
approximation, because if one keeps only the first term in this series and
neglects the other terms one is essentially neglecting $\tilde H$ or alternatively
$H^{(1)}$. As we explained above, this is just the adiabatic approximation.
If one keeps more terms in this series, then one obtains a better approximation
than the adiabatic approximation.
\section*{VI. Quadrupole Interaction of a Spin 1 Particle
with a Changing Electric Field}
Consider a spin 1 particle interacting with a changing electric field
$\vec{\cal E}(t)=({\cal E}_1(t),{\cal E}_2(t),{\cal E}_3(t))$ according to
the Stark Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H(t)=\lambda[\vec J\cdot\vec{\cal E}(t)]^2\;,
\label{stark}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a real coupling constant and $\vec J$ is the angular
momentum of the particle. The quadrupole interactions of the form
(\ref{stark}) have been extensively studied for fermionic systems in
relation with the non-Abelian geometric phases \cite{mead,avron1,avron2}
(See also \cite{j-a}.) The occurrence of non-Abelian geometric phases for the degenerate
spin ~1 systems has been pointed out in Ref.~\cite{jpa97}. For these systems,
the particle has a definite angular momentum $j=1$ and the Hamiltonian is
a $3\times 3$ matrix. Using the spin $j=1$ representation of $J_i$,
we can express the Stark Hamiltonin (\ref{stark}) in the form
\begin{equation}
H=(\frac{\lambda r^2}{2}) \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1+2z^2 & \sqrt{2} z e^{-i\theta} & e^{-2i\theta} \\
\sqrt{2} z e^{i\theta} & 2 & -\sqrt{2} z e^{-i\theta} \\
e^{2i\theta} &-\sqrt{2} z e^{i\theta}& 1+2z^2
\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{stark-matrix}
\end{equation}
where $r,~\theta,$ and $z$ are defined by
\[r:=\sqrt{{\cal E}_1^2+{\cal E}_2^2}\;,~~~e^{i\theta}:=
\frac{{\cal E}_1+i{\cal E}_2}{r}\;,~~
{\rm and}~~z:=\frac{{\cal E}_3}{r}\;.\]
In view of the general results of Ref.~\cite{jpa97}, if $r\neq 0$ then the
Hamiltonian (\ref{stark-matrix}) has a degenerate and a nondegenerate
eigenvalue. In the following we shall consider the case where ${\cal E}_3=0$.
The general case ${\cal E}_3\neq 0$ can be similarly treated.
If ${\cal E}_3=0$, then $z=0$ and
\begin{equation}
H=(\frac{\lambda r^2}{2}) \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & e^{-2i\theta} \\
0 & 2 & 0 \\
e^{2i\theta} & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)\;.
\label{stark-matrix-0}
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian are given by
\begin{equation}
E_1=0,~~~~E_2=\lambda r^2\;.
\label{S-eg-va}
\end{equation}
For $r\neq 0$, $E_1$ is nondegenerate and $E_2$ is doubly degenerate.
A set of orthonormal eigenvectors of this Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
|\psi_1;R\rangle:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
-1\\ 0\\e^{2i\theta}\end{array}\right)\;,~~~
|\psi_2,1;R\rangle:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\ 0\\e^{2i\theta}\end{array}\right)\;,~~~
|\psi_2,2;R\rangle:=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\ 1\\0\end{array}\right)\;.
\label{S-eg-ve}
\end{equation}
where $R=(r,\theta)$.
Next we compute $U^{(0)}(t)$ for this system. In order to do this
we first use Eq.~(\ref{a=}) to calculate ${\cal A}^n$. In view of the
fact that the Hamiltonian (\ref{stark-matrix-0}) is Hermitian,
$|\phi_n,a;R\rangle=|\psi_n,a;R\rangle$ and Eq.~(\ref{a=}) leads to
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^1=-d\theta\;,~~~{\cal A}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-d\theta&0\\
0&0\end{array}\right)\;.
\label{S-a=}
\end{equation}
Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{S-a=}) into Eq.~(\ref{6}) and making use of
Eq.~(\ref{S-eg-va}), we find
\begin{equation}
K^1(t)=e^{-i[\theta(t)-\theta_0]} \;,~~~~
K^2(t)=e^{-i\rho(t)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-i[\theta(t)-\theta_0]}&0\\
0&1\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{K's}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\theta_0:=\theta(0)\;,~~{\rm and}~~\rho(t):=
\lambda\int_0^t r(s)^2ds\;.
\label{theta-rho}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs.~(\ref{u0}) and (\ref{S-eg-ve}), we have
\begin{equation}
U^{(0)}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
(1+e^{-i\rho(t)})e^{i\theta_-(t)}&0&(-1+e^{-i\rho(t)})e^{-i\theta_+(t)}\\
0 & 2e^{-i\rho(t)} & 0\\
(-1+e^{-i\rho(t)})e^{i\theta_+(t)}&0&(1+e^{-i\rho(t)})e^{i\theta_-(t)}
\end{array}\right)\;,
\label{S-u0}
\end{equation}
where $\theta_\pm(t):=\theta(t)\pm\theta_0$.
Next we compute the Hamiltonian $H^{(1)}(t)$. This involves the
calculation of $A_{ab}^{nm}(t)$ and $H_{ab}^{mn}(t)$ for $m\neq n$.
Using Eqs.~(\ref{H1-ab}) and (\ref{S-eg-ve}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{12}_{11}&=&A^{21}_{11}=-\dot\theta\;,~~~
A^{12}_{12}=A^{21}_{21}=0\;,\nonumber\\
H^{21}_{11}&=&H^{12}_{11}=\dot\theta e^{i\rho(t)}\;,~~~
H^{12}_{12}=H^{21}_{21}=0\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting these equations in Eq.~(\ref{H1}) and using
Eqs.~(\ref{S-eg-ve}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}(t)=-\dot\theta(t) \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos\rho(t)&0&-i\sin\rho(t) \\
0& 0& 0\\
i\sin\rho(t) &0&-\cos\rho(t)
\end{array}\right)=-\dot\theta(t)[\sin\rho(t)\Sigma_2+
\cos\rho(t)\Sigma_3]\;,
\label{S-H1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_2:=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&-i\\
0&0&0\\
i&0&0\end{array}\right) \;,~~{\rm and}~~
\Sigma_3:=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0&0\\
0&0&0\\
0&0&-1\end{array}\right)\;.
\label{sigma23}
\end{equation}
It is not difficult to recognize $\Sigma_2$ and $\Sigma_3$ as the Pauli
matrices $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$ represented in a $(0+1/2)$
representation of $SU(2)$. In view of this identification we can express
$H^{(1)}(t)$ in the form
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}(t)=-\dot\theta(t) e^{i\rho(t)\Sigma_1/2}\Sigma_3\;
e^{-i\rho(t)\Sigma_1/2}\;,
\label{S-H1-su2}
\end{equation}
where
\[\Sigma_1:=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&1\\
0&0&0\\
1&0&0\end{array}\right)\;,\]
and we have used Eq.~(\ref{identity}).
The Hamiltonian $H^{(1)}(t)$ has the following interesting properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] For $\dot\theta=0$, i.e., $\theta=$ constant, the adiabatic
approximation is exact and $U(t)=U^{(0)}(t)$.
\item[b)] In view of Eq.~(\ref{S-H1-su2}) for $\dot\theta\neq 0$,
$H^{(1)}(t)$ has three nondegenerate eigenvalues, namely
$-\dot\theta,~0,$ and $\dot\theta$. This is quite remarkable
because it shows that the adiabatic canonical transformation
maps the degenerate Hamiltonian (\ref{stark-matrix-0}) into
the nondegenerate Hamiltonian (\ref{S-H1-su2}).
\item[c)] Since $\Sigma_i$ is a representation of the Pauli matrix
$\sigma_i$, the Hamiltonian (\ref{S-H1-su2}) belongs to a
representation of the Lie algebra of $SU(2)$. This means that
one can reduce the Schr\"odinger equation for this Hamiltonian
to that of the dipole Hamiltonian \cite{pra97-1,jmp97-2}
\[H_{\rm dp}=-2\dot\theta(t) e^{i\rho(t)J_1}J_3e^{-i\rho(t)J_1}\;.\]
\item[d)] We can perform another canonical transformation, namely
the one defined by $g(t)=\exp[-i\rho(t)\Sigma_1/2]$ to transform
the Hamiltonian (\ref{S-H1-su2}) into
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)'}(t)=\frac{r(t)^2}{2}\Sigma_1-\dot\theta(t)\Sigma_3\;,
\label{S-H1-prime}
\end{equation}
where we have used Eqs.~(\ref{S-H1-su2}), (\ref{H-trans}) and
(\ref{theta-rho}).
In particular if $\dot\theta$ and $r^2$ happen to be proportional,
i.e., for some $c\in\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}$
\begin{equation}
\dot\theta(t)=c\;r(t)^2\;,
\label{condi-ex}
\end{equation}
then $H^{(1)'}(t) =r(t)^2(\frac{1}{2}\Sigma_1-c\Sigma_3)$. In this
case the eigenvectors of $H^{(1)'}(t)$ are constant and the adiabatic
approximation yields the exact solution of the Schr\"odinger equation
for $H^{(1)'}(t)$. The corresponding evolution operator is then
given by
\begin{equation}
U^{(1)'}(t) =e^{-i(\frac{1}{2}\Sigma_1-c\Sigma_3)\int_0^t r(s)^2ds}\;.
\label{u1-prime}
\end{equation}
Having obtained the evolution operator for $H^{(1)'}(t)$ we can
use Eq.~(\ref{u-trans}) to obtain the evolution operator for
$H^{(1)}(t)$ and $H(t)$. This yields the following expression for
the evolution operator for $H(t)$:
\begin{equation}
U(t)=U^{(0)}(t) e^{i\rho(t)\Sigma_1/2} U^{(1)'}(t) \;,
\label{u=ex}
\end{equation}
where $U^{(0)}(t)$ and $U^{(1)'}(t)$ are given by
Eqs.~(\ref{S-u0}) and (\ref{u1-prime}).
\end{itemize}
The above analysis shows that the condition~(\ref{condi-ex}) defines
a class of exactly solvable time-dependent Stark Hamiltonians. If
$\theta=\omega t$, for some constant frequency $\omega$, this condition
corresponds to the case of the rotating electric field $\vec E=r(
\sin\omega t,\cos\omega t,0)$ with magnitude $r$.
\section*{VII. Conclusion}
In this article we have extended the method of the adiabatic product
expansion to non-Hermitian and degenerate Hamiltonians. We showed that in
general there were three possibilities for the adiabatic product expansion:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] The expansion terminates after a finite number of
iterations. This happens when one of the transformed Hamiltonians
vanishes. In this case the method yields the exact solution for the
Schr\"odinger equation;
\item[2)] The expansion consists of an infinite number of distinct
terms. In this case, the method does not lead to an exact solution, but
it gives rise to a generalization of the adiabatic approximation. This
approximation is performed by keeping a finite number of terms in
the product expansion. The general asymptotic behaviour of the adiabatic
product expansion has not been studied. However, one can interpret
this approximation by recalling that the condition for the termination
of the product expansion corresponds to the validity of the conventional
adiabatic approximation for one of the transformed Hamiltonians.
\item[3)] The expansion involves terms which are not distinct. In this
case the expansion does not lead to a solution. However, usually one can
make another time-dependent canonical transformation after each adiabatic
transformation and obtain an infinite product expansion with the properties
of case 2) above.
\end{itemize}
We have considered some specific problems that one can attempt
to solve using this method. We treated the case of a general nondegenerate
two-level system and applied our general results to the more specific
case of the classical equation of motion for a harmonic oscillator with
a time-dependent frequency. In this case, we showed that the adiabatic
canonical transformation mapped the corresponding two-level quantum
system to a quantum system with an anti-Hermitian Hamiltonian. Although
the direct application of the method of adiabatic product expansion did
not yield a solution, we could construct the modified adiabatic product
expansion. We have also outlined an adiabatic series expansion for the
time-evolution operator of this system which led to another generalization of
the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we considered the application of our
method to treat the quadrupole interaction of a spin~1 particle with a changing
electric field. The corresponding (Stark) Hamiltonian had a nondegenerate
as well as a degerenrate eigenvalue. We showed that the adiabatic
canonical transformation mapped this Hamiltonian to a Hamiltonian
which had nondegenerate eigenvalues and belonged to a reducible
$(0+1/2)$ representation of the Lie algebra of $SU(2)$. This
means that we can directly use the results of Refs.~\cite{pra97-1,jmp97-2}
which treat the Schr\"odinger equation for a nondegenerate Hamiltonian
belonging to (an irreducible representation of) the Lie algebra of $SU(2)$.
Furthermore, we identified a class of exactly solvable spin 1 quadruple
Hamiltonians.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well known that most of the astronomical informations are carried by
massless spinning particles. Astronomers usually extract astronomical
informations from photons, which are spin-1 massless particles. In 1987
astronomers succeeded in extracting informations carried by nutrinos (sipn-
one half massless particles) coming from SN1987A. In the near future we
expect gravitons (spin-2 massless particles) to open a third window through
which we look at the universe. These particles, during their trip from their
sources to the detectors, are moving in different gravitational fields. Thus,
it is of fundamental importance, for astronomy and space studies, to know the
exact trajectories of such particles, and the interaction between the spin
of these particles and the background gravitational field.
The problem of motion of spinning \footnote{In the present work we are going to distinguish between spin and rotation.
We use the term spin for the quantum property of a microscopic particle, while
the term rotation is used for the corresponding classical mechanical property
of a macroscopic object.} \ particles in a background gravitational
field has been tackled by different authors. The trails of those authors can
be classified into two main approaches. {\it The first approach} contains two
classes: (i) quantization of a relativistic equation of motion of a
rotating object (e.g.Papapetrou equation, Dixon equation),(cf. Melek (1988))
(ii) geometrization (or more specifically coveriantization) of a quantum mechanical equation of
motion of a spinning particle (e.g. Schr\"{o}denger equation, Pauli equation),(cf. DeWitt (1957),
Galvao and Teitelboim (1980)).
{\it The second approach} depends on a different philosophy in which paths (or curves)
of an appropriate geometry are considerd to represent trajectories of test
particles . Einstein had followed this approach and used the geodesic and null geodesic curves of the
Riemannian geometry to describe the motion of test particles and of photons
respectively.
Although the philosophy of the second approach is successful in describing motion
of test particles including massless particles (photons), yet it was neglected by many
authors in dealing with motion of other spinning particles. We believe that this philosophy
deserves further investigations especially to look for the equation of motion of spinning
particles in gravitational fields. It is to be noted that while the first approach
is suitable for describing
short range motion of spinning particles i.e. motion on the laboratory scale,
it is not suitable for describing long range motion (e.g. motion on scales such as solar
system, galactic, intergalactic scales). The second approach is more suitable
for describing trajectories of test particles especially long range motion of massless particles in gravitational fields
(motion of photons using null-geodesics). We are mainly interested in
this approach.
To explore the capabilities of this approach we directed our attention to
the AP-geometry. The cause is that short range motion of spinning particles
is described successfully using this geometry, since spinors can be defined and related to
the structure of the AP-spaces.
In a trial to look for possible paths in this geometry, three path equations
were derived (Wanas et. al. (1995)a) by generalizing the method given by
Bazanski (1977,1989). These equations can be written in the form,
$$
{\frac{dV^\mu}{dS^+}} + \{^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}\} V^\alpha V^\beta = -
\Lambda^{~ ~ ~ ~ \mu}_{(\alpha \beta) .} ~~~V^\alpha V^\beta, \eqno{(1.1)}
$$
$$
{\frac{dW^\mu}{dS^0}} + \{^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}\} W^\alpha W^\beta = - {\frac{1}{2}}
\Lambda^{~ ~ ~ ~ \mu}_{(\alpha \beta) .}~~~ W^\alpha W^\beta, \eqno{(1.2)}
$$
$$
{\frac{dU^\mu}{dS^-}} + \{^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}\} U^\alpha U^\beta = 0, \eqno{(1.3)}
$$
where$S^{+}, S^{0}$ and $S^{-}$ are the evolution parameters characterizing
the three paths respectively ; and $V^{\alpha}, W^{\alpha}$ and$U^{\alpha}$ are
the tangents to the corresponding paths and the brakets () are used for
symmetrization. The torsion of the AP-space is defiend by
$$
\Lambda^\alpha_{. \mu \nu}{\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } \Gamma^\alpha_{. \mu \nu} -
\Gamma^\alpha_{. \nu \mu} {\ }{\ },
$$
where $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{.\mu\nu}$ is a non-symmetric affine connexion defiend as a consequance
of the AP-condition (see section.2).
These equations can be considered as generalization of the geodesic equation
of Riemannian geometry.
Considering these three equations, it seems interesting
to point out the following remarks:
1- Although four absolute derivatives are defiend in the AP-space (see section 2), and used in
deriving the above equations, only three equations were obtained inculding the
geodesic equation (1.3).
2- In general, the other two equation ((1.1),(1.2)) can not be reduced to the
geodesic equation (1.3) unless the torsion vanishes . It has been shown
(Wanas,and Melek (1995) ) that the vanishing of the torsion of the AP-space will lead
to the vanishing of the curvature tensors defined in that space. In this
case the space will reduce to a flat one.
3- Equation (1.3) can be reduced to null-geodesic upon reparametrization.
4- The equations can be considered as geodesic equations modified by a torsion
term. The important feature of this set of equations is that the numerical coefficient
of the torsion term jumps by a step of one half from one equation to the next.
This is tempting to beleive that paths in the AP- spaces are quantized in
a certain sense.
From these remarks it seems that the AP-space possesses more finer structure
than that appearing in its conventional picture (for more details about the
conventional sturture of the AP-spaces, (cf. Levi-Civita (1950), Mikhail (1952), Hayashi
and Shirafuji (1979)). It contains in addition to the geodesic and null- geodesic
equations, two more equations (1.1), (1.2).
Now the following groups of questions emerge:
1- Does the space possesses a general affine connexion that gives rise to
family of paths in which the coefficient of the torsion term jumps by a step
of $\frac{1}{2}$ from equation to another in this family ? If so, what is the underlying geometric
structure ?
2- What is the general form of the equations representing this family with a
jumping torsion term ?
3- Is there any observational or experimental evidence for motion alonge such paths ? What is the order of
magnitude of the deviation from the geodesic motion, if any? What is the
intrinsic property of the moving particle that causes such deviation from the
geodesic one?
The aim of the present work is to give answers to some of the above questions.
In section 2, a trail to answer the first group of the above questions is given. In section
3 the general form of a path equation, giving the required family mentioned
above, is derived using the geometry given in section 2. Section 4 contains
a trail to attribute some physical meaning to the new path equation. The static
weak field limits of the new equation are given in section 5. The work is discussed in
section 6.
\section{The Underlying Geometry}
In the conventional AP-geometry two affine connexions were defined. The first is
Christoffel symbol defined as a consequence of the metricity condition,
$$
g_{\alpha \beta ; \mu} = 0, \eqno{(2.1)}
$$
where $g_{\alpha \beta}$ is the metric tensor defiend by,
$$
g_{\alpha \beta} {\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } \h{i}_{\alpha} \h{i}_{\beta} {\ }{\ }{\ }, \eqno{(2.2)}
$$
and $\h{i}^{\alpha}$ are the tetrad vectors defining the structure of the AP-space
in 4-dimensions. The semicolon is used to characterize covarient dervatives using
Christoffel symbols. The second is the non-symmetric connexion
${\Gamma}^{\mu}_{.\alpha \beta}$ defiend as a consequence of
absolute parallelism condition:
$$
{{\h{i}}^{{\stackrel{\alpha}{+}}}_{~~.| \beta}} = 0 {\ }{\ }{\ }, \eqno{(2.3)}
$$
the stroke and the (+) sign is used to characterize absolute derivatives using
${\Gamma}^{\mu}_{.\alpha \beta}$. Since this connexion is non-symmetric, one
can define two more absolute derivatives : for the first we use a stroke
and a (-) sign which indicates the use of the dual connexion
${\hat{\Gamma}}^{\mu}_{.\alpha \beta} (= {\Gamma}^{\mu}_{.\beta \alpha})$, and
for the second we use a stroke without signs, which indicates the use
of the symmetric part, $\Gamma^{\mu}_{.(\alpha \beta)}$. It can be shown
that using (2.2), (2.3) we get,
$$
g_{{\stackrel{\mu}{+}}{\stackrel{\nu}{+}}| \sigma} =0 {\ }{\ }{\ }, \eqno{(2.4)}
$$
which means that metricity is also preserved using the non-symmetric
connexion, recalling that the metricity condition (2.1) is necessary but not sufficient
to define Cristoffel symbol.
Now we are looking for a general affine connexion that is capable of producing
the family of all paths with jumping torison term .Recalling that the three
path equations were derived using the above mentioned derivatives ,thus
the simplest way to find such a connexion is to combine linearly the above connexion using
some parameters.After some manipulations the general expression of this connexion can be written
in the following form,
$$
\nabla^\mu_{.\alpha \beta} = a_1 \{^\mu_{\alpha \beta}\} + (a_2 - a_3)
\Gamma^{\mu}_{. \alpha \beta} - (a_3 + a_4)\Lambda^{\mu}_{. \alpha \beta}{\ }{\ }{\ },
\eqno{(2.5)}
$$
where $a_1 , a_2, a_3$ and $a_4$ are parameters to be fixed later.
It can be easily shown that $\nabla^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu}$ transforms as an affine
connexion under the group of general coordinate transformations. It is clear
that this connexion is non-symmetric. If we charactize the general absolute
derivative, using the affine connexion (2.5), by a double stroke we get after
some manipulations:
$$
g_{\mu \nu || \sigma} = (1- a_1 - a_2 - a_3 -2a_4)(g_{\mu \alpha} \{^{\alpha}_{\sigma\nu}\}
+ g_{\nu \alpha} \{^{\alpha}_{\mu\sigma}\}) - (a_3 + a_4)(g_{\mu \alpha}\gamma
^{\alpha}_{. \sigma \nu} + g_{\nu \alpha}\gamma^{\alpha}_{. \sigma\mu}){\ },
\eqno{(2.6)}
$$
where ${\gamma}^{\alpha}_ {.\mu \nu} $ is the contorsion defined by
$$
\gamma^{\alpha}_{. \mu \nu} {\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } \frac{1}{2}(\Lambda^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu} -
{\Lambda}_{\mu .\nu }^{~\alpha} - {\Lambda}_{\nu .\mu}^{~\alpha})
\eqno{(2.7)}
$$
If we need metricity to be prserved along the paths characterized by (2.5)
we should take,
$$
a_3+a_4=0.
$$
$$
1 - a_1 - a_2 + a_3 = 0,
$$
Taking $a=a_1$, $b=a_2+a_4$ then the metricity condition can be written in the
form
$$
a+b=1 . \eqno{(2.8)}
$$
After using this condition it is clear that (2.5) will remain non-symmetric.
Using the general affine connexion (2.5) and the general metricity condition
(2.8), one can define the following curvature tensors.
(i) If we replace, in the definition of Riemann-Christoffel tensor
$R^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu \sigma}$, Christoffel symbol by the new connexion
we get the curvature,
$$
B^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu \sigma} {\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } \nabla^{\alpha}_{.\mu \sigma ,\nu} -
\nabla^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu ,\sigma} + \nabla^{\alpha}_{.\epsilon \nu}
\nabla^{\epsilon}_{.\mu \sigma } - \nabla^{\alpha}_{.\epsilon \sigma }
\nabla^{\epsilon}_{.\mu \nu }{\ }{\ }{\ }, \eqno{(2.9)a}
$$
which can be written in the form
$$
B^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu \sigma} = R^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu \sigma} +
b {\gamma}^{\alpha}_ {.\mu [\sigma ; \nu]} +b^2 {\gamma}^{\alpha}_ {.\epsilon [\nu}
{\gamma}^{\epsilon}_ {.\mu \sigma ]} {\ }{\ }{\ }, \eqno{(2.9)b}
$$
the square brackets are used for antisymmetrization.
(ii) If we define the curvature $W^\alpha_{.\mu \nu \sigma}$ as a measure
of the non-commutation of the general absolute derivatives, we get
$$
\h{i}_{\mu || \nu \sigma} - \h{i}_{\mu || \sigma \nu} = \h{i}_{\alpha}{\ }W^{\alpha}_{.
\mu \nu \sigma} \eqno{(2.10)}
$$
where
$$
W^\alpha_{.\mu \nu \sigma} = B^\alpha _{.\mu \nu \sigma} - b(b-1) \gamma
^\alpha_{.\mu \epsilon} \Lambda^\epsilon_{.\nu \sigma} \eqno{(2.11)}
$$
Now we have the following remarks: (1) It is to be considered that non of the
curvature tensors defined by (2.9) and (2.11) vanishes. This means
that the new structure of the AP-space is, in general not flat. This result
will be discussed in section 6. (2) Taking the metricity condition into
consideration, we can show that two important special cases could be obtained:
{\it The first case} a=1 (i.e. b=0): In this case the geometry will be reduced to
Riemannian geometry. This is obvious by substituting the values of the parameters
into (2.5), (2.9)b, and (2.11) , which give ,
$$
\nabla^\alpha _{.\mu \nu} = \{^{\alpha}_{\mu \nu}\} \eqno{(2.12)}
$$
$$
W^\alpha _{.\mu \nu \sigma} = B^\alpha_{.\mu \nu \sigma} = R^\alpha _{.\mu \nu \sigma} \eqno{(2.13)}
$$
{\it The second case} a=0 (i.e. b=1): In this case it can be easily shown, after
some manipulations, that the geometry reduces to the conventional AP-geometry with
$$
\nabla^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu} = \Gamma^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu} \eqno{(2.14)}
$$
$$
B^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu \sigma} {\ } = {\ } \Gamma^{\alpha}_{.\mu \sigma, \nu} -
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu, \sigma} + \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\epsilon \nu} \Gamma^
{\epsilon}_{. \mu \sigma} - \Gamma^{\alpha}_{. \epsilon \sigma}
\Gamma^{\epsilon}_{. \mu \nu} = 0 \eqno{(2.15)}
$$
$$
W^{\alpha}_{.\mu \nu \sigma} = 0. \eqno{(2.16)}
$$
The curvature (2. 15) vanishes as a consequence of the
AP-condition.
These two cases will be discussed in the last section. Now to complete the
strcture of the space, one should look for a path equation correspoding
to the new affine connexion, which can be considered as a generalization
of equations (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3). This is done in the following section.
\section{The General Form of the Path Equation}
Generalizing the Bazanski (1977,1989) Lagrangian, using the affine connexion (2.5)
and the condition (2.8), we get
$$
L{\ }{\stackrel{def.}{=}}{\ } \h{i}_{\mu} \h{i}_{\nu} Z^{\mu}{{\frac{\nabla{\chi}^\mu}{ \nabla\tau}}}
\eqno{(3.1)}
$$
$$
Z^{\mu} {\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } {\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}}, \eqno{(3.2)}
$$
$$
{\frac{\nabla {\chi}^\mu}{ \nabla\tau}} {\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } \chi^{\mu}_{.|| \alpha}Z^{\alpha}
\eqno{(3.3)}
$$
$$
\chi^{\mu}_{.|| \alpha} {\ } {\stackrel{def.}{=}} {\ } \chi^{\mu}_{., \alpha} + \chi^{\beta}\nabla^{\mu}_{. \beta \alpha} ,
\eqno{(3.4)}
$$
where $\tau$ is the evolution parameter along the new general path associated with (2.5), $\chi^{\mu}$ is
the deviation vector, and $Z^{\mu}$ is the tangent to the path. Applying the variational formalism using the lagrangian (3.1), and noting that the general absolute
differentional operation commmutes with rasing and lowering indices (because
of (2.8)), we get after necessary manipulation :
$$
{{\frac{dZ^\mu}{d\tau}} + \cs{\nu}{\sigma}{\mu}\ Z^\nu Z^\sigma =
- b{\ } \Lambda_{(\nu \sigma)}.^\mu~~ Z^\nu Z^\sigma} .\eqno{(3.5)a}
$$
Using (3.3), the last equation can be written in the form
$$
{\frac{\nabla Z^\mu}{ \nabla\tau}} = 0 . \eqno{(3.5)b}
$$
Equation (3.5)a, or (3.5)b, represents a generalization of the path equations
given in section 1. Moreover, if $b=0$ this equation will reduce to geodesic of the metric
(or null-geodesic upon reparametrization). This is consistent with the first
special case given in the above section. It can be easily shown that (3.5) will
give rise to,
$$
\frac{d(g_{\alpha \beta}Z^\alpha Z^\beta)}{d\tau} = 0
$$
consequently, its first integral is given by,
$$
Z^\alpha{\ }Z_{\alpha} = Z^2 \eqno{(3.6)}
$$
which means that Z is a constant along the path (3.5), and since Z is scalar under
general coordinate transformation, then it will be constant in general.
\section{Physical Meaning of the Torsion Term}
Equation (3.5) reprsents a new path in the AP-space. As stated above, this equation
can be reduced to a geodesic equation (as b=0) which represents the trajectory
of a test particle in a background gravitational field (it can also be reduced
to a
null-geodesic). So, what is the role of the torsion term on the R.H.S. of (3.5)a ?
May it repesent a type of interaction between the torsion of the background
gravitational field and some intrinsic property of the moving particle ?
If so, what is this intrinsic property ?
Let us start a trial to answer the last question. Recalling that, the aim of the work
in the section 3 is to get an equation that reprsents the complete family of
the equations given in section 1. Thus the parameter "b" of (3.5)a should consist
of a half integer part. In this case we can write
$$
b = {\frac{n}{2}}{\ }\beta , \eqno{(4.1)}
$$
where n is a natural number and $\beta$ is another parameter.
It is well known that an intrinsic property
of the particle which depends on half integers is its quantum spin.
Several authors have pointed out that spinning particles feel space-time torsion
(cf. Hehl (1971)). Others beleive that spinning particles are the only probes which
detect telleparallel geometry(cf. Nitch and Hehl (1980), Ross (1989)). Although
most of these authors have used the term spin to mean rotation and have believed that only
rotating sources can generate the space-time torsion, the situation here is different.
It has been shown by the author(1990) that space-time torsion
is generated whether the source of
the field is rotating or not. Considering these arguments, we may suggest that the R.H.S. of (3.5)a reprsents a type of interaction between
the quantum spin of the moving particle and the torsion of the background gravitational
field. Consequently, equation (3.5) may reprsent the trajectory of a spinning
particle in a gravitational field. Consequently we take $n = 0, 1, 2,...$ for
particles with spin 0 , ${\frac{1}{2}}$, 1,..... respectively. For macroscopic
objects and spinless particles $n = 0$.This will reduce equation (3.5) to the geodesic
(or null-geodesic) equation, and the geometric structure to a Riemannian one.
It is well known that the geodesic motion
implies the validity of the weak equivalence principle (WEP). So, equation (3.5)
implies that motion of spinning particles violates the WEP.
If we take the parameter $\beta$ to be of order unity, then the torsion term will
be of the same order of magnitude as the Christoffel symbol term which will be considerably
large. But since there are no experimental or observational evidences for such large violation of (WEP)
for the motion of spinning particles, thus the parameter $\beta$ should be of
less order.
From observational point of view the WEP is varified to an accuracy of about $10^{-2}$
on the galactic scale (cf. Longo (1988)), so $\beta$ should be less than $10^{-2}$.
From the previous discussion it is acceptable that the parameter $\beta$
may have the following properties :
(1) It should be a dimensionless quantity to preserve the dimensions on both sides
of (3.5)a.
(2) It should be small compared to unity $(\beta \leq 10^{-2})$ to be consistent with relevant
obersvations and experiments.
(3) It should be connected to the intrinsic properties of elementary particles,
especially those affecting motion of the spinning particles.
(4) It should include, in its structure, Plank's constant $\hbar$ or h.
To the knewledge of the author a quantity satisfying the above requirements is the
the fine structure constant $\alpha (={\frac{e^2}{\hbar c}} ={\frac{1}{137}})$.
We can replace $\beta$ in (4.1) by the fine structure constant $\alpha$. But to
be more conservative we are going to write (4.1) in the form
$$
b = {\frac{n}{2}}{\alpha {\ } \gamma} \eqno{(4.2)}
$$
where $\gamma$ is a dimensionless parameter of order unity to be fixed by experiment.
Now the parameter b constitutes of three parts: the first" ${\frac{n}{2}}$" is the part that
makes (3.5)a gives rise to (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), and the second part "$\alpha$" acts
as a reduction factor, while the third part"${\gamma}$" is introduced for matching
with experimental results. The appearence of the fine structure constant in this
treatment will be discussed in the last section.
\section{Weak Static Limits of the New Equation}
The path equation (3.5) can be used as the equation of motion for any field
theory, constructed using the AP-geometry, provided that the theory has good
Newotonian limits. In such theories, (e.g. Mikhail and Wanas(1977), M{\o}ller
(1978),Hayashi and Shirafuji(1979)), the tetrad vectors $\h{i}_{\mu}$
are considered as field variables. So, if we write
$$
\h{i}_{\mu} = \delta_{_i \mu} + \epsilon h_{_i \mu} \eqno{(5.1)}
$$
where $\epsilon$ is a small parameter, $\delta_{_i \mu}$ is Kronecker delta
and $h_{i \mu}$ reprsents deviations from flat space, then the weak field condition
can be fulfilled by neglecting quantities of the second and higher orders in
$\epsilon$ in the expanded field quantities. For a static field assumption, we are
going to assume the vanishing of time derivatives of the field variables.
The vector components $Z^\mu$ defined by (3.2) will have the values
$$
Z^1 \approx Z^2 \approx Z^3 \approx \varepsilon {\ }{\ }{\ } , Z^0 \approx
1 - \varepsilon \eqno{(5.2)}
$$
where $\varepsilon (\approx \frac{v}{c})$ is a parameter. If we want to add the
condition of slowly moving particle to the previous conditions we should
neglect quantities of second and higher orders of the parameter $\varepsilon$. Thus, in
expanding the quantities of the path equation (4.3) we are going to neglect
quantities of orders $\epsilon^2, {\ }\varepsilon^2,{\ } \epsilon \varepsilon$
and higher,and also time derivatives of the field variable are to be neglected.
To the first order of the parameters, the only
field quantities that will contribute to the path equation (4.3) are given
by
$$
\Lambda_{00}^{.\ .\ i} = - \epsilon h_{ 0 0, i} ,{\ }{\ }{\ }{\ } (i= 1,2,3)
\eqno{(5.3)}
$$
$$
\{^{\ i}_{0{\ }0}\} = \frac{\epsilon}{2} Y_{00,i} ,{\ }{\ }{\ }{\ } (i= 1,2,3)
\eqno{(5.4)}
$$
where $Y_{\mu \nu}$ is defined by
$$
g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + \epsilon {\ } Y_{\mu \nu} {\ }{\ }{\ },
$$
$g_{\mu \nu}$ is given by (2.2) and $ \eta_{\mu \nu}$ is the Minkowski metric tensor . Substituting from (5.3),(5.4) into (4.3)
we get after some manipulations :
$$
\frac{d^2x^i}{d{\tau}^2} = -\frac{1}{2}{\ }\epsilon{\ }(1 -\frac{n}{2}\alpha \gamma)
Y_{00,i}{\ }Z^0{\ }Z^0.
\eqno{(5.5)}
$$
In the present case, the metric of the Riemannian space, associated to AP-space,
can be written in the form,
$$
(\frac{d\tau}{dt})^2 = c^2{\ }(1 + \epsilon {\ }Y_{00}). \eqno{(5.6)}
$$
Substituting from (5.6) into (5.5) we get after some manipulations:
$$
\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2} = - \frac{c^2}{2}{\ }\epsilon{\ }(1 -\frac{n}{2}\alpha \gamma)
{\ }Y_{00,i}{\ }{\ }{\ }{\ }(i=1,2,3)
$$
which can be written in the form,
$$
\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2} = - \pder{\Phi_s}{x^i} {\ }{\ }{\ }{\ }(i=1,2,3) {\ }{\ },
\eqno{(5.7)}
$$
where
$$
\Phi_s = \frac{c^2}{2}{\ }\epsilon{\ }(1 -\frac{n}{2}\alpha \gamma)
{\ }Y_{00}. \eqno{(5.8)}
$$
Equantion (5.7) has the same form as Newton's equation of motion of
a particle in a gravitational field having the potential $\Phi_s$ given by
(5.8), which differs from the classical Newtonian potential.
In the case of macroscopic particles $(n=0)$, we get from (5.8):
$$
\Phi_s = \frac{c^2}{2}{\ }\epsilon{\ }Y_{00} = \Phi_N \eqno{(5.9)}
$$
where $\Phi_N$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential obtained from a similar
treatment of the geodesic equation. Thus (5.8) can be written in the form
$$
\Phi_s = (1 - {\frac{n}{2}} \alpha \gamma) \Phi_N. \eqno{(5.10)}
$$
This last expression shows that the gravitational potential felt by the spinning
particle is less than that felt by a spinless particle or a macroscopic test
particle. In other words, the Newtonian potentional is reduced for spinning
particles, by a factor $(1 - {\frac{n}{2}} \alpha \gamma)$.
\section{Summmary and Discussion}
The marriage between the two philisophical ideas of the present century,
quantization and geometrization, has never been successful so far. It is
well known that quantization is successful in the domain of microphysics,
while geometrization is successful in the domain of macrophysics,
astrophysics and cosmology. For example, the dynamics of microscopic particles is well described within the framework
of quantization, while the dynamics of macrophysical systems is described
successfully in the framework of geometrization. The question now is: what
is the best description of the dynamics of microscpic particle in a background
gravitational field? Several authors have tried to answer this question, as
mentioned in section 1. The problem is that their trails neither represent quantization of
geomerty, nor represent geometrization of quantum mechanics.
A solution of this problem may be, either starting by a certain geometry and using an
appropriate procedure to see whether we can discover quantum features in this geometry; or
starting in the quantum domain and using an appropriate procedure to look for
geometric features. We believe that any appropriate geometry describing nature
should contain paths that are quantized naturally, i.e.without using any
quantization scheme, but how to discover such paths? The trial given in the
present work represents a step in this direction. Although this trial is still
far beyond quantization of geometry, it gives a strong evidence that paths in the
AP-geometry are, in some sense, quantized. We believe that this result is
valid for any non-symmetric geometry (geometry with torsion), but this statement
needs confirmation. Furthermore one can consider the present work as a step
twards unification of the dynamics of microscopic and macroscopic particles, since
the new path equation (3.5) could be applied for, macroscopic or microscopic,
massive or massless, and for spinning or spinless particles.
AP-spaces are defined as spaces whose structure, in four dimensions, is defined
completely by a tetrad vector field subject to the condition (2.3) (cf.Robertson
(1932)). There is no complete agreement between authors on whether the AP-spaces
are, in general, curved or flat. Because of (2.15) many authors believe that
these spaces are flat (cf.Hayashi and Shirafuji (1979)). Others believe that
these spaces are curved (cf.Mikhail and Wanas (1977)). The cause is that for a
non-symmetric geometry (with a non-symmetric affine connexion) the curvature is
not uniquely defined. However, all curvature tensors, in this space, are defined
in terms of the torsion tensor, and consequently the vanishing of the torsion will
leed to a flat space (Wanas and Melek(1995)). It is clear that the present work
solves this controversal problem . The geometric structure establised in the present
work has the following features :\\
(1) The structure of the space is defines completely (in 4-dimensions) by using
a tetrad subject to the condition (2.3) and thus, by definition, we are still
using an AP-geometry. So all what is done, from the gemetric point of view, is
that some hidden structures in this geometry are illuminated. We are goining to
call the structure developed in section 2 the Parametric Absolute Parallelism
(PAP)-Space. \\
(2) It is an affinely connected space endowed by a general non-symmetric connexion
(2.5). Thus the space possesses sufficient structure to carry out the operations of
tensor analysis. \\
(3) At any point of the PAP- space we can define a metric tensor (2.2) which can be used
to carry out the operations of raising and lowering indicies.\\
(4) The space is certainly curved since the curvature tensors (2.9) and (2.11)
, corresponding to the non-symmetric connexion (2.5), are all
non-vanishing tensors. It is to be considered that other curvature tensors could
be defined in the PAP-space by generalizing the AP-derivatives. All these
tensors are non vanishing and reduce to Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor,
of the Riemannian geometry, as b= 0. \\
(5) Paths in this geometry, corresponding to the connexion (2.5), are characterized
by equation (3.5), which is considered as a generalization of the geodesic equation
of Riemannian geometry. \\
(6) The new structure covers both the Riemannian geometry (a = 1, b = 0) and the
conventional AP-geometry (a = 0, b = 1). Thus it is more general than both geometries.
The new structure can be used to solve the problem (raised by Wanas and Melek(1995)) of
constructing field theories, in non-symmetric geometries, that may be reduced to
GR for $b=0$ without any need for vanishing torsion.
The torsion of the space-time is assumed to be generated by rotating sources.
Many authors believe in this statement (cf. Ross (1989)) . We beleive that
torsion and metric tensors are both generic features of the gravitational field whether or not
its source is rotating. Calculations show that, a sphecially symmetric solution
for a version of general relativity written in AP-space, torsion has non-vanishing
components while the source of the field is non-rotating (cf. Wanas (1990)).
It is widely accepted that scalar particles (or macroscopic objects) cannot feel the torsion.
As stated by some authors, scalar test particles detect the metric of the space while
rotating test particles detect the torsion (cf. Nitch and Hehl(1980)). This is similar to the situation
that neutral particles cannot feel the existence of an electromagnetic field.
The question now is what is the intrinsic property of the
test particle that interacts with the background field ? In case if background
electromagnetic field the property is the electric charge. Similarly if the background
field is gravitational then the intrinsic property is the mass-energy of the particle
which interacts with the metric and/or the spin of the particle which interacts
with the torsion.
It has been shown (Wanas et al.(1995)b) that the results of applying the new
path equation (3.5), in the solar system, are consistent with the observational
bases of GR.
The author would like to thank Dr.M.Melek for many discussions, and Mr.M.E.
Kahil for checking relevant calculations.
\section{References}
Bazanaski, S. L. (1977) Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'{e},A {\bf{27}}, 145.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1989) J. Math. Phys. {\bf{30}}, 1018. \\
DeWitt, B. S. (1957) Rev. Modern Phys. {\bf{29}}, 377. \\
Galvao, C. and Teitelboim, C. (1980) J. Math. Phys. {\bf{21}}, 1863. \\
Hayashyi, K. and Shirafuji, T. (1979) Phys. Rev. D {\bf {19}}, 3524. \\
Hehl, F. W. (1971) Phys. Lett. {\bf{36}}A, 225. \\
Levi-Civita, T. (1950) "{\it {A Simplified Presentation of Einstein's United Field
Equations}}",
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ translated pamphlet, Blackie. \\
Longo, M. J. (1988) Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{60}}, 173. \\
Melek. M. (1988) Acta Physica Solvaca {\bf{38}}, 146. \\
Mikhail, F. I. (1952) Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.\\
Mikhail, F. I. and Wanas, M. I. (1977) Proc. Roy. soc. Lond. A {\bf{356}}, 471.\\
M{\o}ller, C. (1978) Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selek. {\bf{39}},1. \\
Nitch, J. and Hehl, F. W. (1980) Phys. Lett. {\bf{90}}B, 98. \\
Robertson, H. P. (1932) Ann. Math. Princeton {\bf{33}}, 493. \\
Ross, D. K. (1989) Int. J. Theort. Phys. {\bf{28}}, 1333. \\
Wanas, M. I. (1990) Astron. Nachr. {\bf{ 311}}, 253. \\
Wanas M. I. and Melek M. (1995) Astrophys. Space Sci, {\bf{228}}, 277. \\
Wanas, M. I., Melek, M. and Kahil, M. E. (1995)a Astrophys. Space Sci,{\bf{228}}, 273.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1995)b to be submitted for publication.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
With the discovery of an apparent separation between the classical and quantum
classifications of computational complexity \cite{shor}, and of fault-tolerant
schemes for quantum computation \cite{shor_ft}, quantum information theory has
earned a lasting and prominent place at the foundations of computer science.
But at present this discipline seems rather isolated from most of the rest of
physics. Will this change in the future? How might it change?
One view is that thinking about information theory will lead us to a deeper
understanding of the foundations of quantum mechanics. This vision has been
vividly expressed by John Wheeler \cite{wheeler}; Bill Wootters \cite{wootters}
and Chris Fuchs \cite{fuchs} have been among its particularly eloquent
spokespersons. But I am not convinced in my heart that we are supposed to
understand the foundations of quantum mechanics much better than we currently
do. So I prefer to look in a different direction to anticipate where quantum
information may have an impact on physics.
What I tend to find most exciting in science are ideas that can build bridges
across the traditional boundaries between disciplines. Perhaps that is why I
find quantum computation appealing --- it has established an unprecedentedly
deep link between the foundations of computer science and the foundations of
physics. Truly great ideas in science tend to have broad consequences that
can't be anticipated easily.
Now the quantum information community is sitting atop two ideas with potential
for greatness: quantum computation and quantum error correction. I'd like to
suggest two directions in which quantum information theory might evolve in the
future that could lead to broad and exciting consequences for other subfields
of physics. These are:
\begin{description}
\item{1.} {\bf Precision measurement.} \newline
Our deepening understanding of quantum information may lead to new strategies
for pushing back the boundaries of quantum-limited measurements. Quantum
entanglement, quantum error correction, and quantum information processing
might all be exploited to improve the information-gathering capability of
physics experiments.
\item{2.} {\bf Many-body quantum entanglement.} \newline
The most challenging and interesting problems in quantum dynamics involve
understanding the behavior of strongly-coupled many-body systems --- systems
with many degrees of freedom that undergo large quantum fluctuations. Better
ways of characterizing and classifying the features of many-particle
entanglement may lead to new and more effective methods for understanding the
dynamical behavior of complex quantum systems.
\end{description}
\section{Quantum information theory and precision measurement}
The connections between quantum information and precision measurement are
explored in a separate article \cite{childs}, which I will only summarize here.
My own interest in the quantum limitations on precision measurement has been
spurred in part by Caltech's heavy involvement in the LIGO project, the Laser
Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory \cite{ligo}. LIGO is scheduled to
begin collecting data in 2002, and a major upgrade is planned for two years
later, which will boost the optical power in the interferometer and improve the
sensitivity. In its most sensitive frequency band, the LIGO II observatory
will actually be operating at the standard quantum limit (SQL) for detection of
a weak classical force by monitoring a free mass. (In this case, the SQL
corresponds to a force that nudges an 11 kg mass by about $10^{-17}$ cm at a
frequency of 100 Hz.)
Then within another 4 years (by 2008), another upgrade is expected, which will
boost the sensitivity in the most critical frequency band beyond the SQL. Even
an improvement by a factor of two can have a very significant payoff, for a
factor of two in sensitivity means a factor of 8 in event rate. But the design
of the LIGO III detection system is still largely undecided --- clever
innovations will be needed. So Big Science will meet quantum measurement in
the first decade of the new century, and ideas from quantum information theory
may steer the subsequent developments in detection of gravitational waves and
other weak forces.
I learned the right way to think about the quantum limits on measurement
sensitivity from Hideo Mabuchi \cite{mabuchi} --- in a quantum measurement, a
classical signal is conveyed over a quantum channel.\footnote{Of course,
connections between quantum information theory and precision measurement have
been recognized by many authors. Especially relevant is the work by Wootters
\cite{wootters}, by Braunstein\cite{braun}, and by Braunstein and Caves
\cite{braunstein} on state distinguishability and parameter estimation, and by
Braginsky and others \cite{braginsky} on quantum nondemolition measurement.}
Nature sends us a message, a weak classical force, that can be regarded as a
classical parameter appearing in the Hamiltonian of the apparatus (or more
properly, if there is noise, a master equation). The apparatus undergoes a
quantum operation $\$(a)$, and we are to extract as much information as we can
about the parameter(s) $a$ by choosing an initial preparation of the apparatus,
and a POVM to read it out. Quantum information theory should be able to
provide a theory of the {\sl distinguishability of superoperators}, a measure
of how much information we can extract that distinguishes one superoperator
from another, given some specified resources that are available for the
purpose. This distinguishability measure would characterize the inviolable
limits on measurement precision that can be achieved with fixed resources.
I don't know exactly what shape this nascent theory of the distinguishability
of superoperators should take, but there are already some highly suggestive
hints that progress in quantum information processing can promote the
development of new strategies for performing high-precision measurements.
\subsection{Superdense coding: improved distinguishability through
entanglement}
A watchword of quantum information theory is: ``Entanglement is a Useful
Resource.'' It should not be a surprise if entanglement can extend the
capabilities of the laboratory physicist.
For example, the phenomenon of superdense coding illustrates that shared
entanglement can enhance classical communication between two parties
\cite{wiesner}. The same strategy can sometimes be used to exploit
entanglement to improve the distinguishability among Hamiltonians (an idea
suggested by Chris Fuchs \cite{fuchs_sd}). Suppose I wish to observe the
precession of spin-$1/2$ objects to determine the value of an unknown magnetic
field. If two spins are available, one way to estimate the value of the
unknown field is to allow both spins to precess in the field independently, and
then measure them separately. An alternative method is to prepare an entangled
Bell pair, expose one of the two spins to the magnetic field while the other is
carefully shielded from the field, and finally carry out a collective Bell
measurement on the pair. It turns out that in many cases (for example when we
have no {\sl a priori} knowledge about the field direction), the entangled
strategy extracts more information about the unknown field than the strategy in
which uncorrelated spins are measured one at a time \cite{childs}. This
separation still holds even if we allow the unentangled strategy to be {\sl
adaptive}; that is, even if the outcome of the measurement of the first spin is
permitted to influence the choice of the measurement that is performed on the
second spin.
\subsection{Grover's database search: improved distinguishability through
driving}
An important paradigm emerging from the recent studies of quantum algorithms is
Grover's method for rapidly searching an unsorted database \cite{grover}. Farhi
and Gutmann \cite{farhi} observed that Grover's algorithm may be interpreted as
a method for improving the distinguishability of a set of Hamiltonians by
adding a controlled driving term.
In the formulation they suggested, the Hamiltonian acting in an $N$-dimensional
Hilbert space is known to be one of the operators
\begin{equation}
H_x= E|x\rangle\langle x|~,
\end{equation}
where $\{|x\rangle, x=0,1,\dots,N-1\}$ is an orthonormal basis. We may gain
information about the value of $x$ by preparing states, allowing them to evolve
under $H_x$ for a while, and then measuring suitable observables. But
determining the value of $x$ by this strategy requires a total time of order
$N$. A more effective strategy is to modify the Hamiltonian by adding a
controlled driving term
\begin{equation}
H_D= E|s\rangle\langle s| ~,
\end{equation}
where $|s\rangle=N^{-1/2}\sum_{y=0}^{N-1}|y\rangle$, so that the full
Hamiltonian becomes $H'_x=H_x+H_D$.
If the initial state $|s\rangle$ is prepared and allowed to evolve under $H'_x$
for a time $T=\pi\sqrt{N}/2E$, then an orthogonal measurement in the
$\{|x\rangle\}$ basis will reveal the true identity of the Hamiltonian. The
time required is of order $\sqrt{N}$; this is Grover's quadratic speed-up.
In this Grover-Farhi-Gutmann problem, there is a sense in which an optimal
measurement procedure is known: Just as the Grover iteration allows one to
identify a marked state with a minimum number of queries to the oracle
\cite{bbbv}, the Grover perturbation allows us to identify the actual
Hamiltonian in the minimal elapsed time (asymptotically for large $N$).
Grover's algorithm presumes the existence of a quantum oracle that can reply to
coherent queries. In an algorithmic setting, the oracle may be regarded as a
quantum circuit that can be executed repeatedly. In experimental physics, the
quantum oracle is Nature, whose secrets we are eager to expose. The
experimenter is challenged to find the most effective (and practical!) way to
query Nature and learn her Truths.
\subsection{Semiclassical quantum Fourier transform as adaptive phase
measurement}
Shor's quantum factoring algorithm \cite{shor}, which apparently achieves an
exponential speed-up relative to classical algorithms, is based on the
efficient quantum Fourier transform (QFT). Fourier analysis is a versatile tool
in the laboratory, so we might expect the fast QFT to have important
applications to physics.
One example could be the high-precision measurement of a frequency, like the
energy splitting between the ground state and an excited state of an atom
\cite{childs}. As Cleve {\it et al.} \cite{cleve} have emphasized, the QFT can
be viewed as a procedure for estimating an unknown phase. With a quantum
computer, we could execute the quantum Fourier transform on $n$ two-level
atoms, and then read out a result by measuring the internal state of each atom.
If losses are negligible, the measurement outcomes provide an estimate of the
frequency to an accuracy of order $2^{-n}$. This procedure makes optimal use
of an essential resource (the number of atoms measured), in that about one bit
of information about the frequency is acquired in each binary measurement.
In fact, the complexity of the quantum information processing needed to execute
this protocol is modest. In its ``semiclassical'' implementation proposed by
Griffiths and Niu \cite{griffiths}, the QFT is an {\sl adaptive} procedure for
phase estimation that makes use of the information collected in previous
measurements to extract the best possible information from subsequent
measurements. Less significant bits of the phase are measured first, and the
measurement results are used to determine what single-qubit phase rotations
should be applied to other qubits to extract the more significant bits more
reliably. In conventional Ramsey spectroscopy, these single-qubit
transformations are applied simply by prescribing the proper time interval
between the Ramsey pulses.
\bigskip
These and other related examples give strong hints that ideas emerging from the
theory of quantum information and computation are destined to profoundly
influence the experimental physics techniques of the future.
\section{\bf Many-body entanglement and strongly-coupled quantum physics}
\subsection{Some signposts in Hilbert space}
The most challenging and interesting problems in quantum mechanics concern
many-body systems with strong quantum fluctuations. An important goal is to
understand the dynamics of such systems, but it is not easy. Indeed, it is
largely because strongly-coupled quantum dynamics is so difficult to understand
that we want so badly to build a quantum computer \cite{feynman}!
I expect that, short of building a full-blown quantum simulator, there are many
possible theoretical advances that potentially could enhance our understanding
of strongly-coupled systems, including advances that could emerge from the
theory of quantum information. A central task of quantum information theory
has been to characterize and quantify the entanglement of multipartite systems.
Up until now, most attention has focused on systems divided into a small
number of parts (like two\footnote{See \cite{ibm}, for example.}), but also of
great importance are the properties of $n$-body entanglement in the limit of
large $n$. Studies of these properties may give us some guidance concerning
what quantum simulation problems are genuinely computationally difficult, and
may suggest to experimenters what kinds of systems are most likely to exhibit
qualitatively new phenomena.
Hilbert space is a big place \cite{caves_fuchs}, and so far we have become
familiar with only a tiny part of it. In its unexplored vastness, there is
sure to be exciting new physics to discover. But much of Hilbert space is
bound to be very boring indeed, so we will need some clear signposts to show
the way to the exotic new phenomena.
It is truism (but still profoundly true!) that More is Different
\cite{anderson}. So many of the collective phenomena exhibited by many-body
systems (crystals, phase transitions, superconductivity, fractional quantum
Hall effect, $\dots$) would be exceedingly hard to predict from first
principles. That's good news for experimenters --- marvelous things could
happen in many-body systems that we have been unable to anticipate. But it is
easier to find something new when theory can provide some guidance.
\subsection{Quantum error-correcting codes}
A prototype for many-body entanglement has been developed in the past few
years: the quantum error-correcting codes \cite{qec}. For example, a
(nondegenerate) code that can correct any $t$ errors in a block of $n$ qubits
has the property that no information resides in any set of $2t$ qubits chosen
from the block -- the density matrix of the $2t$ qubits is completely random.
Information {\sl can} be encoded in the block, but the encoded information has
a {\sl global} character; there is no way to access any information at all by
looking at only a few qubits at a time.
For example, associated with the familiar five-qubit code \cite{ibm,five_qubit}
that can protect a single encoded qubit from an error afflicting any of the
five qubits in the code block, there is a maximally entangled six-qubit pure
state. This state has the property that if we trace over any three of the
qubits, the density matrix of the remaining three is a multiple of the
identity. It has been recognized only rather recently how unusual this state
is \cite{gf4}: there exist no $2n$-qubit states with $n$ larger than three
such that tracing over half of the qubits leaves the other half in a completely
random state.\footnote{But there {\sl are} such maximally entangled states with
more than six parts if each part is a higher-dimensional system rather than a
qubit \cite{gottesman}.}
Asymptotically, we don't know precisely ``how entangled'' an $n$-qubit state
can be, but there are useful upper and lower bounds. For large $n$, the number
$s$ of qubits such that the density matrix for any $s$ of the $n$ is random,
{\sl must} satisfy $s/n < 1/3$ \cite{rains}. On the other hand, states with
this property are known to exist for $s/n \le .1893\dots$ \cite{att}. Somewhere
between $1/3$ and $.1893$, there is a critical value that has not yet been
pinned down. These upper and lower bounds are instructive examples of
interesting results regarding multi-body entanglement that have emerged from
the study of quantum error-correcting codes.
\subsection{Classes of entangled states}
This kind of global encoding of information is actually found in some systems
that can be realized in the laboratory, such as systems that exhibit the
fractional quantum Hall effect \cite{stone}, or certain kinds of frustrated
antiferromagnets. These systems have in common that the microscopic degrees of
freedom are locally ``frustrated'' -- that is, they are unable to find a
configuration that satisfactorily minimizes the local energy density. In
response, the system seeks an unusual collective state that relieves the
frustration, a state such that the microscopic degrees of freedom are
profoundly entangled. Condensed matter physicists have found useful ways to
characterize the global properties of the entanglement that results.
For example, in the case of a two-dimensional system, we may consider how the
ground state degeneracy of the system behaves on a topologically nontrivial
surface in the thermodynamic limit. As Wen \cite{wen} emphasized, in
fractional quantum Hall systems the degeneracy increases with the genus (number
of handles) of the surface as
\begin{equation}
{\rm ground ~state ~degeneracy}\sim (A)^{\rm genus} ~.
\end{equation}
This dependence arises from the ``winding'' of entanglement around the handles
of the surface, and the value of $A$ distinguishes qualitatively different
types of entangled states that must be separated from one another by phase
boundaries. Just such a topological degeneracy is exploited in the ingenious
quantum error-correcting codes constructed by Alexei Kitaev \cite{kitaev}. A
closely related observation is that in a two-dimensional system with a
boundary, there can be excitations confined to the boundary, and the properties
of these edge excitations reflect the nature of the entanglement in the bulk
system \cite{wen_edge}.
I am hopeful that quantum information theory may lead to other as yet unknown
ways to characterize the entangled many-body ground states of condensed matter
systems, which may suggest new types of collective phenomena. We should also
advance our understanding of how the profoundly entangled systems that Nature
already provides might be exploited for stable storage of quantum information.
\subsection{Information and renormalization group flow}
The renormalization group (RG), one of the most profound ideas in science, is
another topic that might be profoundly elucidated by an information-theoretic
approach. Especially in the hands of Ken Wilson \cite{epsilon}, the RG spawned
one of the central unifying insights of modern physics, that of {\sl
universality} --- physics at long distances can be quite insensitive to the
details of physics at much shorter distances. Indeed, for the purpose of
describing the long-distance physics, all of the short-distance physics can be
absorbed into the values of the parameters of an {\sl effective field theory},
where the number of parameters needed is modest if we are content with
predictions to some specified accuracy.
So it is that physics is possible at all. Fortunately, it is not necessary to
grasp all the subtleties of quantum gravity at the Planck scale to understand
(say) the spectrum of the hydrogen atom in great detail!
The renormalization group describes how a quantum field theory ``flows'' as we
``integrate out'' short distance physics, obtaining a new theory with a
smaller value of the ultraviolet momentum cutoff $\Lambda$. ``Universal''
features are associated with the ``fixed'' points in the space of theories
where the flow is stationary. In the neighborhood of each fixed point are a
finite number of independent directions in theory space along which the flow is
repelled by the fixed point, the ``relevant'' directions of flow.
Each fixed point provides a potential description of physics in the far
infrared, with the number of free (``renormalized'') parameters in the
description given by the number of relevant directions of flow away from the
fixed point. Infrared theories with more parameters are less generic, in the
sense that more ``bare'' parameters in the microscopic Hamiltonian of the
system need to be carefully tuned in order for the flow to avoid all relevant
directions and hence carry the theory to the vicinity of the fixed point.
Typically, RG flow will carry a theory from the vicinity of a less generic
fixed point toward the vicinity of a more generic fixed point.
Now there is at least a heuristic sense in which information is lost as a
theory flows along an RG trajectory --- the infrared theory ``forgets'' about
its ultraviolet origins. One of the most intriguing challenges at the
interface of physics and information is to make this connection more
concrete.\footnote{For an interesting recent attempt, see \cite{brody}.} Can
we quantify how much information is discarded when a theory flows from the
vicinity of one fixed point to the vicinity of another?
The proposal that an effective theory forgets more and more about its
microscopic origins under RG flow leads to a robust expectation. RG flow should
be a {\sl gradient} flow: it always runs downhill (toward ``less
information''), and never uphill (toward ``more information''). Indeed, this
property {\sl does} hold for translationally invariant and relativistically
invariant quantum field theories in one spatial dimension. Zamalodchikov's
$c$-{\sl theorem} \cite{ctheorem} identifies a function $C$ of the parameters
in the Hamiltonian that can extracted from the two-point correlation function
of the conserved energy-momentum tensor, and shows that $C$ is non-increasing
along an RG trajectory. At a fixed point, the quantity $C$ coincides with the
central charge $c$ that characterizes the representation of the conformal
algebra according to which the fields of the fixed-point theory transform. Last
year, an extension of this result to higher even-dimensional spacetimes was
reported \cite{c4d} (following a suggestion by Cardy \cite{cardy_c}).
It seems natural that the Zamolodchikov $C$-function should have a sharp
interpretation relating it to loss of information along the flow, but none such
is known (at least to me).
A more precise information-theoretic interpretation of RG flow might guide the
way to more general formulations of the $c$-theorem, applicable for example to
theories in odd-dimensional spacetimes and to theories with less symmetry. And
it might enrich our understanding of the classification of fixed-point
theories and the general structure of renormalization group flow.
\subsection{Bulk-boundary interactions}
If the information-theoretic foundations underlying the $c$-theorem continue to
prove elusive, there is another related problem that might turn out to be more
tractable. It is known that a one-dimensional system with a {\sl boundary}
(like a semi-infinite antiferromagnetic spin chain) can sometimes exhibit an
anomalous zero-temperature entropy. The entropy has a piece proportional to
the length of the chain that vanishes as $T\to 0$, but there is also a
length-independent contribution that is nonvanishing at zero temperature
(discovered by Cardy \cite{cardy} and by Affleck and Ludwig \cite{affleck}).
Ordinarily, we expect that zero-temperature entropy has an interpretation in
terms of ground-state degeneracy, but in these systems (which have no mass gap,
so that the ground-state degeneracy becomes a subtle concept in the
thermodynamic limit), $g=e^{S(T=0)}$ is not an integer; hence the
interpretation of the entropy is obscure.
A fascinating feature is that the ``ground-state degeneracy'' $g$ is a {\sl
universal} property --- in the vicinity of an RG fixed point, its value is
insensitive to the ultraviolet details (the microscopic interactions among the
spins in the chain). Furthermore, there is evidence for a $g$-{\sl theorem};
$g$ has a smaller value at more generic fixed points and a larger value at less
generic fixed points \cite{affleck}.
The $g$-theorem, like the $c$-theorem, invites an interpretation in terms of
loss of information along an RG trajectory. But I am hopeful that the
information-theoretic origin of the $g$-theorem may turn out to be easier to
understand. Upon hearing of entropy at zero temperature, a quantum information
theorist's ears prick up -- it sounds like entanglement. It is tempting to
interpret the entropy as arising from entanglement of degrees of freedom
isolated at the boundary of the chain with degrees of freedom that reside in
the bulk. So far, I have been unable to find a precise interpretation of this
sort, but I still suspect that it could be possible.
\subsection{Holographic universe} While on the subject of bulk-boundary
interactions, I should mention the most grandiose such interaction of all. A
new view of the quantum mechanics of spacetime is emerging from recent work in
string theory, according to which the quantum information encoded in a spatial
volume can be read completely on the surface that bounds the volume (``the
holographic principle'') \cite{thooft}. This too has a whiff of entanglement
-- for we have seen that in a profoundly entangled state the amount of
information stored locally in the microscopic degrees of freedom can be far
less than we would naively expect. (Think of a quantum error-correcting code,
in which the encoded information may occupy a small ``global'' subspace of a
much larger Hilbert space.) The holographic viewpoint is particularly powerful
in the case of the quantum behavior of a black hole. The information that
disappears behind the event horizon can be completely encoded on the horizon,
and so can be transferred to the outgoing Hawking radiation \cite{hawking} that
is emitted as the black hole evaporates. This way, the evaporation process
need not destroy any quantum information.
As the evidence supporting the holographic principle mounts \cite{maldacena},
an unsettling question becomes more deeply puzzling: If quantum information
can be encoded completely on the boundary, why does physics seem to be local?
It's strange that I imagine that I can reach out and embrace you, when we are
both just shadows projected on the wall. Perhaps as the tools for analyzing
many-body entanglement grow more powerful, we can begin to grasp the origin of
the persistent illusion that physics is founded on the locality of
spacetime.\footnote{A different possible connection between quantum
error-correcting codes and the black-hole information puzzle was suggested in
\cite{preskill_ft}.}
\section{Conclusions}
In the future, I expect quantum information to solidify its central position at
the foundations of computer science, and also to erect bridges that connect
with precision measurement, condensed matter physics, quantum field theory,
quantum gravity, and other fields that we can only guess at today. I have
identified two general areas in which I feel such connections may prove to be
particularly enlightening. Progress in quantum information processing may guide
the development of new ideas for improving the information-gathering
capabilities of physics experiments. And a richer classification of the phases
exhibited by highly entangled many-body systems may deepen our appreciation of
the wealth of phenomena that can be realized by strongly-coupled quantum
systems.
\acknowledgments
My work on the applications of quantum information theory to quantum-limited
measurements has been in collaboration with Andrew Childs and Joe Renes
\cite{childs}. I'm very grateful to Hideo Mabuchi for stimulating my interest
in that subject, and to Dave Beckman and Chris Fuchs for their helpful
suggestions. I have also benefitted from discussions about precision
measurement with Constantin Brif, Jon Dowling, Steven van Enk, Jeff Kimble,
Alesha Kitaev, and Kip Thorne. I thank Michael Nielsen for emphasizing the
relevance of quantum information in quantum critical phenomena, Ian Affleck for
enlightening correspondence about conformal field theory, Anton Kapustin for a
discussion about Ref. \cite{c4d}, Dorje Brody for informing me about Ref.
\cite{brody}, and Curt Callan for encouragement. Finally, I am indebted to Ike
Chuang for challenging me to speculate about the future of quantum information
theory. This work has been supported in part by the Department of Energy under
Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701, and by DARPA through the Quantum Information and
Computation (QUIC) project administered by the Army Research Office under Grant
No. DAAH04-96-1-0386.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is one of the great dreams in the field of few-nucleon physics
to find a quantitative correct
and theoretically reasonable three nucleon force(3NF).
In the past many 3NF models were developed\cite{Fujita,Tuscon,Coon81,Brazil,TEXAS,Ruhr,Urbana}.
An especially prominent one is the meson-theoretical 3NF, for instance in the form of the Tucson-Melbourne
model (TM)\cite{Tuscon,Coon81}.
The reason for studying 3NFs is the existence of
disagreements between the 3N data and the theoretical predictions with
NN forces only.
First of all
the theoretical binding energy of
$^3$H lacks about 500-800keV in relation to the experimental value of 8.48MeV
using recent realistic potentials (e.g. CD-Bonn\cite{cdbonn},
AV18\cite{av18}, Nijmegen 93,
Nijmegen I, II\cite{nijm}).
These potentials describe all 2N observables to a degree of accuracy of $\chi ^2 / N_{data} \sim$1.
In the low energy three nucleon continuum we have
demonstrated\cite{Gloeckle96} that
most of the observables agree well with the data using nucleon-nucleon (NN) forces only,
however, there are exceptions.
Some of them are well known as the ``$A_y$ puzzle''\cite{Koike,Witala3,Witala,Hueber,Kievsky}.
In the high energy region the theoretical predictions differ visibly from the data if one
only takes NN forces into account.
The
``Sagara discrepancy''\cite{Sagara,Koike2,Witala2,Sakamoto,Nemoto} is an example of this.
These problems definitely require
a new Hamiltonian in the realm of the three nucleon system.
Moreover, the $A_y$-puzzle requires not only a $2\pi$-exchange 3NF to become
explained\cite{Gloeckle96,Kievsky} but other 3NF mechanisms as well.
Beside these low-energy discrepancies in the 3N continuum there are also
discrepancies at higher energies. This can be expected naively due to the
shorter range nature of the 3NF in comparison to the NN force. Recently it
became possible to explain discrepancies between experiment and predictions
using NN forces only for the neutron-deuteron (nd) total cross section
\cite{Total} and the nd elastic differential cross section \cite{Diff} with
the $2\pi$-exchange TM 3NF.
From the point of view of chiral perturbation, this special category of the
TM 3NF should be modified\cite{Friar99}.
Chiral perturbation theory has been successfully applied
in the $\pi N$ system \cite{piNchiral,piNchiral2}
and it is already playing an important role in its application to the NN system as
well\cite{NNchiral,NNchiral2,NNchiral3}
In \cite{Friar99} it recommended that the pion range - short range part
of the $c$-term of the TM $2\pi$-exchange 3NF should be dropped, based on
arguments from chiral perturbation theory. In doing this the pion range -
short range part of the $c$-term remains, which is of the same type than the
$a$-term. This leads to a redefinition of $a$.
The such modified TM 3NF,called TM', has essentially the same effects on
continuum\cite{Hueber2} than the original TM 3NF.
Much remains to be investigated in the relation between NN and 3NF's.
In the next section we present calculations for the triton binding energy based
on variations of the values of the strength parameters in the
TM 3NF, individually and combined.
The summary and the outlook are give in Section 3.
\section{Variations of the Tucson-Melbourne 3NF and their Triton Binding Energies}
The TM force has the operator form:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{TM}^{(3)} ={ 1 \over{ (2\pi)^6 }} { {g^2 _{\pi NN} }\over { 4 m^2 }}
{ { F^2_{\pi NN} (\vec q^2 ) F^2_{\pi NN}(\vec {q'}^2)
\vec \sigma_ 1 \cdot \vec q
\vec \sigma _2 \cdot \vec {q'} } \over { ( \vec q ^2 + m_\pi^2 ) ( \vec
{q '} ^2 + m_\pi ^2 ) }}
[ O^{\alpha \beta } \tau_\alpha \tau_\beta ],
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
O^{\alpha \beta } =\delta ^{\alpha \beta} [
a + b \vec q \cdot \vec {q'} + c (\vec q ^2 + \vec {q'} ^2 )]
-d ( \tau _3 ^\gamma \epsilon ^{ \alpha \beta \gamma } \vec \sigma _3
\cdot \vec q \times \vec {q'} ).
\label{operator}
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_\pi$, $m$, $g _{\pi NN}$ and $ F_{\pi NN} (\vec q^2 )$ are
the pion mass, the nucleon mass, the $\pi NN$ coupling constant and the vertex function ,
respectively. The superscript (3) denotes that this expression is only one of three
cyclically permuted parts of the total TM 3NF. There are four parameters
($a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ ) which are chosen according to certain physical concepts\cite{Tuscon,Coon81}.
For practical calculations one needs to introduce the vertex function which
is normally chosen as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\pi NN}(\vec q ^2) = { { \Lambda^2 - m_\pi ^2 } \over { \Lambda ^2 +
\vec q ^2 }}
\end{eqnarray}
The triton binding energy turns out to be strongly dependent
on the cut-off parameter $\Lambda$.
In a phenomenological approach it can be used as a fit parameter to adjust the
triton binding energy and this separately for each NN
potential\cite{Stadler,Nogga}.
Using these cut-off parameters we calculated the polarization transfer parameter
$K_y^{y'}$ in the three-body continuum. While the individual pure NN force predictions are
different they essentially coincide
if those individually adjusted 3NFs where included and that prediction agrees rather well with the data\cite{Hempen98}.
This is one example out of several where scaling with the triton binding energy exists for 3N continuum observables. In those studies we kept the original TM parameters ($a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$) and only varied the form-factor cut-off parameter$\Lambda$.
Now we want to go one step further and study phenomenologically the dependence of the triton binding energy on the individual terms in the TM 3NF operators connected to the $a$-, $b$-,$c$- and $d$-term.
Like in \cite{Nogga} we solve
the Faddeev equation rigorously including the 3NF.
We choose CD-Bonn as the NN interaction.
The original parameters\cite{Coon81} of the TM model are given in Table 2.1.
\begin{table}
\caption{ Parameters for the original 3NF.
\label{table1}}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
$a $ [$m_\pi^{-1}$] & $b$ [$m_\pi^{-3}$] & $c$ [$m_\pi^{-3}$] &
$d$ [$m_\pi^{-3}$]
& $m_\pi$ [MeV] & $m$ [MeV] &$g ^2 _{\pi NN}$ & $\Lambda $ [$m_\pi$] \\
\hline
1.13 & -2.58 & 1.00 & -0.753 & 139.6 &938.926 &179.7 & 4.856 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The cut-off parameter $\Lambda$ is not the original one but adjusted to reproduce
the triton binding energy together with CD-Bonn.
We multiply each one of the parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ by a factor $X$
($ 0 \le X \le 1.5$ ), one after the other:
\begin{eqnarray}
\pmatrix{
a \cr
b \cr
c\cr
d\cr} \longrightarrow \cases{
\pmatrix{ a X\cr
b \cr
c\cr
d\cr} & case a \cr
\pmatrix{ a \cr
b X \cr
c\cr
d\cr} & case b \cr
\pmatrix{ a \cr
b \cr
c X\cr
d\cr} & case c \cr
\pmatrix{ a \cr
b \cr
c\cr
d X \cr} & case d \cr }
\end{eqnarray}
and determine the 3N binding energy for these four cases.
The results are shown in Fig.~1.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\input{all.ps}
\caption{The binding energy of the triton. The star ``$\star$'' is a new solution for the $c$-parameter. }
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
We see that the parameter $a$ contributes negligibly to the 3N bound state
and its presence or absence is unimportant.
This explains why the prediction for the triton binding energy for the TM and TM' 3NFs are
close to each other\cite{Hueber2}.
The $b$- and $d$-terms however are important. The binding energy increases monotonically with their strength.
Interestingly, the behaviour of the $c$-term is such that there are two solutions
which lead to the experimental value.
We find 0.150 as the new solution (see ``$\star$'' in Fig.1).
Now, with the exception of $a$ we let all parameters float.
The parameter $a$ is kept at its original value 1.13. We search for the sets ($b$, $c$, $d$)
which fulfil the condition to produce the experimental binding energy.
Thus we have now three independent variables $X$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\pmatrix{
a \cr
b \cr
c\cr
d\cr} \longrightarrow
\pmatrix{ a \cr
b X_b \cr
c X_c \cr
d X_d \cr}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\input{para1.ps}
\caption{Contour plot of the parameters $b$, $c$, $d$ for constant binding energy.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Fig. ~2 shows contour plots for different $X_c$ and $X_b$ while keeping $X_d$ at different fixed values.
Each line in Fig.~2 corresponds to the same binding energy (8.48MeV).
The black spot indicates the position for the original values of the parameters ($X_b$=$X_c$=$X_d$=1).
The star is as in Fig. 1.
We see that these two solutions for $c$ found above lie on the line in Fig.~2.
The $b$- and $c$- values to the left (right) of a curve for a particular value of $d$
lead to over-binding (under-binding).
A crucial rule\cite{Fujita} corresponding to the properties of the $\Delta$ particle
excitation mechanism is that the ratio $ b/d $ is 4.
The Urbana-Argonne\cite{Urbana} 3NF follows this rule, since except for a
phenomenological short range term it includes only the $2\pi$-exchange with an
intermediate $\Delta$ isobar, the Fujita-Miyazawa 3NF.
The TM value for the ratio $b/d$ is 3.43, since in this model the $b$- and
$d$-term include other processes on top of the $2\pi$-exchange with an
intermediate $\Delta$. Also $b$ and $d$ are larger for the TM 3NF than for
the pure $\Delta-2\pi$-exchange. The values for $b$ and $d$ of the Brazil and
RuhrPot 3NF are close to those of the TM 3NF.
The Texas 3NF, based on chiral perturbation theory, has even larger values
for $b$ and $d$. This shows that it is not at all clear which values for the
strength parameters within the 3NF one should choose.
In Fig.~3 we show the curve for $b$=4$d$ and of course the additional requirement
that the triton binding energy has the experimental value. As in Fig.~2 the
underlying NN potential is CD-Bonn. Of course, in looking to Fig.~3 one should
keep in mind that the choice for the $NN\pi$ form-factor (4) leads to a very
strong dependence of the strength of the 3NF on the cut-off parameter $\Lambda$,
as well.
From Table II in \cite{Friar99} the locations of the $b$ and $c$ parameters for
several 3NFs are indicated. Note however those 3NFs are not adjusted to the
triton binding energy together with the CD-Bonn potential.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\input{para2.ps}
\caption{Parameters for various 3NFs.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and outlook}
Stimulated by \cite{Friar99} we studied the binding energy of $^3 $H as a function of the strength parameters
($a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ in (\ref{operator}) ) in the TM force.
We find that the $a$-term is not decisive when varying in the interval
$ 0 \le a \le 2 $. The $b$- and $d$-terms, however are very important to obtain the
experimental value 8.48MeV.
Varying $c$ from 0 to 1.5 $\times c_{TM}$ we find that there are two solutions which belong to
the same binding energy. The new solution is 15\% of the original value, namely,
0.15 [$m_\pi^{-3}$]. It supports phenomenologically
the recommendation given in\cite{Friar99} ( based on arguments from chiral perturbation theory)
that the short-range part of the
$c$-term in the TM force should be dropped.
If one assumes a purely phenomenological point of view for choosing the values
for $a$ to $d$ in a 3NF of the form (\ref{operator}) Fig.~ 2
provides a complete overview for the possible values under the requirement
that the triton binding energy is gained together with the CD-Bonn potential.
Clearly corresponding pictures could be gained for other NN potentials.
Of course other 3NF mechanisms have to be explored, too. At least for the
$A_y$-puzzle it is clear that the $2\pi$-exchange 3NF is not sufficient to
explain this discrepancy between theory and data. A study of pion range -
short range 3NF terms is underway\cite{Hueber2} where are predicted by
chiral perturbation theory.
Based on the chosen form (2) and the requirement to fit the triton binding energy
those 3NFs can now be tested in the 3N continuum with high energy.
At IUCF\cite{IUCF}, RIKEN\cite{Sakamoto,Sakai} and KVI
measurements are underway
for 3N observables between 100-300 MeV. These are cross sections and various
spin observables. They will be analysed using the 3NFs fixed in Fig.~2.
This might allow to find a preference for a certain region in that
parameter space or will show that additional forms are needed.
\smallskip
{\bf Acknowlegements}
This paper is dedicated to Prof. Dr. Walter Gl\"ockle
on the occasion of his 60th birthday.
This work is financially supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft under Project No. Gl 87/19-2, No. Hu 746/1-3 and No.
Gl 87/27-1,
and partially the auspices of the U.S.\ Department of Energy.
The calculations have been performed on the CRAY T3E
of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing, J\"ulich,
Germany.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
As approximation schemes for gauge dynamics,
instanton calculus \cite{shif}
and 't Hooft's $1/N$ expansion \cite{tof} do not seem to combine
in a useful fashion.
Since effects of a charge $k$ instanton
sector are of $\ord (e^{-8\pi^2 k/g^2}) = \ord (e^{-N})$, it would seem
that they are always irrelevant in the large-$N$ limit
unless they control the {\it leading} contribution to some observable
(for instance, because of supersymmetry non-renormalization arguments),
or somehow the integral over instanton moduli space is ill-defined.
Such non-commutativity of the large-$N$ limit and the instanton sum
is assumed to be behind well-known instances of theta-angle dependence
at perturbative order in the $1/N$ expansion, notably in the
context of large-$N$ chiral dynamics \cite{venewitt}.
On the other hand,
it is known that some toy models \cite{toym} completely
suppress instanton-like excitations once the large-$N$ limit has been
taken. In other words, the `effective action' resulting after large-$N$
diagram summation does not support instantons any more. So, one may
wonder whether the large-$N$ `master field' always loses its
discrete topological structure. Recently, the AdS/CFT correspondence of
\cite{Malda,gkpw} has provided a new set of non-trivial master fields
for some gauge theories. In particular, the theta-angle dependence
of $\CN=4$ Super Yang--Mills $({\rm SYM}_4)$ in four dimensions
can be studied in the large-$N$ expansion via perturbative Type IIB string
theory in ${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf S}^5$. It is saturated by instantons,
which appear in the supergravity description as D-instantons
\cite{dinst}. So, the radical view that an instanton gas is incompatible
with the large-$N$ limit is not vindicated in this case.
In this paper,
we investigate these questions in a QCD cousin introduced by Witten
\cite{wit2}, which admits a supergravity description of its master
field, while removing the constraints of extended supersymmetry and
conformal invariance.
More precisely, we would like to learn under what conditions some
kind of topological configurations (instantons)
still give the leading semiclassical effects of $\ord (e^{-N})$,
even after the planar diagrams have been summed over. We shall
focus on the most elementary case of the dilute limit, \mbox{{\em i.e.~}} the
single-instanton sector.
One description of this theory is in terms of $N$ D4-branes wrapped on
a circle ${\bf S}^1_\beta$ of length $\beta$,
with thermal boundary conditions. At weak coupling, the low-energy
theory on the D4-branes is a perturbative five-dimensional Super
Yang--Mills theory $({\rm SYM}_{4+1})$,
which reduces to non-supersymmetric, $SU(N)$ Yang--Mills theory
in four euclidean dimensions $({\rm YM}_4)$,
at distance scales much larger than the inverse temperature $T^{-1}=
\beta$.
Since five-dimensional gauge fields originate from massless open
strings, their coupling scales as
$g_5^2 \sim g_s\,\sqrt{\alpha'}$ with
$g_s = {\rm exp}(\phi_{\infty})$ denoting the
string coupling constant. Therefore, the four-dimensional coupling at
the cut-off scale $T$ is given by $g^2 \sim g_s \,T\,\sqrt{\alpha'}$.
The weak-coupling description of instantons in this set up is in terms
of D0/D4-branes bound states. Due to the Wess--Zumino coupling
between the type IIA Ramond--Ramond (RR) one-form
and the gauge fields on the
D4-branes world-volume, $ {\cal L}} \def\CH{{\cal H}} \def\CI{{\cal I}} \def\CU{{\cal U}_{\rm WZ} =
C_{\rm D0} \wedge F\wedge F$,
a D0-brane `inside' a D4-brane
carries the instanton charge. The action of an euclidean world-line
wrapped on a circle ${\bf S}_{\beta}^1$ is
\begin{equation}\label{d0oldaction}
S_{{\rm D}0} = M_{{\rm D}0} \cdot \beta = {\beta \over \sqrt{\alpha'}
\,g_s}=
{8\pi^2 \over g^2} \equiv {8\pi^2 N \over \lambda}
.\end{equation}
Incidentally, this relation also fixes the numerical conventions in the
definition of the four-dimensional coupling $g$.
We have also introduced the standard notation for the large-$N$ 't Hooft
coupling $\lambda \equiv g^2 N$.
The moduli of these instantons are encoded in the
quantum mechanical zero-modes of the D0--D0
and D0--D4 strings. For a standard
compactification, the D0-branes (\mbox{{\em i.e.~}} the
`instanton particles' of the gauge
theory) describe standard instantons of $\CN=4$ ${\rm
SYM}_4$ (see \cite{usinst} for some generalizations).
If the circle breaks supersymmetry, the instanton fermionic
zero modes should be lifted
accordingly to mass of $\ord(T)$, and one should get essentially a
Yang--Mills instanton with no fermionic zero modes.
Other one-loop effects would incorporate the perturbative running of
the coupling constant in the standard way.
The supergravity framework for ${\rm SYM}_{4+1}$ at finite temperature
is given by the black D4-brane solution \cite{wit2, mali}.
The full metric in the string
frame is:\footnote{See, for example, \cite{krev} and references therein
for a review of metrics relevant to this paper.}
\begin{equation}
\label{fulmet}
ds^2 = H_4^{-\frac{1}{2}} (h\,d\tau^2 + d{\vec y}^{\,2}) + H_4^{\frac{1}{2}}
\,\left( dr^2 / h + r^2 \,d\Omega_{4}^2 \right)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{prof}
H_4= 1+ (r_{Q4}/r)^3 \,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\; h=1-(r_0 /r)^3.
\end{equation}
There are two length scales associated with this metric: the
Schwarzschild radius, $r_0$, related to the Hawking temperature $T$ by
$ T^{-1} = \beta = (4\pi/3)\, r_0 \,[H_4 (r_0)]^{1/2}$,
and the charge radius $r_{Q4}$, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{crad}
r_{Q4}^3 = - {\mbox{$\half$}} r_0^3 + \sqrt{{\mbox{$1\over 4$}} r_0^6 +
\alpha'^{\,3}\,(\pi\, g_s\,N)^2},
\end{equation}
In the Maldacena or gauge-theory limit, one scales $\alpha' \rightarrow 0$
with $r/\alpha' =u $ and $r_0 /\alpha' = u_0$
fixed. The new coordinate $u$ has dimensions of energy and the scaling
properties of the Higgs expectation value. In this limit, only the
combination
\begin{equation}
\label{nea}
\alpha'^{\,2} \,H_4 \rightarrow {\pi \,g_s \,N\,\sqrt{\alpha'}
\over u^3} = {\lambda \,\beta\over 8\pi\, u^3}
\end{equation}
is relevant. In the supergravity picture, the D4-branes have disappeared
in favour of the `throat geometry' ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$
(\ref{fulmet}), \mbox{{\em i.e.~}} we have no open
strings and the description is fully gauge invariant. The black-brane
manifold ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$, with topology
${\bf R}^2 \times {\bf R}^{4} \times {\bf S}^4$,
has a boundary at $u=\infty$ of topology ${\bf S}^1 \times {\bf R}^4$,
which is interpreted as the ${\rm SYM}_{5}$
space-time (the $(\tau, {\vec y})$ space). The physical
interpretation is that asymptotic boundary conditions for the
supergravity fields at $u=\infty$ represent coupling constants of
microscopic operators in the gauge theory \cite{gkpw}.
The same boundary conditions are satisfied by the extremal D4-brane
metric with thermal boundary conditions. This is
the `vacuum' manifold, denoted ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$, with
topology ${\bf S}^1 \times {\bf R}^5 \times {\bf S}^4$, obtained from
(\ref{fulmet}) by
setting $u_0 =0$, with {\it fixed} $\beta$. However,
one can show \cite{wit2,bkr} that ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ is suppressed by a
relative factor of $\ord (e^{-N^2})$ with respect to ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$,
in the large-$N$ limit. In other words, the $\ord (N^2)$ actions
satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{balan}
I({\bf X}_{\rm bb}) - I({\bf X}_{\rm vac}) = -K\,N^2 \,\lambda \, VT^4 <0
\end{equation}
for any $T>0$, with $K$ a positive constant, \mbox{{\em i.e.~}}
there is no Hawking-Page
transition \cite{hp,wit2}.
Unlike the case of $\CN =4$ ${\rm SYM}_4$, the dilaton is not constant
in the supergravity description. It becomes strongly coupled at radial
coordinates of order
$u\sim \ord (N^{4/3} /\beta\,\lambda)$, where one has $e^{\phi} = g_s
\,(H_4)^{-1/4} =\ord (1)$. Beyond this point, one should
use a dual picture in terms of a wrapped M5-brane in M-theory, \mbox{{\em i.e.~}} a
quotient of ${\bf AdS}_7 \times {\bf S}^4$. For the
purposes of the discussions in
this paper, we are studying the theory at fixed energy scales of $\ord
(1)$ in the 't Hooft's
large-$N$ limit, with fixed $\lambda=g^2 N$. Therefore, such non-perturbative
thresholds effectively decouple in the regime of interest,
and we shall formally extend
the D4-brane manifold all the way up to $u=\infty$.
{}From a physical point of view, $\alpha'$-corrections to the classical
geometry pose a more serious limitation to the supergravity description.
The curvature at the horizon scales as
$( u_0 \,g_s\,N
\,\sqrt{\alpha'})^{-1/2} \sim \lambda^{-1}$,
in string units,
so that the supergravity description is accurate only for large bare
't Hooft coupling $\lambda \gg 1$. On the other hand, the glueball mass
gap \cite{oo} in this theory is of order
$
M_{\rm glue} \sim \beta^{-1}
=T$,
while inspection of the Wilson loop expectation value gives a
four-dimensional string tension \cite{stten} of order
$\sigma \sim \lambda \,T^2$, \mbox{{\em i.e.~}} hierarchically larger in the
supergravity regime. This lack of scaling
indicates that the supergravity picture is far from the `continuum limit'
of the ${\rm YM}_4$ theory, a suspicion already clear from the existence
of non-QCD states of Kaluza--Klein origin at the same mass scale as the
glueballs: $M_{\rm KK} \sim T \sim M_{\rm glue}$.
\section{The Localized Instanton}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The natural candidate for an instanton excitation in the large-$N$
supergravity
picture is a D0-brane probe wrapped around
the thermal circle. For the supersymmetric case, this is indeed the
T-dual configuration to the D-instantons in ${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf
S}^5$ discussed in \cite{dinst}.
Wrapped D0-branes have the correct quantum numbers to be
interpreted as Yang--Mills instantons in the effective four-dimensional
theory. The topological charge is interpreted as the wrapping number on
the thermal circle ${\bf S}^1_{\beta}$. In the large-$N$ limit, it is
justified to take the D0-brane as a probe, neglecting its back-reaction
on the supergravity fields, since the gravitational radius is
sub-stringy: $(r_{\rm probe})^7 \sim \alpha'^{\,7/2}\,e^{\phi} \sim \ord
(1/N)$,
although for instanton numbers of $\ord (N)$
with identical moduli we may need a
supergravity description for the instanton dynamics in terms of the
D0-branes near-horizon geometry (\mbox{{\em i.e.~}} a T-dual of the limit in
\cite{koo}, or the solution of section 3 below). We shall postpone
these
interesting
complications by working in the single-instanton sector, and with
instanton moduli of $\ord (1)$ in the 't Hooft large-$N$ limit.
One important ingredient of the
the instanton/D0-brane mapping
is a physical interpretation in gauge-theory language of the
wrapped D0 world-line's radial position.
For this purpose, we use the generalized
UV/IR connection as discussed in \cite{uvir}. According to this, a
radial coordinate $u$ is associated to a length scale
in the ${\rm SYM}_{p+1}$ gauge theory
of order $ \ell\sim \sqrt{ g_{p+1}^2 \,N /u^{5-p}}$.
Thus, in our case, the size parameter $\rho$ of the instanton satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\label{sizep}
\rho^2 = {\beta\,\lambda\over u}
.\end{equation}
We will assume this relation as the definition of the
instanton's size modulus.
We will now discuss both manifolds with ${\bf S}^1 \times {\bf R}^4$
boundary conditions at $u=\infty$, in spite of the fact that eq.\
(\ref{balan}) ensures the dynamical dominance of ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$.
The reason for considering also the `vacuum' manifold is first that we
find interesting differences between the manifolds, and that
${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ is the only relevant manifold for supersymmetric
compactification, with which we can make contact with the
${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf S}^5$ case.
\subsection{Vacuum Manifold}
The ${\bf S}^1$ factor on the
boundary extends to the bulk of ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ becoming
singular as $u\rightarrow 0$, since
${\rm Vol}({\bf S}^1_u) = \beta \sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}} = \beta\,(H_4)^{-1/4}
\rightarrow 0$.
However, the action of the instanton is constant, due to the dilaton
dependence in the Dirac--Born--Infeld action:
\begin{equation}
\label{dbis}
S_{\rm D0} = M_{\rm D0} \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau\, (g_s\,e^{-\phi})
\,\sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}}
= {8\pi^2 \over g^2}
.\end{equation}
Thus, the size $\rho$ is an exact modulus in the supergravity
description on ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$.
On general grounds, the path integral of a D-particle in a curved
background ${\bf X}$
contains an ultralocal term in the measure of the form $\CD X^{\mu}
\,[{\rm det}(g_{\mu\nu})]^{1/2}$, to ensure invariance under target-space
diffeomorphisms. In the description of instantons on the manifold ${\bf
X}$, we concentrate on the
zero-mode part which then leads to a single-instanton measure
\begin{equation}
\label{measurex}
d\mu \,({\bf X}) = C_{N,\lambda} \;d\eta\;\int_{{\bf S}^1_{\beta} \times {\bf
S}^4_{\Omega} } (\alpha')^{-5}\;d{\rm Vol}({\bf X}),
\end{equation}
where $d\eta$ is the measure over fermionic zero-modes (sixteen in the
supersymmetric case), and $C_{N,\lambda}$ is
a constant to be determined by the matching to the perturbative measure.
We have produced a measure in the physical space-time and
scale-parameter space by averaging
over ${\bf S}^1_{\beta} \times {\bf S}^4_{\Omega}$.
The result for ${\bf X}_{\rm D4} = {\bf X}_{\rm vac}$,
using the UV/IR connection (\ref{sizep}) is:
\begin{equation}
\label{measud4}
d\mu \,({\bf X}_{\rm D4}) = C_{N,\lambda} \; \lambda^5 \,
(\rho \,T)^{-6} \; \rho^{-5}\,d\rho\,d{\vec y} \,d\eta.
\end{equation}
We see that the presence of the dimensionful scale $T$
explicitly violates the conformal invariance of the measure, which we
must take as a concrete prediction of the supergravity approach. As
such, it is valid at large $N$ and $\lambda$.
The singularity of ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ as $u\rightarrow 0$
is not relevant. At $u\sim u_s =
T \lambda^{1/3}$ the size of the world-line is of $\ord (1)$ in string
units. So, for $u\ll u_s$ we must use the T-dual metric of $N$ D3-branes
smeared over the dual circle of coordinate
length ${\widetilde \beta} = 4\pi^2 \alpha' /\beta$:
\begin{equation}
\label{tdual}
ds^2 ({\bf X}_{\widetilde {\rm D3}}) = H_4^{-\frac{1}{2}} \,
d{\vec y}^{\,2} +
H_4^{\frac{1}{2}}\, \left( d{\widetilde \tau}^2 + dr^2 + r^2
\,d\Omega_4^2 \right)
,\end{equation}
with ${\widetilde \tau} \equiv {\widetilde \tau} + {\widetilde
\beta}$.
In the T-dual metric,\footnote{Notice that the UV/IR connection
(\ref{sizep}) remains unchanged by T-duality, as the new metric
only differs by $g_{\tau\tau} \rightarrow 1/g_{\tau\tau}$, with
the $u,{\vec y}$ components of the metric unaffected.}
the size of ${\bf S}^1_u$ grows with decreasing $u$.
In fact, the metric (\ref{tdual}) is unstable if any small amount
of energy is added. It collapses to the array solution of localized
D3-branes \cite{greglaf}:
$$
ds^2 ({\bf X}_{\rm D3}) = H_3^{-\frac{1}{2}} d{\vec y}^{\,2} + H_3^{\frac{1}{2}}\,
\left(d{\widetilde\tau}^2 + dr^2 + r^2 \,d\Omega_4^2 \right),
\;\;\;\;{\rm with} \;\;\;
H_3 = 1+\sum_n {4\pi\,{\widetilde g}_s \,\alpha'^{\,2}
\over |r^2 + (n{\widetilde\beta})^2 |^2}.
$$
By the T-duality rules and our coupling conventions: $4\pi{\widetilde g}_s =
8\pi^2 \,g_s \sqrt{\alpha'}/\beta = g^2$.
In the regime $r\gg {\widetilde \beta}$ we
can approximate the discrete sum over images by a continuous integral,
and
we recover the smeared metric (\ref{tdual}) as an approximation. On the
other hand, for $r\ll {\widetilde \beta}$ we can instead neglect the
images and approximate the sum by the $n=0$ term. The result is of
course the standard ${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf S}^5$ metric corresponding
to D3-branes at strong coupling. Indeed, the UV/IR relation for
D-instantons in D3-branes \cite{dinst},
$
\rho = \sqrt{\lambda} / u
,$
matches the five-dimensional one (\ref{sizep}) precisely at $u=u_{\rm
loc} = 1/\beta$, which is equivalent to $r=r_{\rm loc} =
{\widetilde \beta}/4\pi^2$.
The instanton measure (\ref{measud4}) matches across these
finite-size transitions to the corresponding measures for the new
manifolds ${\bf X}_{\widetilde {\rm D3}}$ and ${\bf X}_{\rm D3}$,
because the definition (\ref{measurex}) applies in general and the
volume form matches across the transitions at $u=u_s$ and $u=u_{\rm
loc}$. The resulting measures are (both up to $\ord (1)$ numerical
factors):
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{meas}
d\mu \,({\bf X}_{\widetilde {\rm D3}}) &=& C_{N,\lambda} \;\lambda^4
\;(\rho \,T)^{-3} \;\rho^{-5}\,d\rho\,d{\vec y}\,d\eta,
\nonumber \\
d\mu \,({\bf X}_{\rm D3}) &=& C_{N,\lambda} \; \lambda^{5/2} \;\rho^{-5}\,
d\rho\,
d{\vec y}\, d\eta
.
\end{eqnarray}
This last measure is conformally invariant, and coincides with
that of refs. \cite{dinst} for D-instantons in ${\bf AdS}_5 \times
{\bf S}^5$.
Finally,
as pointed out in the introduction, the validity of the supergravity
picture is limited by the requirement that we can control the
$\alpha'$-corrections. The curvature of the D4-brane metrics
is of $\ord (1)$ in string units
at the
`correspondence line' $u_c \sim (\beta \,\lambda)^{-1}$
\cite{horpol}. For the D3-brane metrics, the condition is simply
$\lambda
\sim 1$. This implies that, for $\rho < \beta$, we have a
correspondence line for instanton sizes
$
\rho =\rho_c = \beta\,\lambda.
$
For $\rho >\beta$ the correspondence line is independent of $\rho$ and
lies at $\lambda \sim 1$.
Below the correspondence line the system is better described in
Yang--Mills perturbation theory, although we lose the analytic control
over the $1/N$ expansion.
The geometrical D-instanton measure in ${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf S}^5$
has been matched to the perturbative instanton measure
in the $\CN=4$ ${\rm SYM}_4$ theory in great detail, including
multi-instanton terms \cite{valya}. In particular, this allows us
to fix the coupling-dependent constant as $C_{N,\lambda} = N^{-7/2} \,
\lambda^{3/2}$. This is rather remarkable, since the geometrical
measure holds
at large $\lambda$, whereas the perturbative measure is derived in
Yang--Mills perturbation theory, valid for $\lambda \ll 1$. This robustness
of the instanton measure in this case might be due to the high
degree of supersymmetry and/or conformal symmetry. For instance,
the analogous matching between the D4-brane supergravity measure
(\ref{measud4})
and the perturbative description of the
`instanton particles' of ${\rm SYM}_5$, through the
correspondence line $\rho = \rho_c = \beta \,\lambda$, fails by one
power of $\lambda$. This means that the very precise matching of
\cite{valya} for
${\bf AdS}_5$ D-instantons is probably a consequence of conformal
invariance.
This discussion may be summarized in Fig. 1, where the finite-size
transitions, as well as the correspondence lines are depicted as a
function of the 't Hooft coupling and the instanton size.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{1.4in}
\epsfxsize=3in
\epsffile{ins1.eps}
\caption{
\small
Instanton phase diagram for the compactified D4 theory on a
supersymmetric circle of size $\beta$.
The dotted lines
denote the correspondence curves separating the geometric descriptions at
large 't Hooft coupling $\lambda =g^2 N$ from the perturbative
SYM descriptions at small $\lambda$.
Dashed lines represent transitions driven by the finite size
of the compactification circle. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Black-brane Manifold}
Although the wrapping charge of D0-branes is well defined in ${\bf
X}_{\rm vac}$, the thermal circle being non-contractible, this is not
the case for ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$, whose
$(\tau, u)$ subspace has ${\bf R}^2$ topology. Therefore, the thermal
circle at fixed radial coordinate ${\bf S}^1_u$, is contractible, being
the boundary of a
disc: ${\bf S}^1_u = \partial {\bf D}_u$,
\mbox{{\em i.e.~}}\ we can `unwrap' the
D0-brane instanton through the horizon.
Thus, while exact
instanton charges can be identified in the supersymmetric case, no
quantized
topological charge seems to survive in the non-supersymmetric case,
due to the dynamical dominace of ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$ in the large-$N$
limit
(\ref{balan}).
Still, we can talk of approximate or `constrained' instantons, provided
the probe D0-brane world-line wraps far away from the horizon. In this case
the un-wrapping costs a large action. In order to estimate the action
as a function of $u$ (or the instanton size $\rho$), we calculate the
Dirac--Born--Infeld action of the probe D0-brane:
\begin{equation}
\label{corac}
S_{\rm D0} = M_{\rm D0} \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau\, (g_s\,e^{-\phi})
\,\sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}}
= {8\pi^2\over g^2} \sqrt{h} = {8\pi^2 \over g^2}
\sqrt{1-(\rho/\beta)^6}
,\end{equation}
where we have used the UV/IR relation (\ref{sizep}) in the last step.
Thus, $\rho$ is not an exact modulus, as instantons tend to grow.
For an instanton of the order of the glueball's Compton
wave-length $\rho \sim \beta$, the action is comparable to the
vacuum action, and the instanton has disappeared (un-wrapped).
In the far ultraviolet, we can use the approximate instantons
of very small size
$\rho \ll \beta$,
to measure
a
`running effective theta angle', by requiring that the approximate
instanton is weighed by a phase ${\rm exp}(i\theta_{\rm eff})$, with
$\theta_{\rm eff} (u=\infty)=\theta$, the bare theta angle of the
four-dimensional ${\rm YM}_4$ theory.
Following Witten \cite{thetaw}, a bare theta angle is associated to a
RR two-form
\begin{equation}
\label{witprof}
f_{\rm D0} = dC_{\rm D0} =
{\overline \theta} \,{3\over \pi \zeta^7} \,d\zeta\wedge d\psi,
\end{equation}
where, in the notation of \cite{thetaw}, $\zeta^2 =u/ u_0$, and
$\psi=2\pi\tau/\beta$.
The bare theta angle, measured at $u=\infty$,
is $\theta = {\overline \theta} \,({\rm mod} \;2\pi)$, due to the
multiplicity of meta-stable vacua as described in \cite{thetaw},
\mbox{{\em i.e.~}} $f_{\rm D0} \propto {\overline\theta} = (\theta + 2\pi n)$
in the $n$-th vacuum (see also \cite{ozpa} for another geometric
approach to this question). In
what follows, we shall obviate this technicality by working in the
$n=0$ vacuum, so that $\theta ={\overline \theta}$.
The effective theta angle at throat radius $u$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{thetaf}
\theta_{\rm eff} (u) = \oint_{{\bf S}^1_u}
C_{\rm D0} = \int_{{\bf D}_u} f_{\rm
D0}
=\theta \left(1-6\int_{\zeta(u)}^{\infty} d\zeta
\,\zeta^{-7}\right)
= \theta \; h(u)
= \theta \left(1-(\rho/\beta)^6 \right)
.\end{equation}
The `correspondence line' $u_c \sim (\beta \,\lambda)^{-1}$
\cite{horpol}, controlling $\alpha'$-corrections is also defined
in ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$. In terms of instanton sizes,
for $\rho < \beta$, we have a
correspondence line at $ \rho_c = \beta\,\lambda$.
Since no instantons survive for $\rho > \beta$ in the supergravity
picture, the finite-size effects related to T-duality in ${\bf
S}^1_{\beta}$ and localization effects are absent for ${\bf X}_{\rm
bb}$, \mbox{{\em i.e.~}} there is no phase of D-instantons in ${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf
S}^5$. The situation can be summarized by Fig. 2.
\begin{figure}
\hspace*{1.4in}
\epsfxsize=3in
\epsffile{ins2p.eps}
\caption{
\small
Instanton phase diagram for the compactified D4 theory on a
{\it thermal} circle of size $\beta$.
We have
continued the glueball mass scale curve $\rho \Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim 1$
to weak coupling in a way
tentatively consistent with asymptotic freedom.
}
\end{figure}
\section{The Smeared Instanton Solution}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In the previous section we have seen that probe D0-branes wrapping the
thermal circle of a black D4-brane in the far ultraviolet
are dual to (unstable)
small-size instantons. Vice-versa, there exists a different
supergravity solution
dual to a field-theory configuration which can be interpreted
as containing a condensate of {\it large\/} instantons.
Indeed, the smeared, black D0/D4-brane solution is interpreted
(as in ref.\ \cite{liutsey} for the supersymmetric T-dual case)
to be dual to a
Yang-Mills theory with a non-vanishing
self-dual background. The self-duality of the background implies that
it can be related to instantons, and the smeariness of the D0-branes can
be interpreted very heuristically as the fact that the instantons are
`smooth' and then `large'.
In fact, in real time, the
D0-branes are smeared on the D4-branes as soon as they `fall behind' the
horizon, due to the no-hair property (this corresponds $u=u_0$ or, using
(\ref{sizep}), to $\rho =\beta$.)
This statement has only a heuristic value because, in the euclidean time
configurations we are considering, space-time effectively ends at
$u=u_0$. Still, the effects of the source D0-branes can be detected
on the long-range fields such as the metric, dilaton, and RR fields.
In this section, we pursue this view of the smeared
D0-branes not as probes, as in the previous section, but as background
data.
The string-frame metric outside a system of $k$ D0-branes smeared over
the volume of $N$ D4-branes
differs from that in (\ref{fulmet}) by
one more harmonic function $H_0$:
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = H_0^{-\frac{1}{2}} \,H_4^{-\frac{1}{2}} \,h\,d\tau^2 + H_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\, H_4^{
-\frac{1}{2}}
\,d{\vec y}^{\,2} + H_0^{\frac{1}{2}} \,H_4^{\frac{1}{2}} \left(dr^2 / h+r^2
\,d\Omega_4^2\right)
.\end{equation}
In the gauge-theory limit, this function is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{acheo}
H_0 (u) = 1+(u_{Q0}/u)^3=
1-{\mbox{$\half$}} (u_0 /u)^3 +\sqrt{{\mbox{${1\over 4}$}}(u_0 /u)^6 + (u_k
/u)^6}.
\end{equation}
It depends on a new energy scale $u_k$,
related to the number density of D0-branes $k/V\equiv \kappa$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{uk}
u_k^3 = \kappa \,{2\pi^3\,\beta \,\lambda \over N}
.\end{equation}
The new scale is small $(u_k^3
= \ord (1/N))$ in the large-$N$ limit with fixed instanton charge density.
In this
paper, we are interested in the physics at energies of $\ord (1)$ in the
large-$N$ limit, so that $u_k \ll u_0$ and $H_0$ may be approximated
by~\footnote{At very low energies, $u_0 \ll u_k$, the smeared solution
is ${\bf X}_6 \times {\bf T}^4$, with ${\bf X}_6$ conformal to
${\bf AdS}_2 \times {\bf S}^4$ in the sense of \cite{kostas}.
It is presumably related to quantum mechanics in the large-$k$
instanton moduli space \cite{seimm}.}
$
H_0 = 1 +(u_k^2 / u_0 \,u)^3 + \ord (1/N^4).
$
The dilaton profile also receives $\kappa$-dependent corrections,
$
g_s \,e^{-\phi} = (H_4 / H_0^3)^{1/4}
$,
as well as the Hawking temperature:
\begin{equation}
\label{hatt}
T^{-1} = \beta= {4 \pi \over 3}\,
r_0 \,\sqrt{H_0 (r_0) \, H_4 (r_0)}
=\left({2\pi\lambda\beta\over 9\,u_0} \;H_0 (u_0)\right)^{1/2}.\end{equation}
This yields an equation for $u_0$ that can be
solved iteratively in powers of $(u_k /\lambda T)^6$.
The relation between the smeared D0-brane number density $\kappa$ and
the running theta angle is obtained from the supergravity solution
for the RR two form:
\begin{equation}
\label{totp}
f_{\rm D0}={c\,\kappa \over u^4} {1\over (H_0)^2} \,du \wedge d\tau
,\end{equation}
with $c$ a known numerical constant.
As before, a wrapped D0-brane probe can be used to measure an effective
theta angle whose value at $u=\infty$ defines the bare theta angle.
Plugging (\ref{totp}) into (\ref{thetaf}) we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{thotra}
\theta_{\rm eff} (u) = \int_{{\bf D}_u} f_{\rm D0}=
\theta \,{u^3 -u_0^3 \over u^3 + u_{Q0}^3}=
\theta \,{h(u) \over H_0 (u)},
\qquad {\rm where}\qquad
\theta = {\beta \,c\,\kappa \over 3 } {1\over u_0^3 + u_{Q0}^3}
.\end{equation}
The two-form solution found by Witten (\ref{witprof}) corresponds to
the $u_0 \gg u_k$ regime of (\ref{totp}).
This provides a relation
between the number density $\kappa$ of
smeared D0-branes and the bare theta angle,
valid in the large-$N$ limit with fixed $\kappa$:
\begin{equation}
\label{match}
\theta = {\beta \,c\,\kappa \over 3 \, u_0^3 \,H_0 (u_0)}
=\kappa\cdot {9\,c\over \lambda^3 \,T^4} \cdot \left({3\over
2\pi}\right)^3
+ \ord (1/N^2),\end{equation}
where we have used $u_0 =2\pi \lambda T/9
+ \ord (1/N^2)$, from (\ref{hatt}). In interpreting this relation, it
is
important to remember that we are working in the $n=0$ vacuum, out of
the $\ord (N)$ metastable vacua mentioned in section 2.2, \mbox{{\em i.e.~}} the
actual values of the parameters are such that the r.h.s of (\ref{match})
is smaller than $2\pi$.
Equation (\ref{match}) is a very suggestive relation, holographic in nature,
in which the bare theta angle is obtained in a `mean-field' picture
from the parameters of a kind of `instanton condensate'. We should
stress that (\ref{match}) is only valid in the non-supersymmetric case.
The extremal (supersymmetric) solution has a non-contractible
${\bf S}^1$ so that we can add an arbitrary harmonic piece to $C_{\rm D0}$,
thereby changing the asymptotic value of $\theta$ independently of
$k$ and $\beta$ (\mbox{{\em i.e.~}} we cannot use Stokes's theorem as we do
in (\ref{thetaf}) and (\ref{thotra})).
An interesting application of this connection is the computation of
topological charge correlations to the leading order
in the large-$N$ and large $\lambda$ limit.
In view of (\ref{match}), this can be done by
studying the $\kappa$-dependence of the vacuum energy of the
${\rm YM}_4$ theory (or equivalently the thermal free energy of
the ${\rm SYM}_5$ theory.)
For example, the action can be calculated as
$ I= \beta \,E_{\rm YM} - S_{\rm BH}$,
with $S_{\rm BH}=(A_{\rm horizon})/4G_{10}$ the black-brane entropy and
$E_{\rm YM} = M_{\rm ADM} - N\,V \,T_{\rm D4}$, the ADM mass above
extremality. One obtains
\begin{equation}
\label{ac}
I={3\,{\rm Vol} ({\bf S}^4) \,\beta V \over 16\pi G_{10}} \,r_0^3
\left(H_0 (r_0) - {7\over 6}\right) =
N^2 \,{4VT \over \pi \lambda^2} \,u_0^3 \left( H_0 (u_0) - {7\over
6}\right)
.\end{equation}
Solving $\theta$ from (\ref{match}) and
using the relation
\begin{equation}
\left({u_k \over u_0}\right)^3 = {6\pi^3 \over c} \,H_0 (u_0) \cdot
{\lambda \,\theta \over N}
,\end{equation}
combined with (\ref{acheo}) and (\ref{hatt}), we learn that the
functional
form of the $n=0$ vacuum energy is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{ff}
I(\theta)_{n=0} = N^2 \,VT^4 \, \lambda \,f(\lambda \theta/N)
,\end{equation}
with $f(x)$ an even function (as expected from considerations of
CP symmetry), whose Taylor expansion around $\theta=0$ may be determined
by solving (\ref{hatt}) iteratively.
These selection rules determine the large-$N$ and large $\lambda$ scaling
of the topological charge correlators at $\theta=0$:
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \;(Q_{\rm top})^{2m} \;\right\rangle^{\theta=0}_{\rm
connected} \,=\,\left({d \over
d\theta}\right)_{\theta=0}^{2m}
\,I(\theta)\,\sim \,VT^4\; {\lambda^{2m+1}\over N^{2m-2}}
.\end{equation}
For the standard topological susceptibility, $m=1$, the scaling agrees
with ref.\ \cite{hashi}.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
Within the AdS/CFT correspondence, the large-$N$ master field
of the gauge theory is encoded in the gravitational saddle-points
of the supergravity description, subject to boundary conditions.
In the model of ref. \cite{wit2}, which has
a good supergravity description for large
$N$ and large 't Hooft coupling $\lambda=g^2 N$,
there are two `master fields', or generalized large-$N$ saddle-points,
given by the two manifolds ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ and ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$,
with ${\bf S}^1 \times {\bf R}^4$ boundary. We find that ${\bf X}_{\rm
vac}$ supports instantons in the form of wrapped D0-branes, and leads
to exponentially suppressed theta-angle dependence, very much like
in the ${\bf AdS}_5 \times {\bf S}^5$ case, to which it is dual
through a set of T-duality and localization transitions that we
discuss in some detail, including the matching of the single-instanton
measure.
However, ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ is only the dominant master field in the
supersymmetric case. The
large-$N$ dynamics in the non-supersymmetric case is dominated by
${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$, which {\it does not} support finite-action
topological
excitations with the instanton charge. Therefore, the dominant master
field shows perturbative (in $1/N$) theta-angle dependence, but has
no `instanton topology', very much like in the two-dimensional toy
models of refs.
\cite{toym}. Instead, we can identify approximate (constrained)
instantons of size $\rho \ll \beta$, merging with the vacuum
at sizes of the order of the glueball's Compton wave-length $\rho \sim
\beta$, which for this model coincides with the Kaluza--Klein threshold.
The approximate equivalence of ${\bf X}_{\rm vac}$ and ${\bf X}_{\rm
bb}$ in the ultraviolet regime $u\rightarrow \infty$, poses the question of
whether the approximate small instantons of ${\bf X}_{\rm bb}$ are
really artifacts of the regularization of the Yang--Mills theory
by a hot five-dimensional supersymmetric theory.
Unfortunately, this question cannot be settled with present techniques,
since $M_{\rm glue} \sim M_{\rm KK}$ in the supergravity
approximation, $\lambda \gg 1$, and we lack a regime in which we
could follow the instantons as genuine four-dimensional configurations.
It would be very interesting to see
if the non-supersymmetric gravity
duals based on Type 0 D-branes \cite{tipocero}
provide a more
vantageous point to study this question.
Heuristically, according to the UV/IR relation, an instanton
of size $\rho \gg \beta$ would be associated to a D0-brane `inside'
the horizon of the black D4-brane. Because of the no-hair properties,
such a configuration would have the D0-charge completely de-localized
over the horizon (see \cite{mpeet} for a recent discussion
in the extremal case).
Therefore, such configurations should be interpreted
as homogeneous self-dual backgrounds in the gauge theory, and the
supergravity description involves the `smeared' D0/D4 solution. Although
this picture cannot be held literally in the euclidean solutions, which
lack an `interior region' behind the horizon, we can still identify the
RR two-form generated by the
D0-branes `dissolved' in the D4-brane horizon.
This RR flux is in turn responsible for the generation of a
theta angle, via the AdS/CFT rules of \cite{gkpw}. Therefore, we obtain a
holographic relation between the theta angle
and the smeared instanton charge. Although the general relation between
background fields and theta angle is not new (see \cite{cole, toym} for
explicit two-dimensional examples), we find it interesting that in our
case the background field is explicitly associated to an instanton
condensate, with quantized topological charge (equal to the number $k$ of
smeared D0-branes). This is
reminiscent of the instanton liquid models, where
the instanton density is fixed self-consistently (see for instance
\cite{shu}).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Margarita Garc\'{\i}a P\'erez,
Yaron Oz and Kostas Skenderis for useful discussions.
This work is partially supported by the European Commission TMR
programme ERBFMRX-CT96-0045 in which J.L.F.B.\ is associated to the
University of Utrecht and A.P.\ is associated to the Physics Department,
University of Milano.
A.P.\ would like to thank CERN for its hospitality while part of this
work was carried out.
|
\section{Introduction}
The {two-dimensional} {one-component} plasma (2dOCP) is a model in
classical statistical mechanics which consists of $N$ mobile point
particles of charge $q$ interacting on a surface with uniform
neutralizing background charge density. The pair potential
$\Phi(\vec{r},\vec{r}\,')$ between particles is the solution of the
Poisson equation on the particular surface. In the plane
\begin{equation}\label{1.1}
\Phi(\vec{r},\vec{r}\,') = -\log\Big (|\vec{r} - \vec{r}\,'|/l \Big),
\label{1.1ab}
\end{equation}
where $l$ is some arbitrary length
scale which will henceforth be set to unity. With the potential (\ref{1.1})
and a uniform background of charge density $-\rho_b$ inside a disk of
radius $R$ $(\rho_b = N/\pi R^2)$ the corresponding Boltzmann factor,
which consists of the particle-particle, particle-background and
background-background interaction, is given by
\begin{equation}\label{1.2}
e^{-\Gamma N^2 ( (1/2)\log R - 3/8 )}
e^{- \pi \Gamma \rho_b \sum_{j=1}^N |\vec{r}_j|^2/2}
\prod_{1 \le j <k \le N} |\vec{r}_k - \vec{r}_j|^\Gamma,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma := q^2/k_BT$ is the coupling. We remark that with $\Gamma/2$
an odd integer, (\ref{1.2}) is proportional to the absolute value
squared of the celebrated Laughlin trial wave function for the fractional
quantum Hall effect \cite{La83}.
At the analytic level our knowledge of the properties of the 2dOCP comes
from two main sources. First, for the special coupling $\Gamma = 2$, the
exact free energy and correlation functions can be calculated for a
number of different geometries \cite{AJ81,Ch81,Ca81,JT98}.
Second, the 2dOCP is an example
of a Coulomb system in its conductive phase and as such should obey a
number of sum rules (see e.g.~\cite{Ma88}) which typically represent
universal properties of such a system. We remark also that the exact
solutions at $\Gamma = 2$ have been an important source of inspiration to
identify universal properties.
In this paper we develop exact numerical solutions at the special couplings
$\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$ for values of $N$ up to 11 and 9 respectively.
By undertaking this study we are able to test the prediction of
Jancovici et al.~\cite{JMP94} that the expression for the free energy
$F$ as a function of the number of particles $N$ be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{1.F}
\beta F = A N + B N^{1/2} + {\chi \over 12} \log N + \cdots,
\end{equation}
where $\chi$ denotes the Euler characteristic of the surface
($\chi = 1$ for a disk, $\chi = 2$ for a sphere). Furthermore we
are able to investigate the rate of convergence of the one and two point
correlation to their thermodynamic values, as well as the accuracy of certain
sum rules in the finite system. In fact the latter line of investigation leads
us to a new sum rule valid for general $\nu$ dimensional multicomponent
Coulomb systems in a spherical domain, which relates to the second moment
of the density-charge correlation function in the finite system. We
recall (see e.g.~\cite{Ma88}) that in the infinite system the second
moment of the charge-charge correlation function is of a universal form
known as the Stillinger-Lovett condition. Indeed our sum rule
(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}) below gives the finite size correction to this universal
form in systems with a background.
As an outline of the paper, we note here that in Section 2 formulas
are presented specifying the partition function and one and two point
distribution functions for the disk and sphere geometries, with the
coupling an even integer, in terms of certain expansion coefficients.
These expansion coefficients are in general computationally expensive,
but reasonably efficient algorithms exist in the literature
applicable to the cases $\Gamma = 4$ and 6. Our numerical results
our presented in Section 3. The new sum rules are derived and discussed
in Section 4, while Section 5 concludes with a summary.
\section{Formalism}\label{sec:formalism}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Our interest is in the exact numerical computation of the partition function
and one and two-point correlation functions for the 2dOCP in a disk and on
the surface of a sphere. In the former system the Boltzmann factor is
given by (\ref{1.1}). Two versions of this model will be considered: one
in which the particles are confined to a disk of radius $R$ (the same
disk which contains the smeared out neutralizing background), and the
other in which the particles are can move throughout the plane.
These will be referred to as the hard disk and soft disk respectively.
In the
latter system the Boltzmann factor (\ref{1.1}) is assumed valid also
for $|\vec{r}_i| \ge R$, even though the one body potential
$\pi \rho_b |\vec{r}_i|^2/2$ is not the correct potential for the coupling
between a particle and the background in this region (according to Newton's
theorem outside the disk the background creates the same potential as a
charge $-N$ at the origin, so the correct Coulomb potential outside
the disk is $N \log |\vec{r}_i|$).
On the surface of the sphere the Boltzmann factor is given by
\begin{equation}\label{2.1}
{\left({1\over{2R}}\right)}^{N\Gamma/2}e^{\Gamma N^2/4}\prod_{1\leq j<k\leq
N}{|u_kv_j-u_jv_k|}^\Gamma,
\end{equation}
where $u:=\cos(\theta/2)e^{i\phi/2},\ v:=-i\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i\phi/2}$ are
the Cayley-Klein parameters and $(\theta,\phi)$ are the usual spherical
coordinates. For our purpose it is convenient to consider the stereographic
projection of this system from the south pole of the sphere to the plane
tangent to the north pole. This is specified by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{2.2}
z = 2R e^{i \phi} \tan {\theta \over 2}, \qquad z = x + i y.
\end{equation}
We then have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.3}\lefteqn{
{\left({1\over{2R}}\right)}^{N\Gamma/2}e^{\Gamma N^2/4}\prod_{1\leq j<k\leq
N}{|u_kv_j-u_jv_k|}^\Gamma dS_1 \cdots dS_N
= {\left({1\over{2R}}\right)}^{N\Gamma/2}} \nonumber \\&&
\times e^{\Gamma N^2/4}
\prod_{j=1}^N {1 \over (1 + |z_j|^2/(4R^2))^{2 + \Gamma (N-1)/2}}
\prod_{1\leq j<k\leq
N} \left| \frac{z_j - z_k}{2R} \right|^\Gamma d\vec{r}_1 \cdots d\vec{r}_N.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The cases $\Gamma = 4p$}
For $\Gamma = 4p$, integrals over the Boltzmann factors (\ref{1.1}) and
(\ref{2.3}) can be performed from knowledge of the coefficients in the
expansion
\begin{equation}\label{2.S1}
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N}(z_k - z_j)^{2p} = \sum_\mu
c_\mu^{(N)}(2p) m_\mu(z_1,\dots,z_N)
\end{equation}
where $\mu = (\mu_1,\dots,\mu_N)$ is a partition of $pN(N-1)$ such that
$$
2p(N-1) \ge \mu_1 \ge \cdots \mu_N \ge 0
$$
and
$$
m_\mu(z_1,\dots,z_N) = {1 \over \prod_i m_i!}
\sum_{\sigma \in S_N} z_{\sigma(1)}^{\mu_1}\cdots
z_{\sigma(N)}^{\mu_N}
$$
is the corresponding monomial symmetric function (the $m_i$ denote the
frequency of the integer $i$ in the partition). The key point for the utility
of (\ref{2.S1}) is that with $z_j = r_j e^{i \theta_j}$, the $m_\mu$ are
orthogonal with respect to angular integrations:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{15.o1}
\int_0^\infty dr_1 \, r_1 g(r_1^2) \cdots \int_0^\infty dr_N \, r_N g(r_N^2)
\int_0^{2 \pi} d \theta_1 \cdots \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta_N \,
m_\mu(z_1,\dots,z_N) \overline{m_\kappa(z_1,\dots,z_N)} \nonumber \\
= \delta_{\mu,\kappa} {N! \over \prod_i m_i!} \pi^N \prod_{l=1}^N G_{\mu_l} \hspace{2cm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ G_{\mu_l} := 2 \int_0^\infty dr \, r^{1 + 2\mu_l} g(r^2)$ for
arbitrary $g(r^2)$. Thus, after also noting that
\begin{equation}\label{2.PD}
\prod_{j < k}|z_k - z_j|^{4p} = \prod_{j < k}(z_k - z_j)^{2p}
\prod_{j < k}(\bar{z}_k - \bar{z}_j)^{2p},
\end{equation}
we see that for $\Gamma = 4p$
\begin{equation}\label{2.A*}
I_{N,\Gamma}[g] := \int_{{\mathbf{R}}^2}d\vec{r}_1 \, g(r_1^2) \cdots
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}^2}d\vec{r}_N \, g(r_N^2) \, \prod_{j < k}
|\vec{r}_k - \vec{r}_j|^{\Gamma} = N! \pi^N \sum_\mu
{(c_\mu^{(N)}(2p))^2 \over \prod_i m_i!} \prod_{l=1}^N G_{\mu_l}.
\end{equation}
In the case $p=1$ this formalism has been utilized by Samaj et
al.~\cite{SPK94},
who
furthermore presented an algorithm for the computation of $\{c_\mu\}$ in
this case. Let us now consider this latter point.
In general the coefficients $c_\mu^{(N)}(2p)$ can be calculated from the formula
\begin{equation}\label{2.t}
c_\mu^{(N)}(2p) = {1 \over (2 \pi)^N} \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta_1 \,
e^{-i \mu_1 \theta_1} \cdots \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta_N e^{-i\mu_N \theta_N}
\prod_{j < k} (e^{i \theta_k} - e^{i \theta_j})^{2p},
\end{equation}
which follows from (\ref{2.S1}). Since we require $|\mu| = pN(N-1)$, the
integral over $\theta_N$ can be performed by changing variables
$\theta_j \mapsto \theta_j + \theta_N$ $(j=1,\dots,N-1)$ to give
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.tt}
c_\mu^{(N)}(2p) & = & {1 \over (2 \pi)^{N-1}} \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta_1 \,
e^{-i \mu_1 \theta_1} \cdots \int_0^{2 \pi}
d\theta_{N-1} e^{-i\mu_{N-1} \theta_{N-1}}
\prod_{j=1}^{N-1}(1 - e^{i\theta_j})^{2p} \nonumber \\ && \times
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N - 1} (e^{i \theta_k} - e^{i \theta_j})^{2p}.
\end{eqnarray}
The simplest case is $N=2$, when the sum over pairs in (\ref{2.tt}) is not
present. Expanding $(1 - e^{i\theta_1})^{2p}$ according to the binomial
theorem gives
$$
c_\mu^{(2)}(2p) = (-1)^{\mu_1} \left ( {2p \atop \mu_1} \right )
$$
where $\mu_1 = p,p+1,\dots,2p$ (for $\mu_1 = p$ we have $\mu_1 = \mu_2$
and thus $m_{\mu_1} = 2$, while in all other cases $\mu_1 \ne \mu_2$ and so
$m_{\mu_1} = m_{\mu_2} = 1$). Substituting in (\ref{2.A*}) we see, after
some minor manipulation, that
\begin{equation}\label{2.2'}
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}^2}d\vec{r}_1 \, g(r_1^2)
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}^2}d\vec{r}_2 \, g(r_2^2) \,
|\vec{r}_2 - \vec{r}_1|^{4p}
= \pi^2 \sum_{\mu=0}^{2p} \left ( {2p \atop \mu} \right )^2
\int_0^\infty dr \, r^\mu g(r) \int_0^\infty dr \, r^{2p - \mu} g(r).
\end{equation}
To calculate $c_\mu^{(N)}(2p)$ via this method for a general value of $N$ would
require expanding ${1 \over 2}(N-1)N$ products via the binomial theorem,
giving a total of $({1 \over 2}(N-1)N)^{2p+1}$ terms to determine each
value of $c_\mu$. Thus for a given value of $N$ the complexity increases
exponentially with the coupling $p$. As we want to determine the
$c_\mu$ for a sequence of values of $N$ as large as possible, we are
therefore restricted to the case $p=1$.
In fact
the case $p=1$ allows (\ref{2.t}) to be computed without using the binomial
expansion \cite{SPK94}. Instead one uses the Vandermonde formula for the
product of differences as a determinant to expand the products in
(\ref{2.t}). This gives
\begin{equation}\label{2.van}
c_\mu^{(N)}(2) = \sum_{P \in S_N} \varepsilon(P) \sum_{Q \in S_N} \varepsilon(Q)
\prod_{k=1}^N \delta_{P(k) + Q(k) - 2,\mu_k} =
\sum_{P \in S_N} \varepsilon(P) \sum_{Q \in S_N}
\prod_{k=1}^N \delta_{P(k) + k - 2,\mu_{Q(k)}},
\end{equation}
which is the formula we used
to compute our data in the case $p=1$ for $N=3,\dots,10$.
\subsection{The cases $\Gamma = 4p+2$}
With $\Gamma = 4p+2$, decomposing the product of differences analogous
to (\ref{2.PD}) shows that we must consider the product of differences
raised to an odd power. The analogue of (\ref{2.S1}) is then the
expansion
\begin{equation}\label{15.1'}
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N} (z_k - z_j)^{2p+1} =
\sum_\mu c_\mu^{(N)}(2p+1) {\cal A}(z_1^{\mu_1 + N - 1}z_2^{\mu_2 + N - 2}
\cdots z_N^{\mu_N})
\end{equation}
where $2p(N-1) \ge \mu_1 \ge \mu_2 \ge \cdots \ge \mu_N \ge 0$,
$\sum_{j=1}^N \mu_j = p N (N -1)$ and ${\cal A}$ denotes
antisymmetrization. Factoring out the antisymmetric factor
$\prod_{j < k}(z_k - z_j)$ from both sides then gives
\begin{equation}\label{15.2'}
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N} (z_k - z_j)^{2p} =
\sum_\mu c_\mu^{(N)}(2p+1) S_\mu(z_1,\dots,z_N)
\end{equation}
where $S_\mu$ denotes the Schur polynomial
indexed by the partition $\mu$. Furthermore, analogous to the
orthogonality (\ref{15.o1}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{15.o2}
\int_0^\infty\cdots\int_0^\infty
\prod_{l=1}^N dr_l\, r_l g(r_l^2)
\int_0^{2 \pi}d\theta_1 \cdots \int_0^{2 \pi} d\theta_N
\prod_{j<k}\left|z_j-z_k\right|^2
S_\mu(z_1,\dots,z_N) \overline{S_\kappa(z_1,\dots,z_N)}
\nonumber \\
= \delta_{\mu,\kappa}
N!\pi^N \prod_{l=1}^N G_{\mu_l+N-l}. \hspace{2cm}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus for $\Gamma = 4p+2$, instead of (\ref{2.A*}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{2.B*}
I_{N,\Gamma}[g]
= N! \pi^N \sum_\mu
(c_\mu^{(N)}(2p+1))^2 \prod_{l=1}^N G_{\mu_l+N-l}.
\end{equation}
According to (\ref{15.1'}) the coefficients $c_\mu^{(N)}(2p+1)$ can be
computed from the formula (\ref{2.t}) with $\mu_j \mapsto \mu_j + N -
j$ and $2p \mapsto 2p+1$, or equivalently (\ref{2.tt}) with the same
replacements. In the case $N=2$ this latter formula gives $$
c_\mu^{(2)}(2p+1) = (-1)^{\mu_1 + 1} \left ( {2p +1 \atop
\mu_1 + 1} \right )
$$
with $\mu_1 = p,\dots, 2p$. This in turn implies that the formula
(\ref{2.2'}) again holds with $2p \mapsto 2p+1$.
To obtain data for consecutive values of $N$, the computationally simplest
case is $p=1$. However algorithms based on
(\ref{2.t}) (with $\mu_j \mapsto \mu_j + N - j$ and
$2p \mapsto 2p+1$) are inferior to methods that determine $c_\mu^{(N)}(3)$
from (\ref{15.2'})
\cite{DGIL94,Du94,STW94}. The most efficient algorithm appears to be
the one of Scharf et al.~\cite{STW94}, where the coefficients $c_\mu^{(N)}(3)$
are determined up to $N=9$. Fortunately the authors of \cite{STW94} have
kindly supplied us with their data (up to $N=8$), so we do not need to
repeat the calculation.
\subsection{The sphere}
The Boltzmann factor for the sphere, stereographically projected onto
the plane, is given by the r.h.s.~of (\ref{2.3}). Thus, with
$\r_j\mapsto2R\r_j$ we require
\begin{equation}\label{2.g1}
g(r^2) = (1 + r^2)^{-(N-1)\Gamma/2 - 2}
\end{equation}
in the integral (\ref{2.A*}). However, computational savings can be obtained
by first noting that because the sphere is homogeneous, one particle can be
fixed at the north pole, reducing the number of integrals from $N$ to
$N-1$ (we must also multiply by $\pi$ -- the area of the surface of a
sphere of radius $1/2$). Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{({\mathbf{R}}^2)^N} d\vec{r}_1 \cdots d\vec{r}_N \,
\prod_{i=1}^N {1 \over (1 + |z_i|^2)^{(N-1)\Gamma/2 + 2}}
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N} |z_k - z_j|^\Gamma \qquad \nonumber \\
= \pi \int_{({\mathbf{R}}^2)^{N-1}} d\vec{r}_1 \cdots d\vec{r}_{N-1} \,
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1} {|z_i|^\Gamma \over
(1 + |z_i|^2)^{(N-1)\Gamma/2 + 2}}
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N-1} |z_k - z_j|^\Gamma,
\end{eqnarray}
and so should choose
\begin{equation}\label{2.g2}
g(r^2) = {r^\Gamma \over (1 + r^2)^{(N-1)\Gamma / 2 + 2} }
\end{equation}
in (\ref{2.A*}).
With $g(r^2)$ given by (\ref{2.g2}), the formulas (\ref{2.A*}) and
(\ref{2.B*}) show that at $\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$
the canonical partition function
$$
Z_{N,\Gamma} := {1 \over N!} \int_{({\mathbf{R}}^2)^{N}}
d\vec{r}_1 \cdots d\vec{r}_N \, e^{-\beta U}
$$
can be represented by the series
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{N+1,4}^{\mathrm{sphere}} & = & {e^{(N+1)^2} \pi^{N+1} \over N + 1}
\sum_\nu \left(c_\nu^{(N)}(2)\right)^2 {1 \over \prod_i m_i!}
\prod_{i=1}^N {(\mu_i + 2)!(2N - \mu_i - 2)! \over (2N+1)!} \label{2.s1}\\
Z_{N+1,6}^{\mathrm{sphere}} & = & \rho_b^{(N+1)/2} (N+1)^{(N+3)/2}
e^{3(N+1)^2/2} \pi^{3(N+1)/2}
\sum_\nu (c_\nu^{(N)}(3))^2 \nonumber \\ && \times \prod_{k=1}^N
{(3+N + \mu_k - k)! (2N - 3 - \mu_k + k)! \over (3N + 1)!}. \label{2.s2}
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain these formulas use has been made of the definite integral
\begin{equation}\label{2.defi}
\int_0^\infty {r^p \over (1 + r)^q} \, dr =
{\Gamma(p+1) \Gamma (q - p - 1) \over \Gamma (q) }.
\end{equation}
Because the sphere is homogeneous,
the two-point distribution $\rho_{(2)}((\theta,\phi),
(\theta',\phi'))$ can be computed with one particle at the north pole
($\theta' = 0$ say). We then have
$$\rho_{(2)}((\theta,\phi), \,
(\theta',\phi')) = \rho_{(2)}(\theta)
$$
so the two-point function can be
computed from an integral of the form (\ref{2.A*}). In fact with
$g(r^2)$ given by (\ref{2.g1}) we have
\begin{equation}
\rho_{(2)}(\theta) =
\frac{1}{4R^2}
\frac{1}{I_{N,\Gamma}[g]}\lim_{x'\to0}
\frac{g(x^2)g({x'}^2)}{4\pi^2 xx'}
(1+x^2)^2(1+x'^2)^2
\frac{\delta^2 I_{N,\Gamma}[g]}{\delta g(x^2) \delta g(x'^2)}
\end{equation}
where $x=\tan(\theta/2)$. For $\Gamma = 4$ this gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\rho_{(2)}(\theta)
=\rho_b^2\frac{(2N-1)!}{N^2(1+x^2)^{2N-2}}}
\nonumber\\
&\times&\frac{\displaystyle
\sum_{\mu,\mu_N=0}(c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 {1 \over \prod_i m_i!}
\prod_{i=1}^N \mu_i!(2N-2-\mu_i)!
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{x^{2\mu_k}}{\mu_k!(2N-2-\mu_k)!}
}{
\sum_{\mu}(c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 {1 \over \prod_i m_i!}
\prod_{i=1}^N \mu_i!(2N-2-\mu_i)!
}
\end{eqnarray}
while for $\Gamma = 6$ we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\rho_{(2)}(\theta)
=\rho_b^2\frac{(3N-2)!}{N^2(1+x^2)^{3N-3}}
\,(3N-2)
}
\nonumber\\
&\times&\frac{
\displaystyle
\sum_{\mu,\mu_N=0} \!\!(c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2 \!
\prod_{i=1}^N\!
(\mu_i\!\!+\!\!N\!\!-\!\!i)!(2N\!\!-\!\!3\!\!-\!\!\mu_i\!\!+\!\!i)!
\!\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{x^{2(\mu_k+N-k)}}%
{(\mu_k\!\!+\!\!N\!\!-\!\!k)!(2N\!\!-\!\!3\!\!-\!\!\mu_k\!\!+\!\!k)!}}{
\sum_{\mu}(c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2
\prod_{i=1}^N (\mu_i+N-i)!(2N-3-\mu_i+i)!
}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The disk}
In the case of the disk, (\ref{1.2}) with $\vec{r}_j \mapsto
R \vec{r}_j$ shows we require
\begin{equation}\label{2.g2'}
g(r^2) = \chi(r) e^{-\Gamma N |\vec{r}_j|^2/2}
\end{equation}
where $\chi=1$ for $r^2 < 1$ and zero otherwise in the case of the hard disk,
while $\chi=1$ for all $r$ in the case of the soft disk. Thus from
(\ref{2.A*}) we have at $\Gamma = 4$
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{N,4}^{\mathrm{soft\ disk}}& = &
e^{3N^2/2}\left(\frac{1}{2N}\right)^{N^2}
\pi^N
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 \left(\prod_i m_i!\right)^{-1}
\prod_{i=1}^N \mu_i! \label{3.sa}\\
Z_{N,4}^{\mathrm{hard\ disk}}& = &
e^{3N^2/2}\left(\frac{1}{2N}\right)^{N^2}
\pi^N
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 {1 \over \prod_i m_i !}
\prod_{i=1}^N \gamma(\mu_i+1,2N) \label{3.sb}
\end{eqnarray}
while at $\Gamma = 6$ use of (\ref{2.B*}) gives
\begin{equation} \label{3.sc}
Z_{N,6}^{\mathrm{hard}} = \rho_b^{N/2}N^{-3N^2/2}3^{-N(3N-1)/2}
\pi^{3N/2}e^{9N^2/4}
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2 \prod_{k=1}^N
\gamma(\mu_k+N-k+1,3N)
\end{equation}
with the soft disk case obtained by replacing the incomplete gamma
functions by complete gamma functions.
Unlike the situation with the sphere, the density is a non-constant function
in the disk geometry. Now, with $g(r^2)$ given by (\ref{2.g2}) we have
$$
\rho_{(1)}(r) = {g(r^2) \over 2 \pi r}
{\delta \log Z_{N,4}^{\mathrm{disk}} \over \delta g(r^2)}.
$$
At $\Gamma = 4$ this gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.den}
\lefteqn{
\rho_{(1)}(r)=2\rho_b e^{-2\pi \rho_b r^2}
}&&
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\frac{\displaystyle
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 { 1 \over \prod_i m_i!}
\prod_{j=1}^N \gamma(\mu_j+1,2N)
\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{(2\pi \rho_b r^2)^{\mu_k}}%
{\gamma(\mu_k+1,2N)}
}{
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 { 1 \over \prod_i m_i!}
\prod_{j=1}^N \gamma(\mu_j+1,2N)
}
\end{eqnarray}
while at $\Gamma = 6$ one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\rho_{(1)}(r)=3\rho_b e^{-3\pi \rho_b r^2}
}&&
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\frac{\displaystyle
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2
\prod_{j=1}^N \gamma(\mu_j+N-j+1,3N)
\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{(3\pi \rho_b r^2)^{\mu_k+N-k}}%
{\gamma(\mu_k+N-k+1,3N)}
}{
\sum_\mu (c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2
\prod_{j=1}^N \gamma(\mu_j+N-j+1,3N)
}
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding formulas for the soft disk are obtained by replacing the
incomplete gamma functions by complete gamma functions.
Finally, we consider the two-point function in the disk geometry. In general
this quantity is not just a function of the distance between particles,
and so we cannot use the formalism based on the orthogonalities
(\ref{15.o1}) and (\ref{15.o2}). However, with one of the particles fixed
at the origin ($\vec{r}\,' = \vec{0}$ say) we have $\rho_{(2)}(\vec{r},
\vec{r}\,') = \rho_{(2)}(r)$, so in this case the formalism used to
compute the densities can again be used. Thus using the general
formula
$$
\rho_{(2)}(r) = {1 \over Z_{N,\Gamma}}
\lim_{r' \to 0} {g(r^2) g({r'}^2) \over 4 \pi r r'}
{\delta^2 Z_{N,\Gamma} \over \delta g(r^2) \delta g({r'}^2)},
$$
we find for the hard disk case
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:2.rho2-g4}
\lefteqn{
\rho_{(2)}(r) =
4 \rho_b^2 e^{-2\pi \rho_b r^2}
}&&
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\frac{
\sum_{\mu,\mu_N=0}
(c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 {1 \over \prod_i m_i !}
\prod_{j=1}^{N-1} \gamma(\mu_j+1,2N)
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}
\frac{(2\pi \rho_b r^2)^{\mu_k}}{\gamma(\mu_k+1,2N)}
}{
\sum_{\mu}
(c_\mu^{(N)}(2))^2 {1 \over \prod_i m_i !}
\prod_{j=1}^{N} \gamma(\mu_j+1,2N)
}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:2.rho2-g6}
\lefteqn{
\rho_{(2)}(r) =
9\rho_b^2 e^{-3\pi \rho_b r^2}
}&&
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\frac{\displaystyle
\sum_{\mu,\mu_N=0}
(c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2
\prod_{j=1}^{N-1} \gamma(\mu_j+N-j+1,3N)
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}
\frac{(3\pi \rho_b r^2)^{\mu_k+N-k}}{\gamma(\mu_k+N-k+1,3N)}
}{
\sum_{\mu}
(c_\mu^{(N)}(3))^2
\prod_{j=1}^{N} \gamma(\mu_j+N-j+1,3N)
}
\end{eqnarray}
for $\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$ respectively. Again the corresponding
results for the soft disk are obtained by replacing the incomplete
gamma functions by complete gamma functions.
\section{Numerical results}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Free energy -- sphere geometry}
In the Introduction it was commented that the free energy is expected
to have a large $N$ expansion of the form (\ref{1.F}) with $\chi = 2$
in sphere geometry. In fact the constant $B$ in (\ref{1.F}), which is
a surface free energy, should be identically zero in sphere geometry, so
we expect a large $N$ expansion of the form
\begin{equation}\label{3.F1}
\beta F = A N + {1 \over 6} \log N + C + \cdots.
\end{equation}
As noted by Jancovici et al.~\cite{JMP94}, the validity of (\ref{3.F1}) can
be explicitly demonstrated at $\beta = 2$ because of an exact solution due
to Caillol \cite{Ca81}. The mechanism for the exact solution can
be seen within the present formalism. Thus, at $\Gamma = 2$ we require the
coefficients $c_\mu^{(N)}(1)$ in (\ref{15.1'}). But this follows
from the Vandermonde expansion (recall (\ref{2.van})), which gives
$c_\mu^{(N)}(1)=1$ for $\mu = 0^N$ and $c_\mu^{(N)}(1) = 0$ otherwise.
Substituting in (\ref{2.B*}) with $g(r^2)$ given by (\ref{2.g2}),
and making use of (\ref{2.defi}) we thus obtain \cite{Ca81}
\begin{equation}\label{3.ca}
Z_{N,2}^{\mathrm{sphere}} = \pi^{-N/2} N^{N/2} \rho_b^{-N/2} e^{N^2/2}
\prod_{k=1}^N {(N-k)! (k-1)! \over N!}.
\end{equation}
This substituted into the general formula
\begin{equation}\label{3.fr}
\beta F_{N, \Gamma} = - \log Z_{N, \Gamma}
\end{equation}
leads to the expansion \cite{JMP94}
\begin{equation}\label{3.fr1}
\beta F = Nf + {1 \over 6} \log N + {1 \over 12} - 2 \zeta'(-1) +
{\mathrm{o}}(1)
\end{equation}
where $f = {1 \over 2} \log (\rho_b / 2 \pi^2)$. We remark that by introducing
the Barnes $G$ function according to
$$
G(z+1) = \Gamma(z) G(z), \quad G(1) = 1
$$
we can write
$$
\prod_{k=1}^N (k-1)! = G(N + 1).
$$
The large $N$ expansion of the Barnes $G$ function is known to be \cite{Ba00}
\begin{equation}\label{3.barnes}
G(N+1) \sim {N^2 \over 2} \log N - {3 \over 4} N^2 + {N \over 2} \log 2 \pi
- {1 \over 12} \log N + \zeta'(-1) - {1 \over 720 N^2} + {\mathrm{O}}\Big (
{1 \over N^4} \Big ).
\end{equation}
This together with Stirling's formula allows us to extend (\ref{3.fr1})
to the expansion
\begin{equation}\label{3.fr2}
\beta F = Nf + {1 \over 6} \log N + {1 \over 12} - 2 \zeta'(-1) +
{1 \over 180 N^2} + {\mathrm{O}}\Big ({1 \over N^4} \Big ).
\end{equation}
In the cases $\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$, by following the numerical
procedure detailed in the previous section, we have been able to compute
the partition functions (\ref{2.s1}) and (\ref{2.s2}) up to 11 and 9
particles respectively. The results are listed in Table \ref{t3.1}.
Our results are presented in decimal form. However the terms in the
summations of (\ref{2.s1}) and (\ref{2.s2}) are all rational numbers,
and we have also calculated the sum itself as a rational number. A point
of interest is the factorization of the denominator and numerator of
the rational number. The exact result (\ref{3.ca}) shows that at $\Gamma =
2$ only small integers occur in this factorization. However our exact
data shows that this feature is no longer true at $\Gamma = 4$ or
$\Gamma = 6$. For example, at $\Gamma = 4$ and with $N=9$ we find that
the summation in (\ref{2.s1}) is given by the ratio of primes
$$
\frac{19\cdot 23\cdot 31\cdot 404431651134013\cdot 56827}%
{2^{28}3^{12}5^7 7^8 11^8 13^8 17^8}.
$$
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{t3.1} Exact numerical computation of the expressions
(\ref{2.s1}) and (\ref{2.s2}) (in the latter case we have set $\rho_b =1$),
and the corresponding free energy (\ref{3.fr}).
}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
$N$ & $Z_{N,4}$ & $\beta F_{N,4}$ \\
\hline
3 & 9.770695753081390794542103296367E+02 &
-6.884557862719257767291929292830 \\
4 & 1.081868103379375397165672403770E+04 &
-9.289029644211538110263324038604 \\
5 & 1.209528877878741526102013133936E+05 &
-11.70315639163470461293716934684 \\
6 & 1.360835037494310939624360869217E+06 &
-14.12360906745006986750189927991 \\
7 & 1.537846289459171693753614603094E+07 &
-16.54847857521316551691816164401 \\
8 & 1.743564157878398325393942744018E+08 &
-18.97661212873318180330363390257 \\
9 & 1.981770773388678655915061613417E+09 &
-21.40725661197234419004446417460 \\
10 & 2.257011016434890100740949944465E+10 &
-23.83989230877186989649422160272 \\
11 & 2.574639922522006241714385546434E+11 &
-26.27414571135846506646694529338 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
$N$ & $Z_{N,6}$ & $\beta F_{N,6}$ \\
\hline
2& 781.80154948970530457541038293910180& -6.661600935308419284761353568226471 \\
3& 24731.016946702464115291740435512837& -10.115813481655518642906626162676076
\\
4& 798906.45662411908447403801186279894& -13.590999142330226359670889161470696
\\
5& 25990836.664099377843271224794515169& -17.073254597869416657276355484106596
\\
6& 851167572.30792422833993160492670601& -20.562119579383207945093207167461793\\
7& 27989023411.960800446597844273994987& -24.055078249259894430456119939885817\\
8& 923260788226.64381072982338145761830& -27.551177575665397081224942401207047
\\
9& 30529687045074.352434196537904510620& -31.049720671888250916196597607309575
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
To analyze our data we first sought fitting sets of consecutive values of $N$
to the ansatz
\begin{equation}\label{3.ans}
\beta F_{\Gamma, N} = A_\Gamma N + K_\Gamma \log N + C_\Gamma.
\end{equation}
The results are contained in Table \ref{t3.2}. Notice that at $\Gamma = 4$
the value of the free energy per particle $A$ appears to have converged
to 3 decimal place accuracy, while the value of $K$ appears similarly to
be converging, with the final value in the table differing from $1/6$
only in the third decimal. The general trends are the same for the
$\Gamma = 6$ data, although the convergence rate (as determined by the
difference between sequential values) is slower.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{t3.2} Fitting the values of $\beta F_{\Gamma, N}$ with
$N$ as specified, taken from Table \ref{t3.1}, to the ansatz (\ref{3.ans}).
}
\vspace{.4cm}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|lr|l|l|l}
$N$ & $A_4$ & $K_4$ & $C_4$ & \qquad & $A_6$ & $K_6$ & $C_6$ \\ \hline
3,4,5& -2.447509 & 0.149600 & 0.293616& &
-3.526411 & 0.178065 & 0.267797 \\
4,5,6& -2.448705& 0.154963 & 0.290968&&
-3.506699 & 0.109543 & 0.283938 \\
5,6,7& -2.449038& 0.156787& 0.289696& &
-3.515359& 0.145316 & 0.269664 \\
6,7,8& -2.449271 & 0.158300 & 0.288384& &
-3.516438 & 0.152316 & 0.263596 \\
7,8,9& -2.449423 & 0.159440 & 0.287231 & &
-3.516820 & 0.155176 & 0.260704 \\
8,9,10 & -2.449524 & 0.160290 & 0.286264 & &
& & \\
9,10,11 & -2.449594 & 0.160960 & 0.285428 & &
& & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Next we sought fitting four consecutive values of $N$ to the ansatz
\begin{equation}\label{3.ans1}
\beta F_{\Gamma, N} = A_\Gamma N + K_\Gamma \log N + C_\Gamma +D_\Gamma/N.
\end{equation}
The results of this fit are presented in Table \ref{t3.3}. At $\Gamma = 4$
this markedly improves the convergence rate, with the final estimate of
$K$ now differing from $1/6$ by only 3 parts in $10^4$. However at
$\Gamma = 6$ the convergence rate is in fact worsened, indicating some
illconditioning when the extra free parameter is introduced. Note also that
the coefficient of $1/N$ in both cases appears to be non-zero, as
distinct from the situation at $\Gamma = 2$ exhibited by the analytic
result (\ref{3.fr2}).
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{t3.3} Fitting the values of $\beta F_{\Gamma, N}$ with
$N$ as specified, taken from Table \ref{t3.1}, to the ansatz (\ref{3.ans1}).
}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|lr|l|l|l}
$N$ & $A_4$ & $K_4$ & $C_4$ & $D_4$ & \qquad &
$A_6$ & $K_6$ & $C_6$ & $D_6$\\ \hline
3,4,5,6 & -2.450743& 0.175200& 0.258672 & 0.049566 & &
-3.5382 & 0.3594 & 0.0572& 0.4839 \\
4,5,6,7 & -2.449773 & 0.165568 & 0.2740449 & 0.025973 &&
-3.5086& 0.0654 & 0.4121 & 0.2363 \\
5,6,7,8 & -2.449905 & 0.167146 & 0.2712323 & 0.031065 &&
-3.5193 & 0.1932 & 0.1842 & 0.1417 \\
6,7,8,9 & -2.449914 & 0.167268 & 0.2709949 & 0.031065 &&
-3.5180 & 0.1748 & 0.2199 & 0.0779 \\
7 ,8,9,10 & -2.449896 & 0.166989 & 0.2715743 & 0.029956 &&
& & & \\
8,9,10,11 & -2.449892 & 0.166917 & 0.2717321 & 0.029634 \\
& & & \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
Finally, we sought to estimate from our data an accurate as possible value
of the free energy per particle, $\beta f_\Gamma$ say.
For this purpose we fitted
the data to the ansatz
\begin{equation}\label{3.ans2}
\beta F_{\Gamma, N} = A_\Gamma N + {1 \over 6} \log N + C_\Gamma +D_\Gamma/N
+ \left \{ \begin{array}{ll} E_\Gamma/N^2, & \Gamma = 4 \\
0, & \Gamma = 6 \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
thus assuming the universal term in (\ref{3.F1}). Four free parameters
are used at $\Gamma = 4$, while only 3 free parameter are used at
$\Gamma = 6$, in keeping with observed illconditioning when a fourth
parameter is introduced. Our results are presented in Table \ref{t3.4},
where $\beta f_\Gamma$ is determined by $A_\Gamma$.
We see that there at $\Gamma = 4$ we appear to have convergence to 7
digits with the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{3.e1}
\beta f_4 = -2.449884 \cdots
\end{equation}
while at $\Gamma = 6$ our final estimate is
\begin{equation}\label{3.e2}
\beta f_6 = -3.5175 \cdots
\end{equation}
accurate to 5 digits.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{t3.4} Fitting the values of $\beta F_{\Gamma, N}$ with
$N$ as specified, taken from Table \ref{t3.1}, to the ansatz (\ref{3.ans2}).
}
\vspace{.4cm} {\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|lr|l|l|l|l}
$N$ & $A_4$ & $C_4$ & $D_4$ & $E_4$ & \qquad & $A_6$ & $C_6$ & $D_6$ \\
\hline
3,4,5,(6) & -2.4501031 & 0.275576 & 0.012460 & 0.026276 &&
-3.513916& 0.205966& 0.110598 \\
4,5,6,(7) & -2.4498406 & 0.271639 & 0.031880 & 0.005215 &&
-3.518863& 0.250494&0.011648 \\
5,6,7,(8) & -2.4498809 & 0.272364 & 0.027574 & 0.003235 &&
-3.517146 & 0.231609 & 0.063153\\
6,7,8,(9) & -2.4498875 & 0.272503 & 0.026605 & 0.005465 &&
-3.517466& 0.235770& 0.049709 \\
7,8,9,(10) & -2.4498842 & 0.272423 & 0.027240 & 0.003788 &&
-3.517540& 0.236870& 0.045600 \\
8,9,10,11 & -2.4498841 & 0.272420 & 0.027272 & 0.003695 &&
& & \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
We note that there is some early literature on estimating $\beta f_4$ and
$\beta f_6$ from exact small $N$ numerical data \cite{JM83}.
Using only the values of
$\beta F_{N,\Gamma}$ for $N=1,2$ and 3, the quantity
$$
\beta \tilde{f}_\Gamma = \beta f_\Gamma + \Big ( {3 \Gamma \over 8} + 1
\Big ) + {\Gamma \over 4} \log \pi \rho_b - \log \rho_b
$$
was estimated for $\Gamma = 4,6,\dots,10$. In particular, at $\Gamma = 4$ and
$\Gamma = 6$ these estimates of $\beta f_\Gamma$ give
$$
\beta f_4 \approx -2.1585, \qquad \beta f_6 \approx -3.330,
$$
which differ from our estimates (\ref{3.e1}) and (\ref{3.e2}) in the
first decimal place.
\subsection{Free energy -- disk geometry}
For the disk geometry, the prediction (\ref{1.F}) gives a large $N$
expansion of the form
\begin{equation}\label{3.F}
\beta F_\Gamma = AN + BN^{1/2} + {1 \over 12} \log N + C + \cdots
\end{equation}
As in the case of the sphere geometry, this prediction can be verified
analytically using the exact solution for the isotherm $\Gamma = 2$
\cite{AJ81}. The exact solution gives \cite{JMP94}
\begin{equation}\label{3.F1'}
\beta F_2^{\mathrm{hard}} = \beta f_2 N + \beta
\gamma_2 N^{1/2} + {1 \over 12} \log N
+ {\mathrm{O}}(1)
\end{equation}
where
$$
\beta f_2 = {1 \over 2} \log (\rho_b / 2 \pi^2), \quad
\beta \gamma_2 = \sqrt{2}
\int_0^\infty dy \, \log \Big ( {1 \over 2} (1 + {\mathrm{erf}} \, y) \Big ).
$$
Some details of the expansion of $\beta F_2$
are different for the soft edge
version of the OCP in a disk (recall Section 1). From the exact formula
$$
Z_{N,2}^{\mathrm{soft}} = \pi^N e^{3 N^2 / 4} N^{-N^2/2} (\pi \rho_b )^{-N/2}
G(N+1)
$$
and the asymptotic expansion (\ref{3.barnes}) we see that
\begin{equation}\label{3.F2}
\beta F_2^{\mathrm{soft}} = \beta f N + {1 \over 12} \log N -
\zeta ' (-1) - {1 \over 720 N^2} + {\mathrm{O}} \Big ( {1 \over N^4} \Big ).
\end{equation}
Thus indeed both (\ref{3.F1}) and (\ref{3.F2}) contain the universal term
$(1/12) \log N$, although (\ref{3.F2}) does not contain a surface
tension term (this fact has been noted previously in \cite{DGIL94}).
At $\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$ we obtained exact numerical evaluation of
the partition functions (\ref{3.sa}), (\ref{3.sb}) and (\ref{3.sc}) (and the
modification of (\ref{3.sc}) for the soft disk case) as in the sphere case.
Our results for the corresponding value of $\beta F$ are contained in Table
\ref{t3.5}. To test the prediction (\ref{3.F1}), we sought to fit our
data to the ansatz
\begin{equation}\label{3.F3}
\beta F_{N,\Gamma} = \beta f_\Gamma N +
B_\Gamma N^{1/2} + K_\Gamma \log N + C_\Gamma +
\left \{ \begin{array}{ll} D_\Gamma/N, & {\mathrm{soft \, disk}} \\
0, & {\mathrm{hard \, disk}} \end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\beta f_\Gamma$ is given by (\ref{3.e1}) and (\ref{3.e2}) for
$\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$ respectively, and the choice in
(\ref{3.F3}) is made retrospectively on the criterium of obtaining
better convergence.
Our results are obtained in Table \ref{t3.6}. We see that for the hard
disk at $\Gamma = 4$ our final estimate of $K_4$ differs from
$1/12$ by only $2 \times 10^{-4}$. At $\Gamma = 6$ we see that more data
would be needed to get a stable sequence, although the final estimates
of $K_6$ are consistent with the expected value of $1/12$.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{t3.5} Exact decimal expansion of the free energy for the
hard and soft disk at $\Gamma = 4$ and $\Gamma = 6$
}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
$N$ & $F_{N,4}^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $\beta F_{N,4}^{\mathrm{soft}}$ \\
\hline
3 & -6.07705853011644579848828232852953 &
-6.38430353764202167882687100789504 \\
4 & -8.30894530308837749094468707356467 &
-8.67246771929839719253598118439664 \\
5 & -10.5685824419856069054748395707000 &
-10.9817913623032469741300225072724 \\
6 & -12.8480499008173510151377678768908 &
-13.3060582270200975291371029447052 \\
7 & -15.1423987396644292302500680775824 &
-15.6414978836634761215222474874096 \\
8 & -17.4483520149155330139161065965798 &
-17.9856458201720068377211714643235 \\
9 & -19.7636864904052121059815096874218 &
-20.3368227969313363262711724430690 \\
10 & -22.0868149972503557220763154840028 &
-22.6938278975627003536283880871543
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{.4cm}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
$N$ & $F_{N,6}^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $\beta F_{N,6}^{\mathrm{soft}}$ \\
\hline
3 & -9.0582041809587470427592556776938317
& -9.1916690110088058948684895153913657 \\
4 & -12.306265058620940233015626198772823
& -12.467150515773535356614120708869630 \\
5 & -15.583591141405785588643527765993475
& -15.769625685129047660199805300971936 \\
6 & -18.886678348734296934648840469575921
& -19.095091912250933709000748332754870 \\
7 & -22.209056127812161704085770192533417
& -22.437790137971372572352358156488860 \\
8 & -25.545482070626355796809539664033139
& -25.793196864919170855940747024418097
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{t3.6} Fit of the ansatz (\ref{3.F3}) to the data of
Table \ref{t3.5}
}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|lr|l|l|l|l}
$N$ & $B_4^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $K_4^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $C_4^{\mathrm{hard}}$ &
\quad & $B_4^{\mathrm{soft}}$ & $K_4^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $C_4^{\mathrm{soft}}$ &
$D_4^{\mathrm{soft}}$ \\ \hline
3,4,5,(6) & 0.749371& 0.059801& -0.091054 & &
0.497409& 0.120202& -0.052807&0.073687 \\
4,5,6,(7) & 0.728988& 0.081365& -0.080181 &&
0.509625& 0.099801& -0.040616&
0.040317 \\
5,6,7,(8) & 0.723951& 0.087261& -0.078408 &&
0.522124& 0.076905& -0.022675&
-0.004884 \\
6,7,8, (9) & 0.726340& 0.084219& -0.078810 &&
0.521397& 0.078345& -0.024029 &
-0.001556 \\
7,8,9,(10) & 0.727263& 0.082957& -0.078795 &&
0.518587& 0.084298& -0.030427 &
0.014202 \\
8,9,10 & 0.726874& 0.083523& -0.078873 &&
& & & \\
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{.4cm}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|lr|l|l|l|l}
$N$ & $B_6^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $K_6^{\mathrm{hard}}$ & $C_6^{\mathrm{hard}}$
& \qquad & $B_6^{\mathrm{soft}}$ & $K_6^{\mathrm{soft}}$ & $C_6^{\mathrm{soft}}$
\\
\hline
3,4,5 &
1.104506& -0.092158& -0.317518 &&
0.967066& -0.059461& -0.248851 \\
4,5,6 &
0.884919& 0.140146& -0.200388 &&
0.795791& 0.121733& -0.157491 \\
5,6,7 &
0.874984& 0.151776& -0.196890 &&
0.786513& 0.132593& -0.154224 \\
6,7,8 &
0.951461& 0.054407& -0.209757 &&
0.842635& 0.061139& -0.163667 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Density and two-point distribution}
\subsection*{Density}
Consider for definiteness the disk geometry with a hard wall at $\Gamma = 4$.
Using the formula (\ref{2.den}) the density profile can be calculated for
up to 10 particles. One way to present the data is in graphical form
with the boundary of the disk taken as the origin. This is done in
Figure \ref{f3.1}. The plot shows rapid convergence of the profiles near
the boundary.
\begin{figure}
\epsfbox{fig31.eps}
\caption{\label{f3.1}
Density profile in the hard disk case for several values of $N$ at
$\Gamma=4$. The boundary of the disk is taken as origin.
}
\end{figure}
To investigate the rate of convergence of the whole profile as measured
from the boundary to the thermodynamic value we can investigate the
contact theorem \cite{CFG80}. This expresses the thermodynamic pressure in
terms of the density at contact with the wall, and the potential drop
across the interface (which in turn is proportional to the first moment
of the density profile). Explicitly the contact theorem states
\begin{equation}\label{3.con}
\Big ( 1 - {\Gamma \over 4} \Big ) \rho_b = \rho (0) - 2 \pi \rho_b \Gamma
\int_0^\infty x (\rho (x) - \rho_b ) \, dx
\end{equation}
where we stress again that the density is measured from the boundary.
Much to our initial surprise, the convergence of the r.h.s.~to the l.h.s.~for
the finite $N$ data is very slow. For 10 particles the error is of order
$30 \%$. Further investigation reveals that this is not special to the
coupling $\Gamma = 4$. At $\Gamma = 2$ we have the analytic expression
\cite{Ja81}
$$
\rho_{(1)}(r) = {1 \over 2 \pi}
\sum_{j=1}^N { (R - r)^{2j-2} e^{- \pi (R-r)^2}
\over \int_0^R s^{2j - 1} e^{- \pi s^2} \, ds}, \quad 0 \le r \le R
$$
where $r$ is measured from the boundary
and the background density is taken to equal unity.
Choosing $N=10$ and substituting
in (\ref{3.con}) again gives an error of order $30\%$. Indeed choosing
$N = 500$ still gives an error of order $3\%$.
In fact the slow convergence of (\ref{3.con}) can be understood analytically
by making use of a sum rule for the OCP applicable for the finite disk
\cite{CFG80}. This sum rule reads
\begin{equation}\label{3.sumr}
\rho_{(1)}(0) - \Big ( 1 - {\Gamma \over 4} \Big ) \rho_b =
- {\Gamma \rho_b^2 \pi^2 \over N} \int_0^R r^3 \Big (\rho_{(1)}(R - r) -
\rho_b \Big ) \, dr
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{(1)}(r)$ is measured inward from the boundary. Noting that
charge neutrality requires
$$
\int_0^R r \Big ( \rho_{(1)}(R-r) - \rho_b \Big ) \, dr =
\int_0^R ( R - r) \Big ( \rho_{(1)}(r) - \rho_b \Big ) \, dr
$$
we can write
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{
- {\Gamma \rho_b^2 \pi^2 \over N} \int_0^R r^3 \Big (\rho_{(1)}(R - r) -
\rho_b \Big ) \, dr} \\
&& = - {\Gamma \rho_b^2 \pi^2 \over N} \int_0^R (R - r)^3
\Big (\rho_{(1)}(r) - \rho_b \Big ) \, dr \\
&& = - {\Gamma \rho_b^2 \pi^2 \over N} \int_0^R ( - 2r R^2 + 3r^2 R - r^3)
\Big (\rho_{(1)}(r) - \rho_b \Big ) \, dr \\
&& = 2 \Gamma \rho_b \pi \int_0^R r \Big (\rho_{(1)}(r) - \rho_b \Big ) \, dr
- {3 \Gamma (\rho_b \pi)^{3/2} \over N^{1/2}}
\int_0^R r^2 \Big (\rho_{(1)}(r) - \rho_b \Big ) \, dr \\ && \quad +
{\Gamma \rho_b^2 \pi^2 \over N} \int_0^R r^3 \Big ( \rho_{(1)}(r) - \rho_b ) \, dr
\end{eqnarray*}
This shows that the finite size corrections to the r.h.s.~of (\ref{3.sumr})
are proportional to $N^{-1/2}$, thus explaining our empirical observation.
\subsection*{Two-point function}
At $\Gamma = 2$ and in the thermodynamic limit the two-particle distribution
function has the exact evaluation \cite{Ja81}
$$
\rho_{(2)}({0}, \vec{r}) = \rho_b^2 \Big ( 1 - e^{-\pi \rho_b |\vec{r}|^2}
\Big ).
$$
This is a monotonic function, with the corresponding truncated distribution
$\rho_{(2)}^T({0}, \vec{r}) := \rho_{(2)}({0}, \vec{r}) -
\rho_{(1)}({0})\rho_{(1)}(\r)$
exhibiting Gaussian decay to zero. There is evidence, both analytic and
numerical \cite{Ja81,CLWH82} which suggests that for $\Gamma > 2$ the
two-particle distribution exhibits oscillations. At $\Gamma = 4$ this
feature has already been observed in the exact finite $N$ calculation
of $ \rho_{(2)}({0}, \vec{r})$ by Samaj et al.~\cite{SPK94}. Furthermore,
this feature should become more pronounced as $\Gamma$ increases. This is
indeed what we observe when plotting our results for $\Gamma = 4$ and
$\Gamma = 6$ on the same graph (see Figure \ref{f3.2}).
\begin{figure}
\epsfbox{fig32.eps}
\caption{\label{f3.2}
Two-point correlation in the sphere case for $N=8$ particles at
$\Gamma=4$ and $\Gamma=6$.
}
\end{figure}
The fact that the 2dOCP is a Coulomb system in its conductive phase implies
that in the bulk the second moment of the truncated distribution obeys
the Stillinger-Lovett sum rule
\begin{equation}\label{3.still}
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}^2} \vec{r}\,{}^2 \rho_{(2)}^T(0,\vec{r}) \, d\vec{r} =
- {2 \over \pi \Gamma}.
\end{equation}
For the hard disk in the finite system we can compute
\begin{equation}\label{3.stillf}
\int_{|\vec{r}| < R} \vec{r}\,{}^2
\rho_{(2)}^T({0}, \vec{r}) \, d\vec{r}
\end{equation}
and compare it with the universal value given by (\ref{3.still}). At $\Gamma
=4$ and with $N=9$ we find agreement with the universal value to within
$2\%$. In fact, analogous to the integral in (\ref{3.sumr}), the integral
(\ref{3.stillf}) can be evaluated exactly and the terms which differ
from $-2/\pi \Gamma$ read off. In the hard wall case we find
\begin{equation}\label{3.gs}
\int_{|\vec{r}| < R} \r^2
\rho_{(2)}^T(\vec{0}, \vec{r}) \, d\vec{r}
= - {2 \over \pi \Gamma} \bigg (
\rho_{(1)}(0) / \rho_b + N \rho_{(2)}^T(0,R)/ \rho_b^2 \bigg ),
\end{equation}
while in the soft wall case the same expression results except that the
boundary term $N \rho_{(2)}^T(0,R)/ \rho_b^2$ is no
longer present on the r.h.s., while on the l.h.s.~the integral is over
${\mathbf{R}}^2$.
We see from (\ref{3.gs}) that the deviation in the finite system from the
bulk value (\ref{3.still}) is determined by
$$
- {2 \over \pi \Gamma} \Big ( (\rho_{(1)}(0) - \rho_b)/\rho_b +
N \rho_{(2)}^T(0,R) / \rho_b^2 \Big ),
$$
and thus consists of a bulk and surface contribution.
\section{New sum rules}\label{sec:sum-rules}
In this section we present the derivation of the sum rule~(\ref{3.gs})
and its generalization to multicomponent Coulomb systems. First we
show that the sum rule can be derived within the formalism of
Section~\ref{sec:formalism}, then we present a more general derivation
of the sum rule.
\subsection{The case $\Gamma$ even}
The formalism presented in Section~\ref{sec:formalism} is valid only
if $\Gamma$ is an even integer. Within this formalism we can use the
expressions~(\ref{eq:2.rho2-g4}) and~(\ref{eq:2.rho2-g6}) for the
two-point correlation functions (and its generalizations to higher
$\Gamma$) to compute the second moment
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.sec-mom}
\int_{\Lambda} \r^2 \rho_{(2)}^T(0,\r)\,d\r\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is a disk of radius $R$ (hard disk) or ${\mathbf{R}}^2$
(soft disk).
For example in the hard disk case with $\Gamma=4$, for each term in the
sum~(\ref{eq:2.rho2-g4}) the integral~(\ref{eq:4.sec-mom}) gives an
incomplete gamma function $\gamma(\mu_j+2,2N)$. Then we use the
recurrence relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.rec}
\gamma(\mu_j+2,2N)=(\mu_j+1)\gamma(\mu_j+1,2N)
-e^{-2N}(2N)^{\mu_j+1}
\end{equation}
to split the expression in two. The first term is proportional to
$\rho_{(1)}(0)$ while the second is proportional to
$\rho_{(2)}(0,R)$. The sum rule~(\ref{3.gs}) follows from that.
The calculation can be easily generalized to any even $\Gamma$. In the
soft disk case since the incomplete gamma functions are replaced by
complete gamma functions the recurrence relation~(\ref{eq:4.rec}) does
not have a second term on the r.h.s., therefore there is no surface
contribution proportional to $\rho_{(2)}^T(0,R)$ in the sum rule.
\subsection{General case}
In fact a more general derivation of this sum rule, valid for any
value of the coupling constant, can be obtained by
studying the variations of the density as a function of the size of the
disk.
Let us consider the general case of a multicomponent jellium in $\nu$
dimensions confined in a spherical domain $\Lambda$ of radius $R$ and
volume $V=\Omega_\nu R^\nu/\nu$ with
$\Omega_\nu=2\pi^{\nu/2}/\Gamma(\nu/2)$. The system is composed of $s$
different species with charges $(e_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\{1,\dots,s\}}$
and there are $N_\alpha$ particles of the species $\alpha$. Let
$N=\sum_\alpha N_\alpha$ be the total number of particles and let us
define the average density of the species $\alpha$,
$\rho_\alpha=N_\alpha/V$ and the total average density $\rho=N/V$. As
in the preceding sections $\rho_b$ is the background number density
and let $e_b$ be its charge so that the background charge density is
$e_b\rho_b$. For convenience let us define the ``number of particles of
the background'' by $N_b=\rho_b V$. In general the Coulomb potential
is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defPhi}
\Phi(\r)=\cases{-\ln r,&if $\nu=2$\cr
\displaystyle\frac{r^{2-\nu}}{\nu-2},&otherwise,}
\end{equation}
and the Coulomb force is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defF}
{\vec{F}}(\r)=-\nabla\Phi(\r)=\frac{\r}{r^\nu}\,.
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian of the Coulomb system is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defU}
U=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}e_{\alpha_i}e_{\alpha_j}\Phi(\r_i-\r_j)
+e_b\rho_b\sum_{i=1}^N e_{\alpha_i}\int_\Lambda d\r \Phi(\r_i-\r)
+\frac{e_b^2\rho_b^2}{2}\int_{\Lambda^2} d\r d\r' \Phi(\r-\r')\,.
\end{equation}
We shall consider the correlation functions in the canonical ensemble
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\alpha_1\dots\alpha_n}^{(n)}(\r_1,\dots,\r_n)=\left<
\sum_{i_1=1}^{N_{\alpha_1}}\cdots
\sum_{i_n=1}^{N_{\alpha_n}}
\delta(\r_1-\r_{\alpha_1,i_1})\cdots
\delta(\r_n-\r_{\alpha_n,i_n})
\right>\,.
\end{equation}
The $\left<\cdots\right>$ is the average in the canonical ensemble and
in the preceding sums if some $\alpha_a=\alpha_b$ we exclude the term
$i_a=i_b$ as usual.
In three dimensions in order to have a well defined thermodynamic
limit we shall restrict ourselves to the case where all electric
charges $e_\alpha$ have the same sign and the background carries a
opposite neutralizing charge. In two dimensions we can also consider
systems with charges of different signs and eventually without
background ($\rho_b=0$) if the coupling contants $|\beta e_\alpha
e_\gamma| <2$ for all pair of charges $(e_\alpha,\, e_\gamma)$ of
different signs.
\subsubsection{Contact theorem sum rule}
The derivation of the sum rule for the second moment of the two-point
correlation function is similar to that of the contact theorem for a
spherical domain~\cite{CFG80}. Let us first show here the
generalization of this contact theorem for the multicomponent
jellium. We consider the canonical partition function (times $N!$)
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}=\int_{\Lambda^N} d\r^N \exp(-\beta U)\,,
\end{equation}
as a function of the volume $V$. We shall compute the thermodynamical pressure
$p^{(\theta)}=\partial\log{\cal Q}/\partial V$ in two different ways.
The derivative is done at fixed number of
particles and fixed $N_b$.
In
general using the scaling $\r=V^{1/\nu}\tilde{\r}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{betap0}
\beta p^{(\theta)}=\frac{\partial \ln {\cal Q}}{\partial V}=
\rho-\frac{\beta V^N}{{\cal Q}}\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}^N} d\tilde{\r}^N
\frac{\partial U(V^{1/\nu}\tilde{\r})}{\partial V}
e^{-\beta U}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\Lambda}$ is a sphere of volume 1.
A first way to compute the derivative of $U$ is by using the general
formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:virial}
\frac{\partial \Phi(V^{1/\nu}\tilde{\r})}{\partial V}=
-\frac{1}{\nu V}\,\r\cdot {\vec{F}}(\r)\,.
\end{equation}
This gives, together with the definition~(\ref{eq:defU}) of $U$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:betap1}
\beta p^{(\theta)}&=\rho+
\displaystyle\frac{\beta}{\nu V}&
\left[
\int_{\Lambda^2}d\r d\r' \r\cdot {\vec{F}}(\r-\r')\sum_{\alpha,\alpha'}
e_\alpha e_{\alpha'}\rho_{\alpha\alpha'}^{(2)}(\r,\r')
\right.
\nonumber\\
&&
+e_b\rho_b\int_{\Lambda^2}d\r d\r' (\r-\r')\cdot {\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\sum_\alpha e_\alpha \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(\r')
\nonumber\\
&&
\left.
+\frac{1}{2}e_b^2\rho_b^2 \int_{\Lambda^2} d\r d\r'
(\r-\r')\cdot {\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We can transform the preceding expression by using the first equation
of the BGY hierarchy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BGY1}
k_B T\nabla \rho_\alpha(\r)=e_\alpha \rho_b e_b\int_\Lambda d\r'\,
{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(\r)+ \int_\Lambda d\r'
\sum_{\alpha'} e_\alpha e_{\alpha'} {\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\rho_{\alpha \alpha'}^{(2)} (\r,\r)\,.
\end{equation}
The r.h.s of~(\ref{eq:BGY1}) appears in the first and second lines
of~(\ref{eq:betap1}). Replacing it by the l.h.s of~(\ref{eq:BGY1}) we
find
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta p^{(\theta)}&=\rho+
\displaystyle\frac{\beta}{\nu V}&
\left[
k_B T \int_{\Lambda} d\r \sum_\alpha \r\cdot\nabla\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(\r)
\right.
\nonumber\\
&&
-e_b \rho_b \int_{\Lambda^2}d\r d\r' \r'\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\sum_\alpha e_\alpha \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(\r)
\nonumber\\
&&
\left. +\frac{1}{2} \rho_b^2 e_b^2 \int_{\Lambda^2} d\r d\r'\, (\r-\r')\cdot
{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The first term of the r.h.s of the preceding equation can be computed
by integration by parts while the others can be computed using the
definition~(\ref{eq:defF}) of the Coulomb force ${\vec{F}}$ and Newton's
theorem. This yields the following expression for the thermodynamical
pressure
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:betapfin1}
\beta p^{(\theta)}&=&\sum_\alpha \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(R)
+\beta e_b \rho_b R^{2-\nu}\left(\sum_\alpha e_\alpha
\frac{N_\alpha}{2}
+e_b\frac{N_b}{\nu+2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{\beta\rho_b e_b}{2R^\nu}
\int_\Lambda d\r\, r^2 \sum_\alpha e_\alpha \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(\r)
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The other way to compute the thermodynamical pressure is to use the
actual scaling properties of the Coulomb potential $\Phi$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scalPhi}
\frac{\partial\Phi(V^{1/\nu}\tilde{\r})}{\partial V}
=\cases{\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2V},&if $\nu=2$\cr
\displaystyle\frac{2-\nu}{\nu V}\,\Phi(\r),&otherwise.
}
\end{equation}
Substituting this expression in~(\ref{betap0}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:betapfin2}
\beta p^{(\theta)}=\rho+
{\beta \delta_{\nu,2} \over 4} \left(\frac{ Q^2}{V}
-\sum_\alpha e_\alpha^2 \rho_\alpha
\right)
+ \frac{\nu-2}{\nu V}\beta \left<U\right>\,,
\end{equation}
where $Q=\sum_\alpha e_\alpha N_\alpha+ e_b N_b$ is the total charge of
the system.
Equating the two expressions~(\ref{eq:betapfin1})
and~(\ref{eq:betapfin2}) of the thermodynamic pressure we find the
generalization of the contact theorem
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:contact}
\lefteqn{
\sum_\alpha \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(R)+\frac{\beta e_b \rho_b}{2R^{\nu-2}}Q
-\frac{\beta e_b \rho_b}{2R^\nu}\int_\Lambda d\r\, r^2 q(\r)
}
\nonumber\\
&&= \rho + \delta_{\nu,2} \frac{\beta}{4}
\left(\frac{Q^2}{V}-\sum_\alpha e_\alpha^2 \rho_\alpha\right)
+\frac{\nu-2}{\nu V} \beta \left<U\right>
\end{eqnarray}
where $q(\r)=\sum_\alpha e_\alpha \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(\r)+e_b \rho_b$ is
the local charge density.
\subsubsection{Density-charge correlation second moment sum rule}
Similar calculations lead to the second moment sum rule for the
density-charge truncated correlation function $\sum_\beta
e_\beta\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,\r)$. Here we consider the quantity
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}_\alpha = \int_{\Lambda^N} d\r^N e^{-\beta U}
\sum_{i=1}^{N_\alpha}
\delta(\r_{i,\alpha})
\,,
\end{equation}
as a function of the volume $V$. Note that the density of the species
$\alpha$ at the center of the spherical domain is
$\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)={\cal Q}_\alpha/{\cal Q}$. Like in the preceding section we
want to compute by two different ways the quantity ${\cal Q}^{-1}\partial
{\cal Q}_\alpha/\partial V$. Using the same scaling argument as before we
have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dQalpha0}
\frac{1}{{\cal Q}}\frac{\partial{\cal Q}_\alpha}{\partial V}=
\frac{N-1}{V}\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
-\beta \frac{V^N}{{\cal Q}}
\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}^N} d\tilde{r}^N
\sum_{i=1}^{N_\alpha} \delta(V^{1/\nu}\tilde{\r}_{i,\alpha})
\,\frac{\partial U(V^{1/\nu}\tilde{\r})}{\partial V}
\,e^{-\beta U}
\,.
\end{equation}
Using eq.~(\ref{eq:virial}) and the definition~(\ref{eq:defU}) of the
Hamiltonian $U$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:qalpha1}
\frac{1}{{\cal Q}}\frac{\partial{\cal Q}_\alpha}{\partial V}&=&
\frac{N-1}{V}\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\beta}{\nu V}
\left[
\int_{\Lambda^2}d\r d\r'\, \r\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\sum_{\beta,\gamma} e_\beta e_\gamma \rho_{\alpha\beta\gamma}^{(3)}
(0,\r,\r')
\right.
\nonumber\\
&&+\int_\Lambda \r\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r) e_\alpha \sum_\beta e_\beta
\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)
\nonumber\\
&&+e_b \rho_b \int_{\Lambda^2}d\r d\r'\sum_\beta e_\beta
\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)\, \r\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\nonumber\\
&&-e_b \rho_b \int_{\Lambda^2} d\r d\r' \r'\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')
\sum_\beta e_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)
\nonumber\\
&&+e_b \rho_b\int_\Lambda d\r\,\r\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r) e_\alpha
\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\nonumber\\
&&
\left.
+\frac{1}{2} e_b^2\rho_b^2\int_{\Lambda^2} d\r d\r'\,
(\r-\r')\cdot{\vec{F}}(\r-\r') \rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\right]
\end{eqnarray}
Using the second BGY equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:BGY2}
k_B T\nabla_\r\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)&=&e_\beta e_b \rho_b
\int_\Lambda d\r'\,{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)
\nonumber\\
&&+e_\beta e_\alpha {\vec{F}}(\r) \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)
\nonumber\\
&&+\int_\Lambda d\r'\,{\vec{F}}(\r-\r')\sum_\gamma e_\beta e_\gamma
\rho_{\alpha\beta\gamma}^{(3)}(0,\r,\r')
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and then integration by parts
\begin{equation}
\sum_\beta \int_\Lambda \r\cdot\nabla_\r\rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}
(0,\r)=\nu V\sum_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,R)
-\nu(N-1)\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\,,
\end{equation}
we can arrange expression~(\ref{eq:qalpha1}) to find, after computing
explicitly the integrals involving ${\vec{F}}$ using Newton's theorem,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:dQalpha1}
\frac{1}{{\cal Q}}\frac{\partial{\cal Q}_\alpha}{\partial V}&=&
\sum_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,R)
-\frac{\beta e_b\rho_b}{2R^\nu}
\int_\Lambda d\r\,r^2\sum_\beta e_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}(0,\r)
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\beta e_b\rho_b}{2R^{\nu-2}}\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\left[\sum_\beta e_\beta N_\beta+\frac{e_b N_b}{\nu+2}\right]
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The second way for computing ${\cal Q}^{-1}\partial{\cal Q}_\alpha/\partial V$ is
by using directly equation~(\ref{eq:scalPhi}) into
equation~(\ref{eq:dQalpha0}). This gives,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:dQalpha2}
\frac{1}{{\cal Q}}\frac{\partial{\cal Q}_\alpha}{\partial V}&=&
\frac{N-1}{V}\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)+\frac{\beta}{4}\delta_{\nu,2}
\left[\frac{Q^2}{V}-\sum_\beta e_\beta^2
N_\beta\right]\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{\nu-2}{\nu V}\beta
\left<
U\hat{\rho}_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
\right>
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\hat{\rho}_\alpha^{(1)}(0)=\sum_{i=1}^{N_\alpha}\delta(\r_{i,\alpha})$
is the microscopic density of $\alpha$-particles at the center of the
domain $\Lambda$.
Comparing the two expressions~(\ref{eq:dQalpha1})
and~(\ref{eq:dQalpha2}) of ${\cal Q}^{-1}\partial{\cal Q}_\alpha/\partial V$ gives
a sum rule for the second moment of the density of $\alpha$
particles-electric charge correlation function. The sum rule takes a
nice form by considering the truncated correlation function and making
use of the contact sum rule~(\ref{eq:contact}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:thenewsumrule}
\frac{\beta e_b \rho_b\Omega_\nu}{2\nu} \int_{\Lambda} d\r\, r^2 \sum_\beta
e_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,\r)
&=&
\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0) +\frac{\Omega_\nu}{\nu} R^\nu
\sum_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,R)
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{2-\nu}{\nu}\,
\beta\left<U\hat{\rho}_{\alpha}^{(1)}(0)\right>^T \,.
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of the two-dimensional OCP ($\nu=2$, $s=1$ and $e_b=-e_1$)
this is exactly the sum rule~(\ref{3.gs}) announced in the preceding
section
$$
\int_{|\vec{r}| < R} \r^2
\rho_{(2)}^T(\vec{0}, \vec{r}) \, d\vec{r}
= - {2 \over \pi \Gamma} \bigg (
\rho_{(1)}(0) / \rho_b + N \rho_{(2)}^T(0,R)/ \rho_b^2 \bigg )
\,.
\eqno\hbox{(\ref{3.gs})}
$$
The sum rule~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}) is in fact a series of $s$ sum
rules for the density-charge correlation function $\sum_\beta e_\beta
\rho^{(2)T}_{\alpha\beta}(0,\r)$ for each species $\alpha$. By taking
the sum of these sum rules with the factors $e_\alpha$, we find a sum rule
for the charge-charge truncated correlation function
$S(0,\r)=\sum_{\alpha,\beta} e_\alpha e_\beta
\rho^{(2)T}_{\alpha\beta}(0,\r)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:charge-sumrule}
\frac{\beta e_b \rho_b\Omega_\nu}{2\nu}
\int_{\Lambda} d\r\, r^2 S(0,\r)
&=&
\sum_{\alpha}e_\alpha\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)
+\frac{\Omega_\nu}{\nu} R^\nu
\sum_{\alpha,\beta} e_\alpha \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,R)
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{2-\nu}{\nu}\,
\beta\left<U\sum_\alpha e_\alpha
\hat{\rho}_{\alpha}^{(1)}(0)\right>^T \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Thermodynamic limit of the sum rules}
\subsubsection*{Canonical ensemble}
In order to study the relationship between sum
rules~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}) and~(\ref{eq:charge-sumrule}) and the
Stillinger--Lovett sum rule, we need to know the behavior of the
correlation functions as they approach the thermodynamic limit. This
behavior is different depending on the ensemble used. In this
section we continue to work in the canonical ensemble.
In general we shall suppose that in the thermodynamic limit the system
is in a fluid and conducting phase. In
this case the density becomes uniform in the thermodynamic limit
$\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)\to \rho_\alpha$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Urho}
\left<\hat{\rho}_\alpha^{(1)}(0)U\right>^T
\to\left<\rho_\alpha U\right>^T=0\,,
\end{equation}
because in the canonical ensemble the density does not fluctuate.
Let us first consider the case of a multicomponent Coulomb system
without background (in two dimensions with small Coulomb couplings).
In that case equation~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule})
becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:can-rhob-0-fini}
\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0) +\frac{\Omega_\nu}{\nu} R^\nu
\sum_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,R)
=0\,.
\end{equation}
This
equation~(\ref{eq:can-rhob-0-fini}) give us the behavior of the correlation
functions as they approach the thermodynamic limit
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tails}
\sum_{\gamma} \rho_{\alpha\gamma}^{(2)T} (0,R)
\sim -\rho\rho_\alpha/N
\,.
\end{equation}
This is a generalization of an already known result concerning the
existence of $1/N$ tails for the correlation functions of one
component fluids with short range forces~\cite{LP61}. However, for a neutral
system taking the sum of equations~(\ref{eq:tails}) with the
coefficients $e_\alpha$ show that the charge-total density correlation
does not have $1/N$ tails,
\begin{equation}
R^\nu\sum_{\alpha\gamma} e_\alpha \rho_{\alpha\gamma}^{(2)T} (0,R)
\to 0
\,,
\end{equation}
It is likely that a similar behavior exists in the general case
($\rho_b\neq0$, $\nu=2,3$), so it would be difficult to derive
from~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}) partial sum rules for the density-charge
correlations in the thermodynamic limit because with the $1/N$ tails,
one cannot commute the thermodynamic limit with the integration over
the space. However, one can conjecture that although the
density-density correlations have $1/N$ tails, in the conductive phase
the total density-charge correlations do not have these tails as it is
in the case when $\rho_b=0$. If this is true, and assuming that the
convergence of the charge-charge correlation function is uniform (in
order to commute the thermodynamic limit with the integration over the
space), one can recover the Stillinger--Lovett sum rule from the sum
rule~(\ref{eq:charge-sumrule}) for finite systems,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SL}
\frac{\beta\Omega_\nu}{2\nu}
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}^\nu} d\r r^2 S(0,\r)=-1\,.
\end{equation}
The fact that we recover the Stillinger--Lovett sum rule is of course
not a proof of our conjecture, but at least it show that our
conjecture is not in contradiction with well known results.
\subsubsection*{Grand canonical ensemble}
For systems with short range forces the correlations functions do not
have $1/N$ tails in the grand canonical ensemble as they approach the
thermodynamic limit~\cite{LP61}. We will show that this is also the
case for two-dimensional Coulomb systems with small couplings when
there is no charged background and assuming this is also the case in
general for a multicomponent jellium we will discuss the thermodynamic
limit of the partial sum rules.
The partial sum rules~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}) obtained before are
different in the grand canonical ensemble. The grand
canonical ensemble is parametrized by the background density $\rho_b$
and $s-1$ fugacities $\{z_\gamma\}$ used to fix $s-1$ average densities
$\rho_\gamma$, the remaining density fixed by electroneutrality. The
grand canonical version of the sum rules~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}) can
be obtained in a straightforward manner by adapting the calculations of
the last section. However special care should be taken because of the
fluctuation of the average densities in the grand canonical
ensemble. These fluctuations add some extra terms to sum
rule~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:sumrule-gc}
\frac{\beta e_b \rho_b\Omega_\nu}{2\nu} \int_{\Lambda} d\r\, r^2 \sum_\beta
e_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,\r)
&=&
\left<\hat\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)\right> +\frac{\Omega_\nu}{\nu} R^\nu
\sum_\beta \rho_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)T}(0,R)
\nonumber\\
&&-\left<N\hat\rho^{(1)}_\alpha(0)\right>^T
+\frac{2-\nu}{\nu}\,
\beta\left<U\hat{\rho}_{\alpha}^{(1)}(0)\right>^T
\nonumber\\
&&+\delta_{\nu,2}
\left<\sum_\gamma \frac{\beta e_\gamma^2}{4} N_\gamma
\hat\rho_\alpha^{(1)}(0)\right>^T
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
To proceed with the discussion of the thermodynamic limit of this sum
rule, we need to use a relation that will allow us to simplify the
terms on the r.h.s.~of equation~(\ref{eq:sumrule-gc}) in the
thermodynamic limit. This relation reads for $\nu=2$ or 3,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scaling-relation}
\rho_\alpha
-\left<N\rho_\alpha\right>^T
+\frac{2-\nu}{\nu}\,
\beta\left<U\rho_{\alpha}\right>^T
+\delta_{\nu,2}
\left<\sum_\gamma \frac{\beta e_\gamma^2}{4} N_\gamma
\rho_\alpha\right>^T
=
\rho_b\frac{\partial\rho_\alpha}{\partial\rho_b}
\,.
\end{equation}
This relation is a consequence of the scaling properties of the
Coulomb potential. To prove it, let us consider the thermodynamic
grand canonical pressure
\begin{equation}
\beta \tilde p(\beta,\{z_\gamma\},\rho_b)
=\lim_{V\to\infty} V^{-1} \ln \Xi(\beta,\{z_\gamma\},\rho_b,V)
\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Xi$ is the grand canonical partition function. Using the
scaling properties of the Coulomb potential we have for $\nu=3$
\begin{equation}
\beta \tilde p(\beta,\{z_\alpha\},\rho_b)=\lambda^4\beta
\tilde p(\lambda\beta,\{\lambda^{-3/2}z_\alpha\},\lambda^{-3}\rho_b)
\,,
\end{equation}
and for $\nu=2$,
\begin{equation}
\beta \tilde p(\beta,\{z_\alpha\},\rho_b)=
\beta \tilde p(\beta,\{\lambda^{-2(1-(\beta e_\alpha^2/4))}z_\alpha\},
\lambda^{-2}\rho_b)
\,,
\end{equation}
for any positive number $\lambda$. Taking the derivative of these
relations with respect to $\lambda$, then putting $\lambda=1$ and using
the usual thermodynamic relations yields for $\nu=3$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p-nu3}
\tilde p=\frac{1}{3}\left<H\right> +
\frac{1}{2\beta} \rho - \rho_b\frac{\partial\tilde p}{\partial\rho_b}
=\frac{1}{3}\left<U\right>+ \frac{1}{\beta} \rho
-\rho_b\frac{\partial\tilde p}{\partial\rho_b}
\,,
\end{equation}
and for $\nu=2$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p-nu2}
\beta \tilde p=\sum_\alpha \left(1-\frac{\beta e_\alpha^2}{4}\right)
\rho_\alpha
+\beta\rho_b
\frac{\partial\tilde p}{\partial\rho_b}\,.
\end{equation}
where $\left<H\right>$ is the total internal energy (including the
kinetic term). The announced relation~(\ref{eq:scaling-relation})
follows from taking the derivative of~(\ref{eq:p-nu3})
and~(\ref{eq:p-nu2}) with respect to the fugacities.
As before let us consider first the case $\rho_b=0$ (in two dimensions
for systems with small couplings). Then
equation~(\ref{eq:sumrule-gc}) together with
equation~(\ref{eq:scaling-relation}) shows that the grand canonical
total density-partial density correlation function does not exhibit
any $1/N$ tails,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:notails}
R^\nu \sum_{\alpha\gamma} \rho^{(2)T}_{\alpha\gamma}(0,R) \to0\,.
\end{equation}
Now if we suppose that in the general case ($\rho_b\neq0$, $\nu=2,3$) this
property still holds and that the density-charge correlation functions
converge uniformly we recover the partial sum rules
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sumrule-svw}
\frac{\beta e_b\Omega_\nu}{2\nu}
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}^\nu} d\r r^2
\sum_\gamma e_\gamma\rho_{\alpha\gamma}^{(2)T} (0,\r)
=
\frac{\partial\rho_\alpha}{\partial\rho_b}
\,,
\end{equation}
that have been previously derived by Suttorp and
van~Wonderen~\cite{SvW87} in the three dimensional case. These
equations also hold for two-dimensional systems. One can recover the
Stillinger--Lovett sum rule~(\ref{eq:SL}) by taking the sum of these
equations~(\ref{eq:sumrule-svw}) with the factors $e_\alpha$ and using
electroneutrality. Notice that the condition~(\ref{eq:notails}) on the
thermodynamic limit of the two-point correlation function when one of
the points is in the boundary is different from the usual condition
needed to prove the Stillinger--Lovett~\cite{MG83} that the
correlation function of the infinite system should decay faster than
$1/r^{\nu+2}$.
Notwithstanding the relation of the sum rules~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule})
and~(\ref{eq:sumrule-gc}) with the Stillinger--Lovett sum
rule~(\ref{eq:SL}), let us stress that for finite systems these
sum rules are not screening sum rules like the Stillinger--Lovett sum
rule since for finite systems the screening of external charges does
not exists (because since the total electric charge is conserved, the
excess of charge can not leak out to infinity like it does in infinite
systems). From the derivation presented in the previous section it is
clear that the new sum rules should be seen more as a second order
contact theorem rather than a screening sum rule. Futhermore when
there is no background ($\rho_b=0$) the relation with
Stillinger--Lovett sum rule disappears because the term containing the
second moment of the density-charge correlation vanishes.
\section{Summary and conclusion}
Expanding the power of the Vandermonde determinant that appears in the
Boltzmann factor of the 2dOCP in terms of simple orthogonal
polynomials we have been able to develop exact numerical solutions for
values of the coupling constant $\Gamma=4$ and $\Gamma=6$ for finite
systems up to 11 and 9 particles respectively for different kinds of
geometry (sphere, soft and hard wall disk). With these solutions we
have been able to test the prediction~\cite{JMP94} of universal
logarithmic finite size corrections to the free energy~(\ref{1.F}).
Studying the correlation functions has lead us to find a new sum
rule~(\ref{3.gs}) similar to the Stillinger--Lovett sum rule for
finite systems. This sum rule can be derived within the formalism of
section~\ref{sec:formalism}, but can also be generalized to higher
dimension and multicomponent jellium systems
(eq.~(\ref{eq:thenewsumrule})).
Further applications of the formalism presented here are the study of
surface correlations which are expected to have a universal behavior
at large distances~\cite{Jan95}. Also the formal expressions of the
correlations functions~(\ref{eq:2.rho2-g4}) and~(\ref{eq:2.rho2-g6})
could eventually be used to find higher order sum rules or other
general properties.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
G.~T.~acknowledges the financial support from the Australian Research
Council and would like to thank the Department of Mathematics and
Statistics of the University of Melbourne for its hospitality.
Also, we are particularly grateful to J.-Y.~Thibon and
B.G.~Wybourne for supplying us with their data from \cite{STW94}.
We thank B.~Jancovici for a useful remark on
section~\ref{sec:sum-rules}.
|
\section{\@startsection{section}{1}{\zeta@}{3.5ex plus 1ex minus
.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\large\bf}}
\def\arabic{section}.{\arabic{section}.}
\def\Roman{section}-\Alph{subsection}.{\Roman{section}-\Alph{subsection}.}
\def#1}{}
\def\FERMILABPub#1{\def#1}{#1}}
\def\ps@headings{\def\@oddfoot{}\def\@evenfoot{}
\def\@oddhead{\hbox{}\hfill
\makebox[.5\textwidth]{\raggedright\ignorespaces --\thepage{}--
\hfill }}
\def\@evenhead{\@oddhead}
\def\subsectionmark##1{\markboth{##1}{}}
}
\ps@headings
\catcode`\@=12
\relax
\def\rho#1{\ignorespaces $^{#1}$}{
\def\figcap{\section*{Figure Captions\markboth
{FIGURECAPTIONS}{FIGURECAPTIONS}}\list
{Fig. \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Fig. 999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endfigcap\endlist \relax
\def\tablecap{\section*{Table Captions\markboth
{TABLECAPTIONS}{TABLECAPTIONS}}\list
{Table \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Table 999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endtablecap\endlist \relax
\def\reflist{\section*{References\markboth
{REFLIST}{REFLIST}}\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endreflist\endlist \relax
\catcode`\@=11
\def\marginnote#1{}
\newcount\hour
\newcount\minute
\newtoks\amorpm
\hour=\time\divide\hour by60
\minute=\time{\multiply\hour by60 \global\advance\minute by-
\hour}
\edef\standardtime{{\ifnum\hour<12 \global\amorpm={am}%
\else\global\amorpm={pm}\advance\hour by-12 \fi
\ifnum\hour=0 \hour=12 \fi
\number\hour:\ifnum\minute<100\fi\number\minute\the\amorpm}}
\edef\militarytime{\number\hour:\ifnum\minute<100\fi\number\minute}
\def\NPB#1#2#3{Nucl. Phys. { B#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\PLB#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. { B#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\PLBold#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. {#1B} (19#2) #3}
\def\PRD#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. { C#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\PRL#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. Lett. {#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\PRT#1#2#3{Phys. Rep. { C#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\ARAA#1#2#3{Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. {#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\ARNP#1#2#3{Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\MODA#1#2#3{Mod. Phys. Lett. { A#1} (19#2) #3}
\def\draftlabel#1{{\@bsphack\if@filesw {\let\thepage\relax
\xdef\@gtempa{\write\@auxout{\string
\newlabel{#1}{{\@currentlabel}{\thepage}}}}}\@gtempa
\if@nobreak \ifvmode\nobreak\fi\fi\fi\@esphack}
\gdef\@eqnlabel{#1}}
\def\@eqnlabel{}
\def\@vacuum{}
\def\draftmarginnote#1{\marginpar{\raggedright\scriptsize\tt#1}}
\def\draft{\oddsidemargin -.5truein
\def\@oddfoot{\sl preliminary draft \hfil
\rm\thepage\hfil\sl\today\quad\militarytime}
\let\@evenfoot\@oddfoot \overfullrule 3pt
\let\label=\draftlabel
\let\marginnote=\draftmarginnote
\def\@eqnnum{(\theequation)\rlap{\kern\marginparsep\tt\@eqnlabel}%
\global\let\@eqnlabel\@vacuum} }
\def\preprint{\twocolumn\sloppy\flushbottom\parindent 1em
\leftmargini 2em\leftmarginv .5em\leftmarginvi .5em
\oddsidemargin -.5in \evensidemargin -.5in
\columnsep 15mm \footheight 0pt
\textwidth 250mmin \topmargin -.4in
\headheight 12pt \topskip .4in
\textheight 175mm
\footskip 0pt
\def\@oddhead{\thepage\hfil\addtocounter{page}{1}\thepage}
\let\@evenhead\@oddhead \def\@oddfoot{} \def\@evenfoot{}
}
\def\titlepage{\@restonecolfalse\if@twocolumn\@restonecoltrue\onecolumn
\else \newpage \fi \thispagestyle{empty}\chi@page\zeta@
\def\arabic{footnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}} }
\def\endtitlepage{\if@restonecol\twocolumn \else \fi
\def\arabic{footnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}}
\catcode`@=12
\relax
\def#1}{}
\def\FERMILABPub#1{\def#1}{#1}}
\def\ps@headings{\def\@oddfoot{}\def\@evenfoot{}
\def\@oddhead{\hbox{}\hfill
\makebox[.5\textwidth]{\raggedright\ignorespaces --\thepage{}--
\hfill }}
\def\@evenhead{\@oddhead}
\def\subsectionmark##1{\markboth{##1}{}}
}
\ps@headings
\relax
\newcommand{\ampl}[2]{{\cal M}\left( #1 \to #2 \right)}
\newcommand{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d}}
\let\under=\beta
\let\ced=\chi
\let\du=\delta
\let\um=\H
\let\sll=\lambda
\let\Sll=\Lambda
\let\slo=\omega
\let\Slo=\Omega
\let\tie=\tau
\let\br=\upsilon
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\chi{\chi}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\epsilon{\epsilon}
\def\frac{\phi}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\eta{\eta}
\def\iota{\iota}
\def\psi{\psi}
\def\kappa{\kappa}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\mu{\mu}
\def\nu{\nu}
\def\omega{\omega}
\def\pi{\pi}
\def\theta{\theta}
\def\rho{\rho}
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\tau{\tau}
\def\upsilon{\upsilon}
\def\xi{\xi}
\def\zeta{\zeta}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def\Phi{\Phi}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\Psi{\Psi}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\def\Omega{\Omega}
\def\Pi{\Pi}
\def\Theta{\Theta}
\def\Sigma{\Sigma}
\def\Upsilon{\Upsilon}
\def\Xi{\Xi}
\def\varphi{\varphi}
\def\varrho{\varrho}
\def\varsigma{\varsigma}
\def\vartheta{\vartheta}
\def{\cal A}{{\cal A}}
\def{\cal B}{{\cal B}}
\def{\cal C}{{\cal C}}
\def{\cal D}{{\cal D}}
\def{\cal E}{{\cal E}}
\def{\cal F}{{\cal F}}
\def{\cal G}{{\cal G}}
\def{\cal H}{{\cal H}}
\def{\cal I}{{\cal I}}
\def{\cal J}{{\cal J}}
\def{\cal K}{{\cal K}}
\def{\cal L}{{\cal L}}
\def{\cal M}{{\cal M}}
\def{\cal N}{{\cal N}}
\def{\cal O}{{\cal O}}
\def{\cal P}{{\cal P}}
\def{\cal Q}{{\cal Q}}
\def{\cal R}{{\cal R}}
\def{\cal S}{{\cal S}}
\def{\cal T}{{\cal T}}
\def{\cal U}{{\cal U}}
\def{\cal V}{{\cal V}}
\def{\cal W}{{\cal W}}
\def{\cal X}{{\cal X}}
\def{\cal Y}{{\cal Y}}
\def{\cal Z}{{\cal Z}}
\def\Sc#1{{\hbox{\sc #1}}}
\def\Sf#1{{\hbox{\sf #1}}}
\def\slpa{\slash{\pa}}
\def\slin{\SLLash{\in}}
\def\bo{{\raise.15ex\hbox{\large$\Box$}}}
\def\cbo{\Sc [}
\def\pa{\partial}
\def\de{\nabla}
\def\dell{\bigtriangledown}
\def\su{\sum}
\def\pr{\prod}
\def\iff{\leftrightarrow}
\def\conj{{\hbox{\large *}}}
\def\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\ {\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
\def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
\def\face{{\raise.2ex\hbox{$\displaystyle \bigodot$}\mskip-2.2mu \llap {$\ddot
\smile$}}}
\def\ddg{\ddagger}
\def\sp#1{{}^{#1}}
\def\sb#1{{}_{#1}}
\def\oldsl#1{\rlap/#1}
\def\slash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 1 mu /$}}#1}
\def\Slash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 3 mu /$}}#1}
\def\SLash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 4.5 mu /$}}#1}
\def\SLLash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 6 mu /$}}#1}
\def\Tilde#1{\widetilde{#1}}
\def\Hat#1{\widehat{#1}}
\def\Bar#1{\overline{#1}}
\def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}
\def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}
\def\VEV#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}
\def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
\def\leftrightarrowfill{$\mathsurround=0pt \mathord\leftarrow \mkern-6mu
\cleaders\hbox{$\mkern-2mu \mathord- \mkern-2mu$}\hfill
\mkern-6mu \mathord\rightarrow$}
\def\dvec#1{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr
\leftrightarrowfill\crcr\noalign{\kern-1pt\nointerlineskip}
$\hfil\displaystyle{#1}\hfil$\crcr}}}
\def\dt#1{{\buildrel {\hbox{\LARGE .}} \over {#1}}}
\def\dtt#1{{\buildrel \bullet \over {#1}}}
\def\der#1{{\pa \over \pa {#1}}}
\def\fder#1{{\delta \over \delta {#1}}}
\def\partder#1#2{{\partial #1\over\partial #2}}
\def\parvar#1#2{{\delta #1\over \delta #2}}
\def\secder#1#2#3{{\partial^2 #1\over\partial #2 \partial #3}}
\def\on#1#2{\mathop{\null#2}\limits^{#1}}
\def\bvec#1{\on\leftarrow{#1}}
\def\oover#1{\on\circ{#1}}
\def\begin{displaymath}{\begin{displaymath}}
\def\end{displaymath}{\end{displaymath}}
\def\nonumber{\nonumber}
\def\pl#1#2#3{Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\np#1#2#3{Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\prl#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf #1} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\pr#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\cqg#1#2#3{Class.~and Quantum Grav.~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\cmp#1#2#3{Commun.~Math.~Phys.~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\jmp#1#2#3{J.~Math.~Phys.~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\ap#1#2#3{Ann.~of Phys.~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\prep#1#2#3{Phys.~Rep.~{\bf {#1}C} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\ptp#1#2#3{Progr.~Theor.~Phys.~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\ijmp#1#2#3{Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.~{\bf A {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\mpl#1#2#3{Mod.~Phys.~Lett.~{\bf A {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\def\ibid#1#2#3{{\it ibid.}~{\bf {#1}} (19{#2}) #3}
\newcommand{\newcommand}{\newcommand}
\newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
\newcommand{\lra}{\leftrightarrow}
\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\epsilon{\epsilon}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\frac{\frac}
\def\nu_{e}{\nu_{e}}
\def\nu_{\mu}{\nu_{\mu}}
\def\nu_{\tau}{\nu_{\tau}}
\def\sqrt{2}{\sqrt{2}}
\def\rightarrow{\rightarrow}
\newcommand{\sm}{Standard Model}
\newcommand{\smd}{Standard Model}
\newcommand{\barr}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\earr}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\ccaption}[2]{
\begin{center}
\parbox{0.85\textwidth}{
\caption[#1]{\small{\it{#2}}}
}
\end{center}
}
\begin{document}
\begin{flushright}
hep-ph/9904279 \\
CERN-TH/99-87 \\
\end{flushright}
\vspace{15mm}
\begin{center}
{\LARGE \bf
Can Neutrinos be Degenerate in Mass?
} \\
\end{center}
\vspace*{0.7cm}
\begin{center}
{\large {\bf John Ellis} \footnote{
{\tt email: <EMAIL>}}
and {\bf Smaragda Lola} \footnote{
{\tt email: <EMAIL>}} }
\end{center}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
{\large Theory Division, CERN, CH 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
\end{center}
\vspace{1 cm}
\begin{center}
{\bf ABSTRACT}
\end{center}
{{\small
We reconsider the possibility that the masses of the three light neutrinos
of the Standard Model might be almost degenerate and close to the
present upper limits from Tritium $\beta$ decay and cosmology. In such
a scenario, the cancellations required by the latest upper limit on
neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay enforce near-maximal mixing that may
be compatible only with the vacuum-oscillation scenario for solar
neutrinos. We argue that the mixing angles yielded by
degenerate neutrino mass-matrix textures are not in general stable
under small perturbations. We evaluate within the MSSM the
generation-dependent one-loop renormalization of
neutrino mass-matrix textures
that yielded degenerate masses and large mixing at the tree level.
We find that
$m_{\nu_e} > m_{\nu_\mu} > m_{\nu_\tau}$
after renormalization, excluding MSW effects
on solar neutrinos. We verify that bimaximal
mixing is not stable, and show that the renormalized masses and mixing
angles are not compatible with all the experimental constraints,
even for $\tan \beta$ as low as unity. These results hold whether
the neutrino masses are generated by a see-saw
mechanism with heavy neutrinos weighing $\sim 10^{13}$~GeV
or by
non-renormalizable interactions at a scale $\sim 10^5$~GeV.
We also comment on the corresponding renormalization effects in the
minimal Standard Model, in which
$m_{\nu_e} < m_{\nu_\mu} < m_{\nu_\tau}$. Although
a solar MSW effect
is now possible, the perturbed neutrino masses and mixings
are still not compatible with atmospheric- and solar-neutrino data.}}
\noindent
\thispagestyle{empty}
\setcounter{page}{0}
\vfill\eject
\section{Introduction}
Observations of solar and atmospheric neutrinos provide
strong indications that neutrinos may oscillate between
eigenstates with different masses $m_{\nu_i}$
\cite{SKam,KamMac}. The indications from
solar neutrinos are for a difference in mass squared
$\Delta m^2_{solar} \sim 10^{-4}$~\cite{MSW} to
$10^{-10}$~eV$^2$ \cite{solar}, whereas the atmospheric neutrino data
favour $\Delta m^2_{atmo} \sim 10^{-2}$ to $10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ \cite{SKam}.
As is well known, oscillation experiments are not able to set the
overall scale of the neutrino masses. However, there are some
upper limits on these: astrophysical and cosmological
constraints on dark matter suggest that $\Sigma_i m_{\nu_i}
<$ few~eV \cite{Lyalpha},
and experiments on the endpoint of the Tritium $\beta$-decay
spectrum suggest that $m_{\nu_i} < 2.5$~eV~\cite{Lobashev} for any mass
eigenstate
with a substantial electron flavour component~\cite{Barger}.
The question then
arises whether there are any indirect arguments bearing on
the possibility that the three light neutrino masses might be
approximately degenerate \cite{ol}-\cite{nonab}
and close to these upper limits.
Extending previous arguments in~\cite{GG} to include a new
upper limit on neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay~\cite{KKG},
we argue in the next section that, within the context of
such degenerate neutrinos, this may already exclude
the large-angle Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein
(MSW)~\cite{MSW} solution to the solar-neutrino problem.
In this case, one would be forced into the vacuum-oscillation
solution, and hence extreme mass degeneracy to one part in $10^{10}$.
In the case of the large-angle MSW solution, the degeneracy would
need to be to one part in $10^4$ or more.
We subsequently discuss general features of the
one-loop renormalization of neutrino mass matrices, using as an
example one specific degenerate mass-matrix texture
that accommodates neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay via bimaximal mixing
\cite{new1,GG}.
We argue that
this and other degenerate textures are generically unstable with
respect to small perturbations, so that mixing does not remain
bimaximal as suggested by
oscillation data and the neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay constraint.
We evaluate within the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the
Standard Model (MSSM) the one-loop renormalization-group
corrections to mass degeneracy in scenarios where the masses
are generated either by a see-saw mechanism \cite{seesaw}
at some high scale $M_N$
close to $M_{GUT}$, or by an effective operator at some low scale
$\Lambda$ close
to $M_{SUSY}$. We find that these corrections are
significant, even for relatively small values of
$\tan\beta$, and lead to the ordering
$m_{\nu_e} > m_{\nu_\mu} > m_{\nu_\tau}$.
In the case that neutrino
masses of order ${\cal O} (2)$~eV arise
via the see-saw mechanism, these corrections
indicate that degenerate neutrinos are not
compatible with all constraints, even for
tan$\beta$ as low as 1. In particular, we note that
the ordering of neutrino masses is {\it incompatible}
with MSW solutions, because they require
$m_{\nu_e} < m_{\nu_\mu}, m_{\nu_\tau}$.
If neutrino masses arise
from non-renormalizable interactions at a scale
$\Lambda$ as low as 10-100 $m_{SUSY}$,
the effects are smaller. Still, even in this case,
we cannot obtain the required degeneracy for
the vacuum oscillations, and
MSW oscillations cannot be obtained.
Finally, we discuss briefly renormalization effects
in the minimal Standard Model. Their expected
magnitude is similar to that in the MSSM in the low-$\tan\beta$ regime,
since for a single Higgs field all the quark and charged-lepton mass
hierarchies have to arise purely from the
Yukawa couplings, and hence the $\tau$ coupling
is small. However, in this case the
sign of the Yukawa renormalization effects is
opposite, tending to
increase the magnitudes of the entries in $m_{eff}$
and leading to $m_{\nu_e} < m_{\nu_\mu}, m_{\nu_\tau}$,
as required by the MSW mechanism. However, bimaximal mixing
again cannot be maintained, so that this framework also appears
incompatible with the combined constraints from
neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay and neutrino oscillation
data.
This analysis shows that schemes with degenerate
neutrinos are very problematic, contrary to solutions with
large neutrino hierarchies. Since the former
may be obtained from non-Abelian symmetry structures
\cite{nonab} and the
latter from Abelian ones~\cite{abel,LLR,Grah}, renormalization-group
effects on the neutrino mass eigenvalues may be providing important
information about the underlying flavour structure of the
fundamental theory.
\section{Neutrinoless Double-$\beta$ Constraints on Degenerate Neutrinos
\label{sec:neutr}}
It was pointed out by Georgi and Glashow~\cite{GG}
that, if the neutrino masses are close to the Tritium and
cosmological upper limit so that relic neutrinos
contribute at least
one percent of the critical density of the Universe, then
the upper limits on neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay require the
mixing angle for solar neutrino oscillations to be
almost maximal. This is because the neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay
limit
constrains the $ee$ component of the Majorana neutrino mass matrix in the
charged-lepton flavour basis~\cite{GG}:
\bea
m_{eff}^{ee}
\equiv
\big\vert m_1\,c_2^2c_3^2e^{i\phi} + m_2\,c_2^2s_3^2e^{i\phi'} + m_3\,
s_2^2\,e^{i2\delta} \big\vert < B \,.
\label{doublebeta}
\eea
where $c_i,s_i$ denote $\cos\theta_{i},\sin\theta_{i}$ in the
conventional $3 \times 3$ mixing parametrization
\bea
\pmatrix{\nu_e \cr \nu_\mu\cr \nu_\tau\cr}=
\pmatrix{c_2c_3 & c_2s_3 & s_2e^{-i\delta}\cr
-c_1s_3-s_1s_2c_3e^{i\delta} &
+c_1c_3-s_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta} & s_1c_2\cr
+s_1s_3-c_1s_2c_3e^{i\delta} &
-s_1c_3-c_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta} & c_1c_2\cr}\,
\pmatrix{\nu_1\cr \nu_2\cr \nu_3\cr}\,,
\label{param}
\eea
where the diagonal matrix $m_{eff}^{diag}$ is
$diag(m_1e^{i\phi}, m_2e^{i\phi'}, m_3)$,
$\phi$ and
$\phi'$ are phases in the light Majorana mass matrix, and
$B$ is the experimental upper
bound on $m_{eff}^{ee}$.
In schemes with degenerate neutrinos, the
differences between the mass eigenvalues $m_i$ in (\ref{doublebeta}) may
be neglected~\cite{GG}. Moreover,
given the upper limits on atmospheric oscillations
into electron neutrinos established by Chooz
\cite{chooz} and
Super-Kamiokande \cite{SKam}
, we follow~\cite{GG} and set $\theta_2 \approx 0$.
Thus (\ref{doublebeta}) may be simplified to the form:
\bea
\big\vert \cos^2{\theta_3}\,e^{i\phi} + \sin^2{\theta_3}\,e^{i\phi'}
\big\vert < {B \over {\overline m} }
\label{simple}
\eea
where ${\overline m} \approx 2$~eV is the
conjectured common mass scale
of the (almost-)degenerate neutrinos.
At the time of~\cite{GG}, the best available upper limit was
$B < 0.46$~eV, and the constraint (\ref{simple})
could be satisfied for $\phi+\phi'\simeq \pi$
and $\vert\cos{2\theta_3}\vert < 0.23$, leading to
$\sin^2{2\theta_3}> 0.95$. This was incompatible with
the small-angle MSW solution for the solar neutrino data,
but consistent with either the large-angle MSW solution
or the vacuum-oscillation solution.
Recently, however, a new upper limit $B < 0.2$~eV
has been given~\cite{KKG}, from which we infer
$\vert\cos{2\theta_3}\vert < 0.1$ and hence
\beq
\sin^2{2\theta_3}> 0.99.
\label{KKG}
\eeq
Such maximal mixing is favoured by the vacuum-oscillation
solution, but is disfavoured in the large-angle
MSW solution, because $\sin^2{2\theta_3} = 1$ would yield
an energy-independent suppression of all solar
neutrinos~\cite{Giunti}. This disagrees with the Homestake data
by at least three standard deviations, although the question
persists whether the data could tolerate the lower
limit in (\ref{KKG}). Several global fits to the
solar-neutrino data have been published, including
one by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration~\cite{SKdn} that takes
into account its recent measurements of the day-night
effect and yields $\sin^2{2\theta_3} < 0.99$~\footnote{If
the day-night effect were not included, the upper limit
would be $\sin^2{2\theta_3} < 0.95$: the magnitude of the
day-night effect improves the quality of the fit in this
large-angle MSW region~\cite{SKdn}.}. Other global fits often give
smaller upper limits on $\sin^2{2\theta_3}$
\cite{SKdn}.
We infer, provisionally, that the large-angle MSW
solution is now excluded by neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay
if the neutrinos are near-degenerate,
forcing us into the vacuum-oscillation solution,
in which case the neutrino mass degeneracy must be at the
level of one part in $10^{10}$. We could, however,
imagine possible ways to evade this conclusion.
Perhaps a small but non-trivial admixture of $\nu_{\mu} - \nu_e$
atmospheric oscillations could soften the bound
(\ref{KKG}), and/or perhaps the solar-neutrino data could be
stretched to accommodate it: $\sin^2{2\theta_3} = 1$ is excluded
just at the $99.8 \%$ confidence level. Alternatively, the
constraint (\ref{KKG}) would be weakened for degenerate
neutrinos weighing less than 2~eV. We comment later how
our conclusions would be affected if the large-angle MSW
solution could be tolerated, in which case the neutrino mass
degeneracy need only be to one part in $10^4$.
Using the experimental information then available,
a specific effective neutrino mass texture was
proposed in~\cite{new1,GG}:
\bea
{m_{eff}} \propto \,\pmatrix{
0 & {1\over\sqrt2} & {1\over\sqrt2}\cr
{1\over\sqrt2} & {1\over2} & -{1\over2}\cr
{1\over\sqrt2} & -{1\over2} & {1\over2}\cr
}
\label{GGtexture}
\eea
in the flavour basis where charged-lepton masses are diagonal,
leading to bimaximal mixing.
Other neutrino mass textures might be considered,
depending on the theoretical assumptions and other
phenomenological choices made.
In the following, we shall use (\ref{GGtexture}) as an
example, but frame our discussion in terms sufficiently
general that it could be extended to other model textures.
Any such texture can only be regarded as a first approximation,
that might be modified by higher-order effects. These could
include the possible contributions of
higher-dimensional non-renormalizable operators. The above
discussion suggests that any such contributions should
change the mass eigenstates by at most one part in $10^{10}$
(or $10^4$),
which is considerably more delicate than the expected hierarchy
$m_{GUT}/m_{P} \approx 10^{-2}$. In the absence of any detailed
theory of such contributions, one cannot say that this is
necessarily a problem. However, global symmetries are not
normally expected to be exact at the Planck scale, so the
mass-degeneracy constraint is potentially powerful.
Moreover, the mixing angles in such degenerate mass-matrix
models are inherently unstable when higher-order
perturbations are switched on, as we discuss in more detail later.
\section{Renormalization-Group Effects on Neutrino Mass Textures}
Calculable and potentially significant breakings of
the neutrino mass degeneracies
are provided by
renormalization-group effects. However, these
depend on the specific neutrino model framework
adopted. We consider here two possibilities: one
is the conventional see-saw, with a singlet-neutrino
mass scale $M_N \sim 10^{13}$~GeV
\footnote{
We note that the heavy
Majorana neutrino masses $M_N$
need not be degenerate.
On the contrary, flavour symmetries indicate
that should have a structure determined by
the flavour charges of the $N$ fields, and
of other singlet fields in a given model.
However, we do not discuss explicitly here this
structure, which could also in principle affect the amount of
renormalization-group running.}, and the other is
a model where the light Majorana neutrino masses are
simply generated by a new non-renormalizable interaction,
such as $\nu_L \nu_L H H$,
at a mass scale $\Lambda \sim 10^5$~GeV,
close to $m_{SUSY} = 10^3$~GeV. Below we
give numerical results for both scenarios.
In the see-saw case,
between the GUT scale and the scale $M_{N}$ of the
heavy Majorana neutrinos,
there is an effect on the mixing angle
due to the renormalization-group running of the
Dirac neutrino coupling $Y_N$ \cite{VB}:
\begin{eqnarray}
8\pi^2 {d\over dt}({ Y}_N { Y}_N^\dagger)& = &
\{ -\sum_i c_N^i g_i^2+3 ({ Y}_N { Y}_N^\dagger)
+{\rm Tr}[3({ Y}_U { Y}_U^\dagger)+({ Y}_N { Y}_N^\dagger)] \}
({ Y}_N { Y}_N^\dagger) \nonumber \\
& &\qquad \qquad +{1\over 2}\{({ Y}_E { Y}_E^\dagger)
({ Y}_N { Y}_N^\dagger)+({ Y}_N { Y}_N^\dagger)
({ Y}_E { Y}_E^\dagger)\}
\label{firstRG}
\end{eqnarray}
Here and subsequently we work at the one-loop level, and denote
the renormalization-group scale by $t \equiv \ln{\mu}$.
In the MSSM, $c^i_N = (3/5, 3, 0)$,
and we denote the Dirac couplings of other types of fermion $F$ by $Y_F$.
It is apparent from (\ref{firstRG}) that
large Yukawa couplings
have a bigger effect on
$m^{D}_{33}$ than on the rest of the mass-matrix
elements, and tend in general to lower $Y_N$.
This alters the structure of the Dirac mass matrix,
in turn affecting the magnitudes
of the mixing angles. These effects
become more relevant in examples where
cancellations between various entries
may lead to amplified mixing in $m_{eff}$.
However, we assume here that any neutrino-mass texture~\cite{GG}
is defined at the characteristic scale $M_N$ of the see-saw
mechanism. Therefore, in the current
discussion we use this first part of the run only in order
to define the initial conditions for the gauge and Yukawa
couplings at $M_N$, but not to modify the neutrino-mass texture.
Since the exact form of $m_{eff}$ depends on
the right-handed Majorana mass matrix, we
simply assume that this has the form that is required
in order to lead to a specific texture at
$M_N$.
Having set the initial conditions for
$g_i$ and $\lambda_i$ at $M_N$, we note that
${ Y}_N$ decouples
below the right-handed Majorana-mass scale,
where the relevant running
is that of the effective neutrino-mass operator
\cite{Bab,run}:
\begin{equation}
8\pi^2 {d\over dt}{ m_{eff}} = \{-({3\over 5} g_1^2+3 g_2^2)+
{\rm Tr} [3{ Y}_U { Y}_U^\dagger]\}m_{eff}
+{1\over 2}\{({ Y}_E { Y}_E^\dagger)m_{eff} +
m_{eff} ({ Y}_E { Y}_E^\dagger)^T\} \ ,
\label{MASSES}
\end{equation}
This is the basic equation for the running
of the various entries of the effective light-neutrino mass matrix.
We continue to work in the basis where the
charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal,
which is also the basis in which the neutrino-mass texture
is specified.
In previous work \cite{ELLN2}, we discussed the running of
the (23) mixing angle, but here we focus more
on the evolution of the $m_{eff}$ entries themselves,
extending our previous discussion to encompass
solutions to the solar neutrino problem.
For this purpose, we use the following differential
equations for individual elements
of the effective neutrino-mass matrix:
\bea
\frac{1}{m_{eff}^{ij}}\frac{d}{d t}m_{eff}^{ij}&=&
\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left( -c_i g_i^2 + 3 h_t^2
+ \frac{1}{2} ( h_{i}^2 + h_j^2) \right)
\label{RGmeff}
\eea
It is convenient for the subsequent discussion to
define the integrals
\bea
I_g& =& exp[\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}^t(-c_i g_i^2 dt)]\\
I_t &=& exp[\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}^t h_t^2 dt]\\
I_{h_i} &=& exp[\frac 1{8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}^t h_{i}^2 dt]
\eea
where in $I_{h_i}$ and $h_i$
the subindex $i$ refers to the
charged-lepton flavours $e, \mu$ and $\tau$.
Simple integration of (\ref{RGmeff}) yields
\bea
\frac{m_{eff}^{ij}}{m_{eff,0}^{ij}}&=&
exp\left\{ \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int_{t_0}^t
\left(-c_i g_i^2 + 3 h_t^2
+ \frac{1}{2} ( h_{i}^2 + h_j^2)
\right)\right\}
\nonumber\\
&=& I_g\cdot I_t \cdot
\sqrt{I_{h_i}} \cdot \sqrt{I_{h_j}}
\label{RGis}
\eea
where the initial conditions are denoted by $ m_{eff,0}^{ij}$.
As we have already noted, these conditions are defined at
$M_N$, the scale where the neutrino Dirac coupling $h_N$ decouples from
the renormalisation-group equations.
Using (\ref{RGis}), we see that an initial texture $m_{eff,0}^{ij}$
at $M_N$ is modified to become
\bea
m_{eff} =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{eff,0}^{11} ~I_e & m_{eff,0}^{12}
~\sqrt{I_\mu} ~\sqrt{I_e}
& m_{eff,0}^{13} ~\sqrt{I_e} ~\sqrt{I_\tau} \\
& & \\
m_{eff,0}^{21} ~\sqrt{I_\mu} ~\sqrt{I_e}
& m_{eff,0}^{22} ~I_\mu & m_{eff,0}^{23}
~\sqrt{I_\mu} ~\sqrt{I_\tau} \\
& & \\
m_{eff,0}^{31} ~\sqrt{I_e} ~\sqrt{I_\tau}
& m_{eff,0}^{32}
~\sqrt{I_\mu} ~\sqrt{I_\tau} &
m_{eff,0}^{33} ~I_\tau
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber \\
=
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
\sqrt{I_e} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{I_\mu} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{I_\tau}
\end{array}
\right)
\cdot
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{eff,0}^{11} & m_{eff,0}^{12} & m_{eff,0}^{13} \\
& & \\
m_{eff,0}^{21} & m_{eff,0}^{22} & m_{eff,0}^{23} \\
& & \\
m_{eff,0}^{31} & m_{eff,0}^{32} & m_{eff,0}^{33}
\end{array}
\right)
\cdot
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
\sqrt{I_e} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{I_\mu} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{I_\tau}
\end{array}
\right)
\label{factor}
\eea
at $m_{SUSY}$. We evaluate subsequently
the integrals $I_{e,\mu,\tau}$ appearing in this
renormalization.
However, we can already extract some important
qualitative information from (\ref{factor}).
$\bullet$
We first note that because of the factorization in
(\ref{factor}), although the individual masses and
mixings get modified, any mass matrix which is
singular with a vanishing determinant -
leading to a zero mass eigenvalue -
remains so at the one-loop level. However,
one should expect modifications at the
two-loop level, which might be an interesting
mechanism for generating a non-trivial but large
neutrino-mass hierarchy.
$\bullet$
The Yukawa renormalization factors $I_i$ are less
than unity, and lead to the mass ordering
$m_{\nu_e} > m_{\nu_\mu} > m_{\nu_\tau}$, to the
extent that such naive flavour identifications are possible.
$\bullet$
One would expect that for values of $I_{\tau}$
substantially different from unity - which occur for
large
$\tan\beta$ in particular~\footnote{Most
flavour-symmetry models in the literature assume
large $\tan\beta$.} -
the renormalization effects on the (23) sector would be especially
significant. However, there can be important effects even in the
first-generation sector. These can be significant for two reasons.
One is that, in view of the neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay analysis
given above, very small mass differences may be
required for addressing the solar neutrino problem, so
we should keep even small renormalization effects in mind.
The other is that, when off-diagonal entries in
$m_{eff,0}^{ij}$ are large as in the sample texture
(\ref{GGtexture}), the $I_{\tau}$ renormalization effects
feed through into all differences in mass eigenvalues.
$\bullet$
In the case of the mixing angles, we
recall that renormalization effects may either
enhance or suppress the mixing. In particular, it has been noted
in the case that $m_{eff,0}^{22} = m_{eff,0}^{33}$
and atmospheric-neutrino mixing is
maximal somewhere above the electroweak scale,
the maximal mixing may not survive down to
low energies if the $\tau$ Yukawa coupling is large,
at least for certain textures, depending on the magnitude of
the (23) entries. To illustrate this, we
will make some generic
comments on the case of $2 \times 2$
mixing, and we will
return to neutrino-mixing effects for the texture
(\ref{GGtexture}) in the next section.
In the case of simple $ 2\times 2$ mixing,
we see from
\begin{equation}
\sin^2 2\theta_{23} =
\frac{4
(m_{eff,0}^{23}) ^2}{( m_{eff,0}^{33} -
m_{eff,0}^{22})^2 + 4 (m_{eff,0}^{23})^2}
\end{equation}
that the degeneracy between
$m_{eff}^{22}$ and $m_{eff}^{33}$
becomes important only if
$m_{eff}^{23}$ is of the same order as
$m_{eff}^{33} - m_{eff}^{22}$.
It is known that large neutrino-mass hierarchies can be generated by
two-generation textures of the following forms
\cite{recent,ELLN2}
in the basis where the charged leptons are diagonal:
\bea
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
x^2 & x \\
x & 1
\end{array}
\right ), ~
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \pm 1 \\
\pm 1 & 1
\end{array}
\right ), ~
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1
\end{array}
\right ), ~
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x \\
x & 1
\end{array}
\right )
\label{tex1}
\eea
where the first solution has a large but
non-maximal mixing in contrast with the others.
For the first texture \cite{Grah}, where
$m_{eff,0}^{22} < m_{eff,0}^{33}$,
the renormalization-group effects on the mixing
clearly are negligible, and
the same is also true for the third texture, due to
the signs of the entries~\footnote{The
renormalization of three-generation textures is more complicated, as
we see in the next section.}. In the case of
the second texture, one expects mild changes
despite the fact that $m_{eff,0}^{22}
= m_{eff,0}^{33}$, because $m_{eff,0}^{23} $ is large.
In the fourth texture \cite{degen1},
$m_{eff,0}^{22}
= m_{eff,0}^{33}$, and $m_{eff,0}^{23}$
is small, which is exactly the type of solution that
is very unstable under renormalization-group running.
Finally, we note that solutions with small hierarchies and large mixing
\cite{degen2}
of the type
\bea
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
x & 1 \\
1 & x'
\end{array}
\right )
\label{tex2}
\eea
are also expected to be stable under the renormalization group.
To complete this algebraic discussion of renormalization-group
effects, we now comment on the second case of interest,
in which the neutrino-mass texture is assumed to be
generated by non-renormalizable interactions
at some relatively low mass scale $\Lambda \sim 10^5$~GeV,
such as $\nu_L \nu_L H H / \Lambda$.
In this case, there are no neutrino Dirac couplings to be
renormalized, so the renormalization-group running between
$M_{GUT}$ and $\Lambda$ is the same as equations
(\ref{MASSES}) to (\ref{factor}), with
Yukawa couplings only for quarks and charged leptons.
Below the scale $\Lambda$, $m_{eff}$ runs
in the same way as we discussed previously below $M_N$,
but the range of scales over which the
renormalization must be computed is greatly reduced.
\section{Numerical Results}
We now present some numbers for $I_\tau$ and $I_\mu$,
in order to exemplify renormalization effects on the textures.
We take as illustrative initial conditions~\footnote{Although the runnings
of the gauge couplings and of
$h_t$ factor out, they nevertheless affect the magnitude of $h_\tau$
and hence the exact value of $I_\tau$ that one derives.}
$\alpha_{GUT}^{-1} = 25.64$,
$M_{GUT} = 1.1 \cdot 10^{16}$~GeV and
$m_{SUSY} = 1$ TeV.
We also take $h_t = 3.0$, and choose $h_b / h_\tau$
such that an intermediate scale $M_N$ is
consistent with the observed pattern of fermion masses
\footnote{The choice of input parameters needed to
reproduce exactly the observed fermion masses depends on $\tan\beta$,
but incorporating this refinement is unnecessary for our purposes.
We comment only that, for small
$\tan\beta$, an intermediate scale $M_N$ may be
consistent with the values of $m_b$ and $m_\tau$ measured at
low energies, at the cost of a certain
deviation from bottom--tau mass unification
\cite{VB}, which may be $\sim 10 \%$
for $M_N \approx 10^{13}~{\rm GeV}$.
However, this may be corrected~\cite{LLR}, if there is
sufficient mixing in the charged-lepton sector. For completeness,
we note that we use $h_N = 3.0$: this choice has a small impact
on the initial conditions at the scale $M_N$.}.
We use the physical $\mu$ and $e$ masses to fix $h_\mu, h_e$.
Finally, we take $M_N = 10^{13}$~GeV as our default,
mentioning later the effects with a different choice.
The values of $I_\tau$ and $I_\mu$ that we find with these inputs
are given in the first three columns of Table~1 and
plotted in Fig.~1. These results may be used to
estimate the effects on the
neutrino eigenvalues, mixings
and mass differences in the specific texture (\ref{GGtexture}),
as shown in the last three columns of Table~1 and in Fig.~2.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
$h_\tau$ &
$I_\tau$ &
$I_\mu$ &
$m_{3}$ &
$m_{2}$ &
$m_{1}$ \\
\hline
3.0 & 0.826 & 0.9955 & 0.866 & -0.952 & 0.997
\\ \hline
1.2 & 0.873 & 0.9981 & 0.903 & -0.966 & 0.998
\\ \hline
0.48 & 0.9497 & 0.9994 & 0.962 & -0.987 & 0.9996
\\ \hline
0.10 & 0.997 & 0.99997 & 0.9478 & -0.9993 & 0.99998
\\ \hline
0.013 & 0.99997 & 1.00000 & 0.99998 & -0.99999 & 1.00000
\\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\caption{
{\it Values of $I_\tau$ and $I_\mu$, for $M_{N} = 10^{13}$~GeV
and different choices of $h_\tau$. Also tabulated are the three
renormalized mass eigenvalues calculated from the sample
texture (\ref{GGtexture}).
}}
\end{table}
We see that the
renormalization-group effects on the neutrino-mass
eigenvalues are significant. Since they
are larger for the second- and third-generation leptons,
as already commented,
we find the following ordering of the light neutrino
masses for textures with degenerate
eigenvalues at $M_N$: $m_{\nu_{e}} >
m_{\nu_{\mu}} > m_{\nu_{\tau}}$,
which is {\it incompatible} with MSW solutions to the
solar-neutrino problem.
It is apparent from Table~1 and Fig.~2 that the breaking of
the neutrino-mass degeneracy in this model is unacceptable
for any value of $h_\tau$ corresponding to $1 < {\rm tan} \beta < 58$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\vspace*{-4.4 cm}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=Fig1.ps,width=1.2\textwidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{-13.0 cm}
\caption{{\it Numerical values of
$I_{\mu}$ and $I_\tau$ for different
initial values of $h_\tau$, assuming $M_N = 10^{13}$~GeV.
The values of $h_\tau^0 = $ 0.013, 0.03,
0.05 and 0.5 to 3 in steps
of 0.5 correspond to tan$\beta$
1, 3.8, 6.5, 43.8, 53.6, 56.3, 57.4, 57.9 and 58.2, respectively.
}}
\vspace*{-2.4 cm}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=Fig2.ps,width=1.2\textwidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{-13.0 cm}
\caption{
{\it
Renormalization of $m_{eff}$ eigenvalues for different
initial values of $h_\tau$
corresponding to values of tan$\beta$ in the range 1 to 58,
assuming the particular
neutrino-mass texture (\ref{GGtexture}) and $M_N = 10^{13}$~GeV.
We see that the vacuum-oscillation scenario is never accommodated.}}
\end{figure}
We now discuss the renormalization of the neutrino
mixing angles, using
as a particular example the texture (\ref{GGtexture}).
Initially we make a generic discussion, based
on analytic formulas, and then we illustrate the
discussion using two numeric examples.
We consider the following parametrization
of a perturbation from the initial
texture, motivated by the structure (\ref{factor}):
\bea
{m_{eff}'} \propto \,
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & {1\over\sqrt2} & {1\over\sqrt2}
(1+{\epsilon \over 2}) \\
& & \\
{1\over\sqrt2} & {1\over2} & -{1\over2} (1+{\epsilon \over 2}) \\
& & \\
{1\over\sqrt2} (1+{\epsilon \over 2}) & -{1\over2}
(1+{\epsilon \over 2}) & {1\over2} (1+{\epsilon })
\end{array}
\right)
\label{GGtextureP}
\eea
where $\epsilon$ is a small quantity,
which might arise from renormalisation group running
or from some other higher-order effects
such as higher-dimensional non-renormalizable operators.
This perturbation lifts the degeneracy of the eigenvalues,
which are now given by
\bea
1, ~~ -1 - {\epsilon \over 4}, ~~1 + {3 \epsilon \over 4}
\nonumber
\eea
To this order, the eigenvectors
are independent of $\epsilon$ and given by
\bea
V_1 = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
{1 \over \sqrt{3}} \\ \sqrt{ \frac{2}{3} } \\ 0
\end{array}
\right ),~~
V_2 = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
{1 \over \sqrt{2}} \\ -{1 \over 2} \\ -{1 \over 2}
\end{array}
\right ), ~~ V_3 =
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
{1 \over \sqrt{6}} \\ -{1 \over {2 \sqrt{3}}} \\ {\sqrt{3}\over {2}} \\
\end{array}
\right )
\label{vec1}
\eea
so that the mixing expected in this
type of texture does not depend on $\epsilon$,
as long as it is non-zero.
However, this mixing is {\it not} bimaximal.
The vectors (\ref{vec1}) are also eigenvactors of the
unrenormalised texture (\ref{GGtexture}).
Since this unperturbed texture has two exactly degenerate
eigenvalues, there is
arbitrariness in the choice of eigenvectors:
the vectors corresponding to the
two degenerate eigenvalues can be rotated to different
linear combinations, which are still
eigenvectors of the neutrino mass matrix and
still obey the orthogonality conditions.
One example is the choice
\bea
V_1 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} V_1'
+ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} V_3' \nonumber \\
V_3 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} V_3'
-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} V_1' \nonumber
\eea
which gives
\bea
V_1' = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{array}
\right ),~~
V_2' = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
{1 \over \sqrt{2}} \\ -{1 \over 2} \\ -{1 \over 2}
\end{array}
\right ), ~~
V_3' = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{2} \\
\frac{1}{2}
\end{array}
\right )
\label{vec2}
\eea
corresponding to bimaximal mixing: $\phi_1 = {\pi \over 4}$,
$\phi_2 = 0$ and $\phi_3 = {\pi \over 4}$. However, one cannot
in general expect this combination of eigenvectors to
be stable when the degenerate texture is perturbed,
and the above analysis shows that, indeed, it is not.
On the contrary,
it is the direction given by (\ref{vec1}) that is stable,
and the absence of the parameter $\epsilon$ in the eigenvectors
indicates that we may expect only minor modifications
in the mixing, for $\tau$ couplings in the range $3.0-0.013$.
We illustrate the instability of bimaximal mixing
and the stability of the eigenvectors (\ref{vec1}) with a
numerical analysis
of two extreme cases with $h_{\tau}^0 = 3$ and $ 0.013$.
Using the values of $I_{\tau ,\mu}$
given in Table 1, we determine the full
renormalized mass matrices to be:
\bea
m_{eff}^{1,ren} =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0.705 & 0.64 \\
0.705 & 0.497 & -0.45 \\
0.64 & -0.45 & 0.41
\end{array}
\right), ~~
m_{eff}^{2,ren} =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0.7071 & 0.7071 \\
0.7071 & 0.5 & -0.499992 \\
0.7071 & -0.499992 & 0.499985
\end{array}
\right), ~~
\eea
respectively,
which are to be compared with the initial form
(\ref{GGtexture}) of the texture.
Then, for
\bea
U_1 =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.5804 & 0.8143 & 0.0065 \\
-0.7075 & 0.5003 & 0.4992 \\
0.4032 & -0.2943 & 0.8665
\end{array}
\right), ~
U_2 =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.57864 & 0.815578 & 0.00274 \\
-0.7071 & 0.5 & 0.5 \\
0.406418 & -0.29126 & 0.866021
\end{array}
\right)
\eea
we find that
\bea
m_{eff,diag }^{1,ren} =
U_1 \cdot m_{eff}^{1,ren} \cdot U_1^T =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.997 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -0.952 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.866
\end{array}
\right)
\eea
and
\bea
m_{eff,diag }^{2,ren} =
U_2 \cdot m_{eff}^{2,ren} \cdot U_2^T =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
1.00000 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -0.99999 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.99998
\end{array}
\right)
\eea
reflecting the reverse mass ordering
mentioned above.
On the other hand, as we have already remarked, the
eigenvectors (and thus the mixing matrices) are
stable.
It is easy to check that
the matrices $U_{1,2}$ are unitary ones,
and in the notation of (\ref{param}), correspond
to the values
\bea
\phi_1 \approx -0.327, ~~\phi_2 \approx 0.415, ~~
\phi_3 \approx -0.884
\eea
In our notation, atmospheric-neutrino mixing
is controlled by
the parameter $\phi_1$, for which
we find $\sin^2 2\phi_1 \approx 0.37$, whereas
solar-neutrino mixing is controlled by
$\phi_3$, for which we find $\sin^2 2\phi_3 \approx 0.96$.
We see therefore that even small
perturbations of exact neutrino
degeneracy cause large effects on the neutrino
mixing angles, which then {\em conflict with
the combined bounds from neutrinoless
double-$\beta$ decay and oscillation data}. This example shows
that the mixing
differs significantly from that postulated in
the unperturbed degenerate texture, an
effect not visible in a naive
$2 \times 2$ analysis.
Up to now we have been discussing the situation
where light neutrino masses arise through the see-saw
mechanism, and therefore $m_{eff}$ arises at
a scale $10^{13}$~GeV. However,
if $m_{eff}$ arises at a significantly
lower scale $\Lambda$, for example via effective operators of the form
$\nu_L \nu_L H H / \Lambda$, as discussed at the end of the previous
section,
the integrals $I_{\tau}$ and $I_{\mu}$ are now much closer to unity.
This happens because
(i) the range where $m_{eff}$ runs is significantly decreased,
and (ii) the starting value of $h_{\tau}$ at
$\Lambda$ is also smaller, due to the
run from $M_{GUT}$ to $\Lambda$ being over a
relatively wide range. Shown in
Table~2 and Fig.~3 are our calculations of
$I_\tau$ and $I_\mu$, using the same parameters as in
Table~1 and Fig.~1, except that now we run down from
$\Lambda = 10^{5}$~GeV, corresponding
to a scenario where $h_N$ is small
or zero~\footnote{Since the logarithmic
range of renormalization-group running is short in this
case, finite renormalization effects may be relatively more
significant than in the $M_N = 10^{13}$~GeV case. However,
their evaluation requires detailed modelling of thresholds,
which lies beyond the scope of this paper. We consider it unlikely
that the qualitative conclusions of this paper would be affected
by their inclusion.}.
The effects on the eigenvalues appear in Table~2 and
Fig.~4, from which we see that, although the
mass ratios are now closer to unity
than in the previous case,
the effects of the running can still
not be neglected,
when compared to the small mass differences
required by the solar neutrino data.
We again find that the full range $1 < {\rm tan} \beta < 58$
is excluded. On the other hand, the effect on the
mixing angle is similar to the previous case,
since it is practically unchanged under small perturbations,
as we discussed earlier.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
$h_\tau$ &
$I_\tau$ &
$I_\mu$ &
$m_{3}$ &
$m_{2}$ &
$m_{1}$ \\
\hline
3.0 & 0.973 & 0.9988
& 0.9795 & -0.9929 & 0.9992
\\ \hline
1.2 & 0.975 & 0.9995
& 0.9815 & -0.9937 & 0.9996
\\ \hline
0.48 & 0.986 & 0.9998
& 0.9897 & -0.9965 & 0.9999
\\ \hline
0.10 & 0.9999 & 0.99999 &
0.9993 & -0.9997 & 0.99999
\\ \hline
0.013 & 0.99999 & 1.000000
& 0.999992 & -0.999997 & 1.00000
\\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\caption{
{\it Values of $I_\tau$ and $I_\mu$, for $\Lambda = 10^{5}$~GeV
and different choices of $h_\tau$. Also tabulated are the three
renormalized mass eigenvalues calculated from the sample
texture (\ref{GGtexture}). }}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\vspace*{-4.4 cm}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=Fig3.ps,width=1.2\textwidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{-13.0 cm}
\caption{{\it Numerical values of
$I_{\mu}$ and $I_\tau$ for different
initial values of $h_\tau$, assuming $\Lambda = 10^{5}$~GeV.
The corresponding values of tan$\beta$ are roughly
the same as in the previous case.}}
\vspace*{-2.4 cm}
\centerline{\epsfig{figure=Fig4.ps,width=1.2\textwidth,clip=}}
\vspace*{-13.0 cm}
\caption{
{\it
Renormalization of $m_{eff}$ eigenvalues for different
initial values of $h_\tau$
corresponding to values of tan$\beta$ in the range 1 to 58,
assuming the particular
neutrino-mass texture (\ref{GGtexture}) and $\Lambda = 10^{5}$~GeV.
We see again that the vacuum-oscillation scenario is never accommodated.}}
\end{figure}
We comment finally on the
renormalization-group effects in the
minimal non-supersymmetric Standard Model.
The evolution equation for $m_{eff}$ is
\begin{equation}
16 \pi^2 {d m_{eff} \over d t}
= ( - 3 g_2^2 + 2 \lambda + 2 S ) m_{eff}
- {1\over 2} ( (m_{eff} (Y_e^\dagger Y_e) + (Y_e^\dagger Y_e)^T m_{eff}),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the Higgs coupling:
$M_H^2 = \lambda v^2$,
and $ S \equiv Tr( 3 Y_u^\dagger Y_u + 3 Y_d^\dagger Y_d + Y_e^\dagger Y_e
) $~\cite{Bab}. Although the running of
$m_{eff}$ differs from the MSSM, the structure is similar.
In particular, the contributions proportional to
$g_2$, $\lambda$ and $S$ are the same for all entries,
and thus the exponential factors that are
obtained by integrating the renormalization-group
equations multiply all entries,
just as $I_t$ and $I_g$ did in the case of the MSSM.
The term that
affects the relative runnings of the various entries
is again
$ {1\over 2} ( (m_{eff} (Y_e^\dagger Y_e) + (Y_e^\dagger Y_e)^T m_{eff}$,
though with a sign opposite from the MSSM, meaning that now
the Yukawa couplings increase the entries
in $m_{eff}$. An important feature
in the Standard Model,
since it has only one Higgs field, is that the mass
hierarchies between fermions with opposite electroweak hypercharge
have to arise purely from the
Yukawa couplings. Hence the
starting value of the $\tau$ coupling
is small in this case,
and therefore the effects are
expected quantitatively
to be similar to those in the
low-$\tan\beta$ MSSM,
but in the opposite direction.
This is interesting, since whereas
starting from degenerate-mass neutrinos
in the MSSM we expect low-energy neutrino hierarchies
of the type
$m_{\nu_\tau} < m_{\nu_\mu} < m_{\nu_e} $,
in the Standard Model we expect the opposite ordering
of masses: $m_{\nu_\tau} > m_{\nu_\mu} > m_{\nu_e} $,
which is the right sign for MSW solutions of the
solar-neutrino problem. However, the SM case shares with
the MSSM case the instability in the bimaximal mixing.
This means that the renormalized mass matrix is
again incompatible with the combined constraints from neutrinoless
double-$\beta$ decay and oscillation data, even
though the breaking of the
mass degeneracy might appear compatible with the
MSW solution to the solar-neutrino problem.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied in this paper the circumstances under which
neutrino masses can be degenerate and close to the
present upper bounds from Tritium $\beta$ decay and
astrophysics. We find that such schemes are
severely constrained. In particular,
the new upper limit on neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay~\cite{KKG},
in combination with the rest of the solar-neutrino
data, seems to exclude even
the large-angle MSW solution to the solar-neutrino problem,
and thus degenerate neutrinos may be compatible only
with vacuum oscillations.
However, in this case extreme mass degeneracy to one part in $10^{10}$
is required.
Even if such a degeneracy is guaranteed
by a symmetry at a certain scale, we find that renormalization
group effects lift this degeneracy.
In the MSSM with light neutrino masses arising through the
see-saw mechanism, the effects on the eigenvalues
are larger for larger $\tan\beta$, and have the wrong sign
for MSW solutions.
For a given $\tan\beta$, the effects are
reduced if $m_{eff}$ arises
via a non-renormalizable operator
such as $\nu_L \nu_L H H / \Lambda$ at a
significantly lower scale
than the $10^{13}$~GeV required by the see-saw.
Even in this case, however, the effects may not be neglected,
in view of the extreme mass degeneracy that is required.
Moreover, we find that even small perturbations shift the
neutrino mixing angles by finite amounts, violating
the combined constraints from neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay
and oscillation data.
Finally, we find in the minimal Standard Model
renormalization effects that
are qualitatively similar to those of the low-$\tan\beta$ MSSM,
but with opposite signs, thus leading to
reversed low-energy neutrino-mass ordering. In this case,
the large-angle MSW solution may survive, but the instability
in the degenerate neutrino mixing angles means that the
combined constraints from
neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay and oscillation
data are still violated.
Our analysis indicates that degenerate neutrino-mass textures
have many problems when renormalization effects are taken into
account. These results may provide hints on the appropriate
framework for flavour symmetries, with Abelian models~\cite{abel,LLR,Grah}
apparently favoured.
\vspace*{0.35 cm}
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements:} We thank A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa,
Y. Nir and S. Pakvasa, for comments on the paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
The global star formation history of the universe holds clues to
understanding the formation and evolution of
galaxies. The recent detections
of dust enshrouded galaxies at $z > 1$ at sub-millimeter
wavelengths (Smail, Ivison \&\ Blain 1997; Hughes et al. 1998;
Barger et al. 1998; Lilly et
al. 1998) suggest that significant amounts of star
formation activity at high redshifts may be obscured. UV-selected
galaxies most likely represent only one segment of the population of active
star-forming systems at early epochs. The difficulty in estimating the
degree of extinction in the rest-frame UV introduces significant
uncertainties in the star formation history
(Pettini et al. 1998;
Heckman et al. 1998; Blain et al. 1999; Malkan 1998).
Little is known about the properties of normal galaxies in
the region between $ 1 < z < 2$, where neither the 4000\AA\ break nor
the Ly continuum break are easily accessible. The determinations of
the global star formation history based on either the 2500\AA\ and
1500\AA\ continuum luminosities, or on the abundance of damped
Ly$\alpha$ systems (e.g. Pei \& Fall 1995; Madau et al 1996; Steidel et
al. 1998, Pei, Fall, \& Hauser 1999),
imply either a peak or a plateau in the $1 < z < 2$ range.
The near-IR offers one means of accessing both redshift indicators and
measures of star formation at these redshifts.
NICMOS offered a unique opportunity to perform slitless spectroscopy
in the near-IR. The extremely low background achieved on HST at
$\lambda < 1.9\mu$ allows for sensitive surveys for H$\alpha$ to $z =
1.9$. We carried out a survey of random fields with the
slitless G141 grism ($\lambda_c = 1.5\mu$, $\Delta\lambda=0.8\mu$),
covering a total $\sim 64$ square arc-minutes (McCarthy et al. 1999;
hereafter paper I). Our survey has equal or greater depth than
current ground-based narrow-band imaging programs, and due to its large
wavelength coverage probes an order of magnitude more co-moving volume.
The details of the survey and the spectra of the
emission-line objects are given in paper I.
In this $Letter$ we present the H$\alpha$ luminosity function at $ 0.7 < z <
1.9$ derived from the H$\alpha$ emission-line galaxy sample
described in Paper I. We also discuss the implications of our results
in the context of galaxy formation and evolution. Throughout this
paper we use H$_0=50$~km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and q$_0=0.5$.
\section{The H$\alpha$ Luminosity Function at $z \sim 0.7 - 1.9$}
\medskip
\subsection{The properties of the sample}
The bandpass of the G141 grism in camera 3 of NICMOS limits the range
of redshifts within which we can detect H$\alpha$ to $0.7 - 1.9$.
The identification of the emission lines
as H$\alpha$ is based on H-band apparent continuum magnitudes, their
equivalent widths and the lack of other detected
lines within the G141 bandpass.
In two of the three cases for which optical spectroscopy has been attempted with
LRIS on the Keck 10m telescope by Teplitz et al. (1999), the line identifications
have been confirmed by detection of their [OII]3727 emission.
These objects (J0055+8518a, $z=0.76$, J0622-0018a, $z=1.12$) are at the
low redshift end of our sample and therefore are the most accessible to
optical spectroscopy.
In the third case (J1237+6219A, $z=1.37$)
no emission or absorption features were detected in the spectrum.
\bigskip \subsection{Calculation of the H$\alpha$ luminosity function
at $z \sim 0.7 - 1.9$}
We used the $\rm 1/V_{max}$ method (Schmidt 1968) to compute the
luminosity function. Each galaxy is assigned a
volume, $\rm V_{max}$, equal to the volume within which it could lie and
be detected by our survey. We calculated the maximum co-moving
volume for each galaxy in each field with its appropriate line flux
limit. The maximum volume is defined as
\begin{equation} V_{max} = \Omega \times \int_{zmin}^{zmax} \left({c
\over H_0}\right)^{3} {1 \over (1+z)^3} {\left(q_0z +
(q_0-1)(\sqrt{1+2q_0z} - 1) \right) \over q^4_0 \sqrt{1+2q_0z}} ~~
dz~, \end{equation}
where $zmin$ and $zmax$ are the minimum and maximum redshifts. $zmin = 0.67$,
the lower spectral cutoff of the NICMOS G141 grism.
The maximum redshift at which an object can be detected,
$zmax$, is ${\rm min}(1.9, z2)$, where
$z2$ is computed from $D_L(zmax) = D_L(z)
\sqrt{f(H\alpha) \over f_{lim}}$, and $D_L$ is the luminosity
distance at redshift $z$. $f(\rm H\alpha)$ and $f_{lim}$ are the
H$\alpha$ line flux and the flux limit, respectively.
$\Omega$ is the solid angle subtended by a single NICMOS camera 3 image.
Only the central portion of each grism image
samples the full range of wavelengths from $1.1\mu - 1.9\mu$,
and the left and right portions of the image sample restricted
spectral ranges. The field of view subtended by the central section is
$\sim 31^{''}\times 49^{''}$; the two sides of the image
subtend roughly $10^{''}\times 49^{''}$ each.
Thus the volume must be calculated separately for
each portion of the detector. The grism sensitivity is a function of
wavelength and this influences the effective volume probed,
particularly at the ends of the spectral coverage, where the
sensitivity (and hence the available volume) fall off steeply.
The estimate of the source density in a luminosity bin of
width $\Delta(\log L)$ centered on luminosity $\log L_i$ is simply the
sum of the inverse volumes ($\rm 1/V_{max}$) of all the sources with
luminosities in the bin. The value of the luminosity function in that bin is
\begin{equation}
\phi(\log L_i) = {1 \over \Delta (\log L)} \sum_{\mid \log L_j - \log L_i \mid < \Delta(\log L)}
{ 1 \over V_{max,j}}
\end{equation}
where index $i$ labels luminosity bins and index $j$ labels galaxies.
The variances are computed by summing the squares of the inverse
volumes; the error bars of each luminosity bin are the square roots of
the variances.
The apparent luminosity function must be corrected for incompleteness in the
original source catalog.
The approach we adopted is similar to that used in
Yan et al. (1998). We chose
several well-detected emission-line galaxies spanning a range of W$_{\lambda}$
in the form of 2D spectra.
We dimmed these template spectra by
various factors and added them to the real NICMOS grism images at
random locations. We then applied the same detection procedure as
in the original analyses (see Paper I) to recover the template
spectra. The use of random positions in the simulation allows us to
include incompleteness corrections caused by crowding and spatially
dependent errors in the sky subtraction and shading corrections. We
added the dimmed template spectra to the 2D grism images with a wide
range of sensitivities to simulate the true distribution of
limiting fluxes in our survey fields.
The final averaged detection rate provides a
measurement of the dependence of the detection probability on the line
flux limits, as well as equivalent width for W$_{rest} > 50$\AA.
The incompleteness correction is applied
to each bin independently.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{f1.eps}
\caption{H$\alpha$ luminosity function at $ 0.7 < z < 1.9$.
The open and filled circles are the data points from our measurements.
The open circles represent the raw data and the filled circles
are the points corrected for incompleteness. The incompleteness correction
is only significant at the faintest luminosity bin. The open triangles
show the local H$\alpha$ luminosity function by Gallego et al. (1995).
The solid and dashed lines are the best fits to the data
at $z \sim 1.3$ and $z \sim 0$ respectively.}
\end{figure}
In Figure 1 we show our derived luminosity function and the local H$\alpha$
LF as measured by Gallego et al. (1995).
Our H$\alpha$ luminosities have been corrected
for [NII] contamination using H$\alpha$/[NII]6583,6548 = 2.3
(Kennicutt 1992; Gallego et al. 1996).
The solid and dashed lines are the
best fits to a Schechter luminosity function at $z
\sim 1.3$ and $z \sim 0$, respectively. Gallego et al. (1995)
derived $\rm L^\star(H\alpha) = 1.4\times 10^{42}$~erg s$^{-1}$, $\alpha =
-1.35$ and $\phi = 6.3\times 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-3}$. We
obtain $\rm L^\star(H\alpha) = 7\times 10^{42}$~erg s$^{-1}$ and $\phi =
1.7\times 10^{-3}$~Mpc$^{-3}$, assuming a faint end slope, $\alpha$, equal to
the local value of $-1.35$. Our sample is not large enough or deep enough to
allow an independent determination of $\alpha$.
Figure 1 shows strong evolution in the H$\alpha$ luminosity density
from $z\sim 0 $ to $z \sim 1.3$. This is no surprise given the evolution in
the ultraviolet luminosity density, but our result provides an independent
measure of evolution for H$\alpha$ emission alone.
The integrated H$\alpha$
luminosity density at $z \sim 1.3$ (our median $z$) is
$1.64\times 10^{40}$~h$_{50}$~erg s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, approximately 14 times
greater than the local value reported by Gallego et al. (1995).
Gronwall (1998) has reported a preliminary measure of the local star formation
density derived from the KISS survey that is consistent with the Gallego et al. value.
If the faint end slope is as steep as
-1.6, as found for the UV luminosity function at $z \sim 3$ (Steidel et al. 1999;
Pascarelle, Lanzetta \&\ Fernandez-Soto 1998), the integrated H$\alpha$ luminosity density
at $z \sim 1.3$ would be roughly 50\% higher still.
Two of the emission-line galaxies in our sample are possible AGN candidates. If we
remove the top three objects with the highest H$\alpha$ fluxes from our luminosity function calculation,
the integrated H$\alpha$ luminosity density is reduced by $\sim$~40\%, primarily due to
the decrease of L$^\ast$(H$\alpha$).
\section{Implications for the Evolution of Field Galaxies}
We converted the integrated H$\alpha$ luminosity density to a star
formation rate (SFR) using the relation from Kennicutt
(1999): $\rm {SFR}(M_\odot yr^{-1}) = 7.9 \times 10^{-42} L(H\alpha)
(erg~s^{-1}) $. This assumes Case B recombination at $T_e =
10^4$~K and a Salpeter IMF ($0.1 - 100~M_\odot$). This conversion
factor is about 10\% smaller than the value listed in Kennicutt (1983),
the difference reflecting updated evolutionary tracks.
While different choices of stellar tracks introduce modest uncertainties
in the conversion of UV and H$\alpha$ luminosities to star formation rates,
the choice of different IMFs lead to rather large differences.
To make consistent comparisons between our results and those in the literature
derived from 1500\AA\ and 2800\AA\ UV continuum luminosity
densities, we adopt the relation from Kennicutt (1999):
$\rm {SFR}(M_\odot yr^{-1}) = 1.4 \times 10^{-28} L(1500-2800\AA)
(erg~s^{-1} Hz^{-1}) $. This relation is appropriate for
the Salpeter IMF used to derive the H$\alpha$ conversion factor.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{The global volume-averaged star formation rate as a function of
redshift without any dust extinction correction. The open squares
represent measurements of the 2800\AA\ or 1500\AA\ continuum luminosity density by
Lilly et al. (1996), Connolly et al. (1996) and Steidel et al. (1998),
whereas the filled squares are
the measurements using H$\alpha$~6563\AA\ by
Gallego et al. (1995), Tresse \&\ Maddox (1996) and Glazebrook et al. (1998).
Our result is shown in the filled circle.}
\end{figure}
In Figure 2, we plot uncorrected published measurements of the
volume-averaged global star formation rate at various epochs.
The open squares
represent measurements of the 2800\AA\ or 1500\AA\ continuum luminosity density by
Lilly et al. (1996), Connolly et al. (1996) and Steidel et al. (1998);
the filled squares are the measurements using H$\alpha$~6563\AA\ by
Gallego et al. (1995), Tresse \&\ Maddox (1996) and Glazebrook et al. (1998).
Our result is shown as a filled circle.
The star formation rates shown in Figure 2 are calculated from
the luminosity densities integrated over the entire luminosity
functions, for both H$\alpha$ and the UV continuum.
Lilly et al. and Connolly et al. assumed a faint end slope of
$-1.3$ for the UV continuum luminosity functions at $\rm z \le 1$.
The 1500\AA\ continuum luminosity function at $z \sim 3 - 4$
measured from Lyman break galaxies by Steidel et al. (1998) has a
faint end slope of $-1.6$.
Glazebrook et al. (1998) measured H$\alpha$ line fluxes
for 13 CFRS galaxies at $z \sim 1$ and
concluded that the star formation rate deduced from H$\alpha$
is significantly
larger than that derived from the 2800\AA\ continuum luminosity density. Using
the conversion factors which we have employed throughout this paper
($7.9\times 10^{-41}$ for H$\alpha$ and $1.4\times 10^{-28}$ for
the UV continuum), we estimate that without correcting
for extinction the star formation rate derived from their H$\alpha$ luminosity
density is a factor of 1.9 higher than that inferred from the 2800\AA\ continuum.
The factor of 3 difference in the star formation rate between H$\alpha$ and
the UV continuum noted in Glazebrook et al. (1998) includes an extinction
correction. As discussed below, the magnitude of the extinction correction
is highly dependent on the relative spatial distributions
of stars, gas and dust.
Pettini et al. (1998) found the star formation rates
of Lyman break galaxies at $z \sim 3$ measured from H$\beta$ emission
to be $0.7 - 7 \times$ higher than those estimated from the 1500\AA\
continuum. Hogg et al. (1998) and Hammer et al. (1997) derived the [OII]3727
luminosity function and detected strong evolution in the [OII] luminosity
density to $z = 1.3$. The conversion factor from the [OII]3727 luminosity
to a SFR, however, can differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the metallicity of the gas
(Gallagher, Hunter \&\ Bushhouse 1989; Kennicutt 1992).
In contrast, H$\alpha$ provides a more direct measure
of the star formation
by effectively reprocessing the integrated stellar
luminosity of galaxies shortward of the Lyman limit.
Recent observations at sub-mm wavelengths indicate the star formation rate
at $2 < z < 4$ is larger than that inferred from the rest-frame UV luminosity density
(Hugh et al. 1998). The contribution of the sub-mm sources to the global star formation
history is uncertain at this time, as most of the sub-mm sources do not
have secure redshifts (Barger et al. 1999).
The clear trend for the longer wavelength determinations of
the star formation rate to exceed those based on UV continua is
one of the pieces of evidence for significant
extinction at intermediate and high redshifts. The amplitude of
the extinction correction is quite uncertain
(e.g. Heckman et al.
1997; Meuers et al. 1997; Steidel et al. 1998).
Our measurement spans $0.7 < z < 1.9$,
overlapping with the Connolly et al. photometric redshift sample and
allowing a direct comparison between the observed
2800\AA\ luminosity density and that inferred from H$\alpha$.
The emission line galaxies selected by our survey have
a co-moving number density
similar to that of the bright Lyman break galaxies
at $z \sim 3$, and a median H magnitude that corresponds to
approximately L$^\star$ (Paper I). While we are not comparing the
same individual galaxies, the rough correspondence in space density and
continuum absolute magnitudes between the UV- and H$\alpha$-selected samples
argues that they are drawn from similar or overlapping populations.
Our H$\alpha$-based star formation rate is three times larger than the
average of the three redshift bins measured by Connolly et al. (1997).
The star formation rates
derived from line or continuum luminosities depend strongly on the choice of
IMF, evolutionary tracks, and stellar atmospheres that are input into a
specific spectral evolution model. The relevant issue for the present
discussion is the ratio of the star formation rates derived from
H$\alpha$ and the 2800\AA\ continuum. As shown by Glazebrook et al. (1998)
this ratio differs significantly for the Scalo and Salpeter IMFs and
is a function of metallicity. Our choice of the Salpeter IMF comes
close to minimizing the difference between the published UV- and our H$\alpha$-derived star
formation rates.
The use of a Scalo IMF and solar metallicity would increase
the apparent discrepancy by a factor of $\sim 2$. The only model considered by
Glazebrook et al. that further reduces the H$\alpha$/2800\AA\ star formation
ratio is the Salpeter IMF with the Gunn \& Stryker (1983) spectral energy
distributions, and this model still leaves us with a factor of $\sim 2$
enhancement in apparent star formation activity measured at H$\alpha$.
If we attribute the entire difference to reddening, the total extinction corrections
at 2800\AA\ and H$\alpha$ are large and model-dependent.
The calculation is sensitive to the relative geometry
of the stars, gas and dust, as well as the adopted reddening curve.
In the extreme case of a homogeneous foreground screen
and a MW or LMC reddening curve,
we derive A$_{2800} = 2.1$~magnitudes.
In local starburst galaxies,
differential extinction between the
nebular gas, and stellar continuum, and scattering produce an effective reddening curve that is
significantly grayer than the MW or LMC curves
(Calzetti, Kinney \&\ Storchi-Bergmann 1994; 1996; Calzetti 1997).
The Calzetti reddening law (Calzetti 1997)
is appropriate for geometries in which the
stars, gas and dust are well mixed.
In this model, our estimate of the dust extinction
at 2800\AA\ is one to two magnitudes larger than in the simple screen case, and
is an uncomfortably large correction compared to results from other methods
(e.g., Heckman et al. 1998; Steidel et al. 1999).
The properties of the damped Ly$\alpha$ absorbers,
diffuse backgrounds and galaxy counts at long wavelengths provide
independent constraints on the amount of obscured star formation at large redshifts
(e.g. Pei, Fall, \& Hauser 1999; Calzetti \&\ Heckman 1998; Blain et al. 1999).
Our measurement of the global star formation rate derived from
H$\alpha$ agrees well with the model predictions in Figure 7 of
Pei, Fall, \& Hauser.
Despite our efforts to quantify the incompleteness of the
NICMOS grism sample, some biases remain. The low resolution
of the grisms prevent efficient detection of objects with
line fluxes above our threshold but with rest-frame W$_{rest} < 50$\AA.
The Gallego et al. (1995) survey has a W$_{\lambda}$ threshold of 10\AA.
Gallego et al. (1996) find that dwarf amorphous nuclear starbursts
have modest equivalent widths but contribute
little to the total luminosity density. Some of the compact starburst nuclei
will fall below our W$_{\lambda}$ threshold, and these objects
can have substantial luminosities. Their compact size mitigates against
this somewhat as our spectral resolution is best for point sources.
H$\alpha$ spectroscopy of galaxies from the CFRS sample at $z < 0.3$
by Tresse \&\ Maddox (1996) weakly suggests that W$_{\lambda}$(H$\alpha$)
and luminosity are correlated.
HST imaging and spectroscopic samples all suffer from a bias
against low surface brightness objects.
The slitless nature of our survey exacerbates the problem
as the spectral resolution is a function of apparent source size.
The half-light radii
of the emission line galaxies in our sample range
from 0.2$^{''}$ to 0.7$^{''}$ and the distribution is comparable to
that seen in significantly deeper fields, such as the HDF-South and deep
NICMOS parallel fields (Yan et al. 1998; Storrie-Lombardi et al. 1999).
The principal conclusions of this work are that the H$\alpha$ luminosity density at
$z = 1.3$ is an order of magnitude
larger than locally, that the global star formation rate derived from our H$\alpha$
measurements exceeds that from the rest-frame UV by a factor of 3 and the implied
extinction corrections are substantial. Although the characteristics of this particular
data set do not lend themselves to precise comparison between global averaged
star formation rates inferred from UV continuum and line-emission, the systematically
larger rates inferred from H$\alpha$ at all redshifts point towards
significant extinction at rest-frame UV wavelengths.
\centerline{\bf 4. Acknowledgments}
\vskip 7pt
We thank the staff of the Space Telescope Science Institute for their
efforts in making this parallel program possible. In particular we
thank John Mackenty, Duccio Machetto, Peg Stanley, Doug van Orsow, and the staff of the PRESTO
division. We acknowledge useful discussions with M. Fall, J. Gallego,
D. Calzetti and R. Marzke. This research
was supported, in part, by grants from the Space Telescope Science
Institute, GO-7499.01-96A, AR-07972.01-96A and PO423101. HIT acknowledges funding
by the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph Instrument Definition Team
through the National Optical Astronomy Observatories and by the NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
Perfectly secure communication between two users can be achieved
if they share beforehand a common random string of
numbers (a key).
A big problem in conventional cryptography is
the key distribution problem: In classical physics, there is nothing to
prevent an eavesdropper from monitoring the key distribution
channel passively, without being caught by the legitimate users.
Quantum key distribution (QKD) \cite{BB84,Ekert}
has been proposed as a new solution to the
key distribution problem.
In quantum mechanics, there is a well-known
``quantum no-cloning theorem'' which states that it is
impossible for anyone (including an eavesdropper) to make a perfect
copy of an unknown quantum state \cite{Dieks,WZ}.
Therefore, it is generally thought
that eavesdropping on a quantum channel will almost surely produce
detectable disturbances.
\subsection{Prior work on security of QKD}
``The most important
question in quantum cryptography is to determine how
secure it really is.'' (p. 16 of \cite{BC})
Indeed, there have been many investigations on the issue of
security of QKD. Most analyses have dealt with restricted
classes of attacks such as single-particle
eavesdropping strategies (For a review, see, for example, \cite{Lobook}.),
and also the so-called collective attacks \cite{scollect1,scollect2},
where Eve brings each signal particle into interaction with
a separate probe, and after hearing the authenticated public
discussion between Alice and Bob, measures all the probes together.
More recently, the most general type of attacks have been considered.
There have been a number of
proposed proofs of the {\it unconditional} security of
QKD \cite{sdeutsch,LCqkd,smayers1,smayers2,smayers3}
based on the laws of quantum mechanics.
Note that one should also consider problems of imperfect
sources, imperfect measuring devices and noisy channels
employed by Alice and Bob.
\subsubsection{Why is a proof of security of QKD so difficult?}
\label{why}
There are many types of eavesdropping strategies.
One could imagine that Eve has a quantum computer.
In the most general eavesdropping strategy, Eve regards the
whole sequence of quantum signals as a single entity.
She couples this entity with her probe and then
evolves the combined system using a unitary transformation
of her choice. Finally, she
sends a subsystem to the user(s) and keeps the rest
for eavesdropping purposes. Notice that
Eve can choose any unitary transformation she likes and
yet a secure QKD scheme must defeat all of them.
Two major difficulties are expected in a proof of security
of QKD. First, Eve tries to evade detection by attributing
noises caused by her eavesdropping attack to normal
transmission noise. Second, owing to the subtle quantum
correlations between Eve and the users, a na\"{\i}ve application
of classical arguments may be fallacious. Indeed, there
is a well-known paradox---Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox
\cite{EPR}---which
illustrates clearly the general failing of
na\"{\i}ve classical arguments in quantum mechanics.
\subsubsection{Two alternative approaches to proving security}
\label{ss:two}
Roughly speaking, there are two main alternative approaches to
proving the unconditional security of QKD.
The first approach deals with the most well-known
QKD scheme BB84 proposed by Bennett and Brassard \cite{BB84}.
The advantage of this approach is that it does not
require the employment of quantum computers by Alice and Bob.
However, all versions of current proposed proofs of unconditional security
based on this
approach require the assumption of a perfect photon source
\cite{smayers3}. (Earlier versions of \cite{smayers3}
have appeared as \cite{smayers1,smayers2} but
they are less definite.)
Given that a perfect photon source is beyond current
technology, proofs based on the first approach (just like those
based on the second approach) cannot be directly applied to
real-life experiments. See also \cite{Mayao}.
The second approach deals with QKD schemes that
employ the subtle quantum mechanical correlations---known
as ``entanglement''--which have no classical analog.
This approach was first suggested in \cite{sdeutsch},
which, however, assumes perfect quantum
devices. A more recent paper \cite{LCqkd}
addresses this issue of imperfect devices using the idea of
fault-tolerant quantum computation and quantum repeaters
(i.e., relay stations) \cite{Dur}. It also derives a
rigorous bound on Eve's information
under the assumption of reliable local quantum computations.
Note that the second approach requires Alice and Bob to possess quantum
computers, which are well beyond current
technology. However, the second approach,
as rigorously developed in \cite{LCqkd}, has a number of advantages.
First, it extends the range of secure QKD to arbitrarily long
distances even with insecure ``quantum repeaters''
(i.e., relay stations).
In contrast, such an extension with the first approach will
require perfectly secure quantum repeaters.
Second, when implemented over a noisy channel, QKD schemes
based on the second approach tend to tolerate a larger
error rate. Third, a proof of security and the tradeoff between
noise and key rate are much easier to work out in the second
approach. Fourth, the second approach is conceptually simpler.
Finally, some of the techniques developed in the second
approach have widespread applications. Indeed, it is plausible
that some of those techniques, when properly generalized, can be
applied to the first approach.
\subsection{Significance of Our results}
It has to be said that all previously proposed proofs of security of
QKD involve various technical subtleties.
Here we present a simple proof of
the unconditional security of QKD.
The proof, based on the
second approach, not only enjoys all the fundamental advantages mentioned
above of the recently
proposed proof\cite{LCqkd},
but also is conceptually simpler.
Besides, our proof gives us an extremely interesting new
insight on the well-known ``teleportation'' channel \cite{tele}: With a
classical random sampling method,
one can assign a set of {\it classical} probabilities to the various
error pattern of a {\it quantum} teleportation channel. Besides, the error
rate (the probability of having a non-trivial error pattern)
for each signal is independent of the identity of the signal being
transmitted. This is highly non-trivial because,
as noted in subsubsection~\ref{why}, the well-known
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox demonstrates that applications of
classical arguments to a quantum problem often lead to fallacies \cite{EPR}.
Another potential advantage of our proof is that, with
imperfect local quantum computations, it is
probable that a longer key can be generated by the
current scheme with the same quantum channel.
\section{Security requirement and ideas towards a proof}
{\bf Definition}: A QKD scheme is said to be unconditionally secure if,
for any security parameters $k, l > 0$ chosen by Alice and Bob,
they can follow the protocol and
construct a verification test such that, for
{\it any} eavesdropping attack by Eve that will pass the test
with a non-negligible amount of probability,
i.e., more than $e^{-k}$, the two following conditions are
satisfied:
(i) Eve's mutual information with the final key is always
negligible, i.e., less than $e^{-l}$ and (ii) the final key is, indeed,
essentially random.
{\it Remark}: The security parameters $k$ and $l$ depend on
how hard Alice and Bob are willing to work towards
perfect security (e.g., the
size of the messages exchanged between Alice and
Bob and the number of rounds of
authentication between them) and are,
at least in principle, computable from a protocol.
\subsection{A simple idea, its problems and our solution}
Consider the following simple idea of proof of security of QKD.
Alice prepares $r$ quantum signals and encodes their state
into a quantum error correcting code (QECC) (see, for example,
\cite{BDSW}) of length $n$ which
corrects say $t$ errors.
In addition, she also prepares $m$ other quantum signals
which will be used as test signals.
She then {\it randomly} permutes the $N=n+m$ signals
and sends them to Bob via a noisy channel
controlled by an eavesdropper.
Bob publicly announces that he has received all the $N$ signals
from Alice. Upon Bob's confirmation of the receipt,
Alice publicly announces the location of the
$m$ test signals and their specific state.
Now, Bob measures the $m$ test signals and computes their
error rate, $e_1$. Using the error rate $e_1$, Alice and Bob
apply classical random sampling theory in statistics
to establish confidence levels
for the error rate of the $n$ remaining (i.e., untested)
signals and, hence, produce a probabilistic
bound on the amount of eavesdropper's information on the
encoded $r$ quantum signals. [The point is that,
unless there are more than $t$ errors in the QECC, Eve
knows absolutely nothing about the encoded state.]
If Alice and Bob are satisfied with the
degree of security, they measure the $r$ quantum
signals to generate an $r$-bit key.
This raw idea looks simple, but it is essentially classical.
It will work if the following three requirements are satisfied.
(1) Each error pattern
can be assigned with a classical probability;
(2) Error rate of the signals are independent of
the actual signals being transmitted
(i.e., Eve cannot somehow change a non-trivial error
operator to a trivial one depending on which signals are transmitted);
(3) The quantum error correction and key generation can be
done fault-tolerantly.
Since applications of
classical arguments could be fallacious,
it would be na\"{\i}ve to assign a probability
distribution to the set of error patterns without a rigorous
mathematical justification.
In fact, rather disappointingly,
we are unable to establish requirements (1) and (2) for the most
general quantum channel.
Nonetheless, we manage to
complete our proof of security of QKD by the following line of arguments.
We notice that requirement (1) has already been established
in \cite{LCqkd} for the special
case of the transmission of some standard states
(halves of so-called EPR pairs).
Moreover, it is well-known in quantum information theory
that the transmission of any general quantum state can be
reduced to that of the standard state and classical
communication via a process called {\it teleportation} \cite{tele},
(which will be discussed in subsection~\ref{ss:tele}).
Our line of attack is, thus, to establish requirements
(1) and (2) for the special case of a teleportation channel
only.
In other words, we show that, by using teleportation to
transmit quantum states through a noisy quantum channel (which
may be controlled by an eavesdropper), the error rate
[i.e., the probability of having a non-trivial
error operator (or Pauli matrix) acting on the transmitted signal,
as can be estimated by a classical random sampling
procedure] is independent
of the quantum state being transmitted. This invariance result
ensures that, for a quantum teleportation channel, even
an ingenious eavesdropper
cannot change its underlying error rate and make it dependent
on the identity of
the quantum signals being transmitted.
This new insight of ours---the ``invariance of the
error rate of a quantum teleportation
channel''---will be stated as Proposition~5 and discussed
in subsequent
sections.
\subsection{Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pairs}
Readers who are unfamiliar with quantum
information should
refer to appendix~\ref{physics}.
One can measure a quantum bit (or qubit) along any direction
and each measurement can give two possible outcomes.
An Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair of
qubits has the following interesting property. If two members of
an EPR pair are measured along {\it any} common axis, each member will give
a random outcome, and yet, the outcomes of the two members will
always be anti-parallel. This is so even when the two members
are distantly separated. Such an action at a distance is at the core
of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and it defies any simple
classical explanation.
Now, if two persons, Alice and Bob, share $R$ EPR
pairs, they can generate a common random string of number (an $R$-bit key)
by measuring each member along some common axis.
The laws of quantum mechanics guarantees that, provided that
the $R$ pairs are of almost perfect fidelity, the key
generated will be almost perfectly random and that
Eve will have a negligible amount of information on its value.
In fact, we have
{\bf Lemma~1}: (Note 28 of \cite{LCqkd})
If Alice and Bob share $R$ EPR pairs of {\it fidelity} at
least $ 1 - 2^{-k}$, for a sufficiently large $k$, and
they generate an $R$-bit key by measuring these pairs along
any common axis, then Eve's mutual information on the final key will
be bounded by $2^{-c} + 2^{O(-2k)}$ where $c= k - log_2
\left[ 2R + k + ( 1 / \log_e 2 ) \right]$.
{\bf Proof}: In supplementary material of \cite{LCqkd}.
So, the Holy Grail of the second approach to
secure QKD is to construct
a scheme for distributing $R$ almost perfect EPR pairs even in the
presence of noises and Eve.
\section{Quantum to Classical Reduction Theorem}
\subsection{Theory}
A proof of security of QKD can be simplified greatly if one
can apply well-known powerful techniques in classical
probability theory and statistical theory to the problem.
However, as noted in subsection \ref{why},
applications of classical arguments to a quantum problem
often lead to fallacies.
A key ingredient of our current proof is, therefore, a
quantum to classical reduction theorem
proven in \cite{LCqkd}, which
justifies the usage of classical arguments.
Let us recapituate this quantum to classical reduction theorem
from the viewpoint of ``commuting observables'':
Conceptually, classical arguments work because all the
observables $ O_i$'s under consideration are diagonal with
respect to a {\it single} basis, which we shall call $\cal B$.
More concretely, let $M$ be the observable that represents
the complete von Neumann measurement along the basis $\cal B$.
Since $O_i$'s and $M$ are all diagonal with respect to the
basis $\cal B$, they clearly commute with one another.
Therefore, the measurement $M$ along basis $\cal B$ will
in no way change the outcome of subsequent measurements $O_i$'s.
Without loss of generality, we can imagine that such a measurement
$M$ is always performed before the measurement of subsequent $O_i$'s.
Consequently, the initial state is always a classical mixture of
eigenstates of $M$ and, hence, classical arguments carry
over directly to a quantum problem. In this sense,
the quantum problem has a classical interpretation.\footnote{This
quantum to classical reduction theorem is rather subtle. First,
the observables $O_i$'s under consideration
are coarse-grained observables (i.e. observables with
degenerate eigenvalues), rather than fine-grained ones (i.e.
observables with non-degenerate eigenvalues). It is {\it a priori}
surprising that coarse-graining as a mathematical technique
will give a classical interpretation to a quantum problem.
Second, the
eigenstates of $M$ employed in \cite{LCqkd} are, in fact,
the so-called Bell states (see
subsection~\ref{application} and appendix~\ref{a:Bell}),
which exhibit non-local
quantum mechanical correlations. It is {\it a prior}
surprising that such a non-local (or quantum mechanical)
Bell basis can have a classical interpretation.}
Mathematically, this quantum to classical reduction theorem
can be stated as the following theorem.
{\bf Theorem~2}: \cite{LCqkd} Consider a mixed quantum
state described by $\rho$ and a set of one-dimensional
non-commuting projection operators $Q_j$ on it. Suppose
there exists a complete set of coarse-grained
observables $O_i$ of $Q_j$ such that all the $O_i$'s commute
with one another. [Here, by coarse-graining,
one means that each $O_i$ can be written as a sum of
a set of {\it orthogonal} projectors $Q_j$ and
by completeness, one means that
$\sum_i O_i = I$.] Let us consider a complete
von Neumann measurement $M$ which commutes with all $O_i$.
[Because of the commutativity of $O_i$'s, such $M$ must exist.]
Let $| v_k \rangle$ be the basis vectors of $M$.
Then, Theorem~2 says that, for all $i$, we have
\begin{equation}
{\rm Tr} \left( O_i \rho \right)
={\rm Tr} \left( O_i \sum_k | v_k \rangle \langle v_k| \rho
| v_k \rangle \langle v_k| \right).
\label{e:theorem2}
\end{equation}
{\it Remark}: Physically, Theorem~2 says that the probability of
all the coarse-grained outcome $O_i$'s are unchanged by a prior
complete von Neumann measurement $M$.
The full power of Theorem~2,
will be demonstrated in Propostion~3.
{\bf Proof}: Sketch. By construction, for each $O_i$
there exist a coefficient $\lambda_i$ and a set $K_i$ such that
$O_i = \lambda_i \sum_{l \in K_i} | v_l \rangle \langle v_l|$.
From the definition of ${\rm Tr} A $ as $\sum_m
\langle v_m | A| v_m \rangle$, it is now a simple exercise to establish
Eq.~(\ref{e:theorem2}).
\subsection{Application to random sampling}
\label{application}
Consider the following example
(example (i) on p. 2054 of \cite{LCqkd}).
Suppose two distant observers, Alice and Bob, share a large number,
say $N$, pairs
of qubits, which may be prepared by Eve.
Those pairs may, thus, be entangled with one another in
an arbitrary manner and also with the external
universe, for example, an ancilla prepared by Eve.
How can Alice and Bob estimate the number of
singlets in those $N$ pairs? (By the number of singlets, here we
mean the expected number of ``yes'' answers if a singlet-or-not
measurement were made on each pair individually.)
The solution is the following random sampling procedure and proposition.
{\it Procedure}: Suppose Alice and Bob randomly pick $m$ of the $N$ pairs
and, for each pair, choose randomly one of the three
($x$, $y$ and $z$) axes and measure the two members
along it. They publicly announce their outcomes.
Let $k$ be the number of anti-parallel outcomes
obtained in this random sampling procedure.
{\bf Proposition~3}: (in Section VI of supplementary material of
\cite{LCqkd}) The fraction of singlets, $f_s$, in the $N$ pairs
can be estimated as $(3k -m)/2m$. Furthermore, confidence
levels can be deduced from classical statistical theory for
a finite population (of $N$ objects).
{\bf Proof}: A direct application of Theorem~2.
Let us order the $N$ pairs.
Consider, for the $i$-th pair, the projection operations
$P^i_{\parallel,a}$ and $P^i_{{\rm anti}-\parallel, a}$ for the
two coarse-grained outcomes (parallel and anti-parallel) of the measurements
on the two members of the pair
along the $a$ axis where $a = x, y$ or $z$.
A simple but rather important
observation is the
following: each of these projection operators can be
mathematically
re-written as linear combination of projection operators along
a single basis, namely Bell basis. (See appendix~\ref{a:Bell} for
details.) A basis for $N$ ordered pairs of qubits (what
we shall call $N$-bell basis)
consists of products of Bell basis vectors,
each of which is described by a
$2N$-bit string.
Now, let us consider the operator $M_B$ that represents
the action of a complete von Neumann measurement along $N$-Bell basis.
Since $M_B$, $P^i_{\parallel,a}$ and $P^i_{{\rm anti}-\parallel, a}$
are diagonal with respect to a single basis ($N$-Bell basis), they clearly
commute with each other. Thus, a pre-measurement $M_B$ by Eve along
$N$-Bell basis will in no way change the outcome for
$P^i_{\parallel,a}$ and $P^i_{{\rm anti}-\parallel, a}$.
With any loss of generality, we
can assume that such a pre-measurement is always performed before
the subsequent measurement of
$P^i_{\parallel,a}$ and $P^i_{{\rm anti}-\parallel, a}$.
In other words, we have a classical mixture of $N$-Bell basis
vectors and classical probability theory refering only to the
$N$-Bell basis vectors is, thus, valid.
For this reason, estimation of the number of
singlets as well as confidence levels of such an estimation
can be done by classical statistical theory.~QED.
\section{Our secure QKD scheme}
We remark that the fraction of singlets, $f_s$,
in Proposition~3 has the significance
as being the fraction of uncorrupted qubits in a quantum
communication channel shared between Alice and Bob in the
following situation. Suppose Alice prepares $N$ EPR pairs locally
and, afterwards, sends a member of each pair to Bob via
a noisy quantum channel controlled Eve.
As a result of channel noises and eavesdropping attack,
some of the $N$ EPR pairs may be corrupted.
Proposition~3 gives us a mathematical estimate of the
number of uncorrupted qubits in the actual transmission,
based on the random sampling of a small number of transmitted
signals.
Since quantum error correcting codes (QECCs) exist, it is
tempting to construct a secure QKD scheme by,
first, using the random sampling procedure to estimate the
error rate of the transmission and, second,
using a QECC to correct the appropriate number of
errors. To ensure that the sampling procedure is, indeed,
random, Alice should mix up the test pairs
with the pairs in the actual QECC randomly.
However,
as briefly noted in the Introduction,
the above idea implicitly assumes that the following
conjecture is
true. Let us consider the four error operators
$I$, $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$ and $\sigma_z$ for each
quantum signals transmitted. (See appendix~\ref{physics} for notations.)
{\bf Conjecture~4}:
The error rate of a quantum communication channel is
independent of the signals being transmitted.
More precisely, in the current case,
one can safely assign a probability for
each error pattern in analyzing the security issue of
QKD scheme.
While such a conjecture is intuitively
plausible, we are unaware of any rigorous proof for
a general quantum channel. To address this problem, we
prove a related but perhaps weaker result concerning
a teleportation channel. We make use of the
well-known fact that, any quantum signals can always be
transmitted to a quantum communication channel via
teleportation.
\subsection{Teleportation}
\label{ss:tele}
In teleportation \cite{tele}, a quantum signal is transported via
a dual usage of prior ``entanglement'' (i.e. standard EPR pairs
shared between the sender, Alice, and the receiver, Bob) and a classical
communication channel. The quantum signal in Alice's hand
is destroyed by her local measurement, which generates
a classical message.
This message is then transmitted to Bob via a classical
communication
channel.
Depending on the content of this
message, Bob can then re-construct the
destroyed quantum signal by applying one of the unitary transformations
$I$, $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$ and $\sigma_z$ to
each of his member of the EPR pairs originally shared with Alice.
Two points are noteworthy. First,
in teleportation the same
prior entanglement is shared by Alice and Bob,
independent of the actual
quantum signal that will subsequently be transported.
Now, since Alice always sends the same standard quantum
signal to Bob during the
prior sharing part of the teleportation
process, the discussion of classical random sampling
theory in subsection \ref{application} can be
applied directly.
Second, the re-construction step in
teleportation, if done with reliable quantum computers,
will not introduce new errors into the quantum system. Indeed,
if Alice and Bob use a {\it noisy} quantum state
shared between them for teleportation,
for each transmitted signal, the three types of
errors $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$ and $\sigma_z$
are simply permuted to one another during the re-construction
process. This idea is true even for a quantum
superposition of error patterns and entanglement with
external universe (as specified by the original noisy
quantum state shared between them).
Let us formulate this result mathematically.
Consider the teleportation of a system $\cal S$ consisting of
$N$ qubits from Alice to Bob with the most general mixed
state $\rho_u$.
Without loss of generality, a system decribed by
a mixed state can be equivalently described by a pure state of
a larger system consisting of the original system and an ancilla.
(John Smolin has coined the name ``the Church of the larger Hilbert space''
for this simple but useful observation, which has recently been
extensively used
\cite{sdeutsch,LCbitcom,Mayersbitcom,Lo}.
For instance, the generality of the recent proofs of the
impossibility of bit commitment\cite{LCbitcom,Mayersbitcom}
and one-out-of-two
oblivious transfer\cite{Lo} follows from this idea.)
Applying this idea to our current case, the state of
original system $\cal S$ (plus an ancilla $\cal R$ with which it is
entangled) can be written in the following
form (so-called Schmidt decomposition):
\begin{equation}
| v \rangle_{\cal RS}=
\sum_m c_m | w_m \rangle_{\cal R} | v_m \rangle_{\cal S},
\label{v}
\end{equation}
where $c_m$ are some complex coefficients, $| w_m \rangle_{\cal R}$ and
$| v_m \rangle_{\cal S}$ are some basis vectors of the two systems $\cal R$
and $\cal S$ respectively. The initial
state $\rho_u$ of the $N$ pairs shared by Alice and Bob can also
be {\it purified} in ``the Church of the larger Hilbert space''
as
\begin{equation}
| u \rangle = \sum_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N} \sum_j
\alpha_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N,j} | i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N \rangle
\otimes | j \rangle ,
\label{two0}
\end{equation}
where $i_k$ denotes the state of the $k$-th pair and
it runs from $\tilde{0} \tilde{0}$ to $\tilde{1}\tilde{1}$, the
$| j \rangle$'s
form an orthonormal basis
for the environment (or an ancilla
prepared by Eve), and $\alpha_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N,j}$ are some complex
coefficients.
Each state $| u \rangle$ represents a particular mixed state.
Note that $| u \rangle $ can be re-written as an
entangled sum of a linear superposition of various
error patterns. i.e.,
\begin{equation}
| u \rangle = \sum_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N} \sum_j
\alpha_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N,j} (\prod_k \sigma^{(k)}_{i_k})
| \Psi^- \rangle^N
\otimes | j \rangle ,
\label{u}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^{(k)}_{i_k} $ acts on Bob's member of the $k$-th pair as either
$I$, $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$ or $\sigma_z$ depending on the
value of $i_k$, and $| \Psi^- \rangle$ denotes an EPR pair.
With such notations, one can prove our main proposition.
{\bf Proposition~5: Invariance of error rate under teleportation.}
In the above notations, suppose the system $\cal S$ (described
by $| v \rangle_{\cal RS}=
\sum_m c_m | w_m \rangle_{\cal R} | v_m \rangle_{\cal S}$ of the combined system
$\cal R$ and $\cal S$ in Eq.~(\ref{v})) is teleported
using the $N$ pairs shared by Alice and Bob (described by
$| u \rangle $ of the combined system of the $N$ pairs
and Eve's ancilla in Eq.~(\ref{u})). Suppose further that the
classical outcome of Alice's measurements is $\{j_k\}$.
i.e., she
informs Bob to use the operator
$ \prod_k \sigma^{(k)}_{j_k}$ for the re-contruction process.
Then, Bob's re-constructed state for the
combined system $\cal R$, $\cal S $ and $\cal E$ can be described
by
\begin{equation}
\sum_m c_m | w_m \rangle_{\cal R} \sum_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N} \sum_j
\alpha_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N,j}
\left[ \prod_k \left( \sigma^{(k)}_{j_k}\sigma^{(k)}_{i_k}\sigma^{(k)}_{j_k}
\right)
\right] | v_m \rangle_{\cal S}
\otimes | j \rangle.
\end{equation}
{\it Remark}: The set of complex coefficients
$c_m \alpha_{i_1, i_2 , \cdots, i_N,j} $ remain totally
unchanged under teleportation. For each teleportation
outcome labelled by $\{j_k\}$,
the only real change lies in the conjugation action in
the error operator acting on the
subsystem $\cal S$. i.e., $\sigma^{(k)}_{i_k} \to
\sigma^{(k)}_{j_k}\sigma^{(k)}_{i_k}\sigma^{(k)}_{j_k}$ for
each $k$. (Recall that $\sigma^{(k)}_{j_k}$ is always
its own inverse.) Since under such conjugation
the trivial error operator (i.e., the identity $I$) is invariant
and the three non-trivial error operators $\sigma_x$,
$\sigma_y$ and $\sigma_z$ are permuted to one another,
the error rate of the teleported signal is
exactly the
same as the original $N$ EPR pairs.
{\bf Proof of Proposition~5}: A straightforward exercise in
quantum information theory \cite{tele},
which we will skip here.
\subsection{Procedure of our secure QKD scheme}
Having established Proposition~5, we now present the
procedure of our secure QKD scheme.
1) Alice prepares $N$ EPR pairs and sends a member of each pair to
Bob through a noisy channel. [In theory, quantum repeaters \cite{Dur} and
two-way schemes for so-called entanglement purification \cite{BB84}
(a generalization of quantum error correcting codes)
could be used in this step. The error rate here can,
therefore, be made to be very small and
the scheme works even for arbitrarily long distances.)
2) Bob publicly announces his receipt of the $N$ quantum signals.
3) Alice {\it randomly} picks $m$ of the $N$ EPR pairs for testing.
She publicly announces her choice to Bob.
For each pair, Alice and Bob randomly pick one of the
three ($x$, $y$, and $z$) axes and perform a measurement
on the two members along it.
4) Alice and Bob publicly announce their measurement outcomes
and use classical sampling theory to estimate
the error rate in the transmission.
{\it Remark}: Proposition~3 allows Alice and Bob to apply classical
sampling theory to the quantum problem at hand to estimate the
error rate of the untested particles. Alice and Bob then
proceed with quantum error correction in the next step.
5) Alice prepares say $R$ EPR pairs and
encodes the $R$ halves of the pairs (i.e., one member from
each pair) by a quantum error correcting code (QECC) into
$N-m$ qubits.
{\it Remark}: The requirement of QECC will be discussed in
subsection~\ref{ss:ftqc}.
6) Alice teleports the $N-m$ qubits to Bob via the remaining $N-m$
pairs that they share.
{\it Remark}: Proposition~5 guarantees the invariance of error
rate under teleportation. So, the estimate done by Alice and Bob in
step 4) remains valid.
7) Alice and Bob perform fault-tolerant quantum computation to
generate a random $R$-bit key by measuring the state of the
$R$ encoded EPR pairs along a prescribed common axis (say the $z$ axis).
\subsection{Fault-tolerant quantum computation}
\label{ss:ftqc}
From Proposition~3 and~5,
it is quite clear that, assuming reliable
local quantum computers, our scheme works perfectly.
However, since local quantum computations may
be imperfect, errors may be generated during the teleportation and
key generation, i.e., steps 6) and 7). One can easily take those local errors into
account by a choice of QECC with generous error-correcting
and fault-tolerant capabilities. The point is that
we have a very specific
and short computation in mind (measurement along $z$ axis only
and no
unitary computation at all). Based on any realistic
error model for quantum computers and concrete choice of
QECC, one can give
a generous upper bound on the number of local errors
due to imperfect quantum computation.
With a fault-tolerant implementation,
the total number of errors in the whole process (transmission,
teleportation and key generation)
can be bounded. Therefore, provided that
our QECC has a sufficiently generous error-correcting
and fault-tolerant capabilities, security is guaranteed.
[To be precise, in step 5), the $R$ EPR pairs
should be prepared fault-tolerantly in an {\it encoded} form
rather than in an unencoded form.]
We remark that, since the required quantum computation here is
much simpler than in \cite{LCqkd}, the present QKD scheme may be
more efficient than the one there.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
In summary, we have presented a simple proof of
the unconditional security of quantum
key distribution, i.e., ultimate security against the most general
eavesdropping attack and the most general
types of noises. Our scheme
allows secure QKD over arbitrarily
long distances, but it requires Alice and Bob to have reliable
quantum computers, which is far beyond current technology.
However, to put things in perspective, all proposed proofs of
security of QKD involve
assumptions (such as
ideal sources) that are beyond current technologies.
Notice that some of the techniques
developed here and in \cite{LCqkd} have widespread applications.
For example, Note 21 of \cite{LCqkd} shows
that teleportation is a powerful technique against the
quantum Trojan Horse attack.
A new application---use random sampling and
random teleportation to prove the feasibility of a general
two-party fault-tolerant quantum computation even in the presence of
eavesdroppers---will be discussed in appendix~\ref{a:two-party}.
In fact, some of the results are applicable even to the case when
Alice and
Bob do not have a quantum computer. A good example
is a quantitative statement on the tradeoff between information
gain and disturbance in BB84 \cite{LCqkd}.
We particularly thank P. W. Shor for inspiring discussions.
Very helpful comments from C. H. Bennett, H. F. Chau, and
John Smolin are also gratefully
acknowledged.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
This is the seventh part of our eight presentations in which we consider
applications of methods from wavelet analysis to nonlinear accelerator
physics problems.
This is a continuation of our results from [1]-[8],
in which we considered the applications of a number of analytical methods from
nonlinear (local) Fourier analysis, or wavelet analysis, to nonlinear
accelerator physics problems
both general and with additional structures (Hamiltonian, symplectic
or quasicomplex), chaotic, quasiclassical, quantum. Wavelet analysis is
a relatively novel set of mathematical methods, which gives us a possibility
to work with well-localized bases in functional spaces and with the
general type of operators (differential, integral, pseudodifferential) in
such bases.
In contrast with parts 1--4 in parts 5--8 we try to take into account
before using power analytical approaches underlying algebraical, geometrical,
topological structures related to kinematical, dynamical and hidden
symmetry of physical problems.
We described a number of concrete problems in parts 1--4.
The most interesting case is the dynamics of spin-orbital motion (part 4).
In section 2 we consider dynamical consequences of covariance properties
regarding to relativity (kinematical) groups and continuous wavelet transform
(CWT) (in section 3)
as a method for the solution of dynamical problems.
We introduce the semidirect product structure, which allows us to
consider from general point of view all relativity groups such as Euclidean,
Galilei, Poincare. Then we consider the Lie-Poisson equations and
obtain the manifestation of semiproduct structure of (kinematic) symmetry group
on dynamical level. So, correct description of dynamics is a consequence of
correct understanding of real symmetry of the concrete problem.
We consider the Lagrangian theory related to semiproduct structure
and explicit form of variation principle and corresponding (semidirect)
Euler-Poincare equations.
In section 3 we consider CWT and the corresponding
analytical technique which allows to consider covariant wavelet analysis.
In part 8 we consider in the particular case of affine Galilei group
with the semiproduct structure the
corresponding orbit technique for constructing different types of invariant
wavelet bases.
\section{Dynamics on Semidirect Products}
Relativity groups such as Euclidean, Galilei or Poincare groups are the
particular cases of semidirect product construction, which is very useful and
simple general construction in the group theory [9]. We may consider as a basic
example the Euclidean group $SE(3)=SO(3)\bowtie{\bf R}^3$, the semidirect
product of rotations and translations. In general case we have $S=G\bowtie V$,
where group G (Lie group or automorphisms group) acts on a vector space V and
on its dual $V^*$.
Let $V$ be a vector space and $G$ is the Lie group, which acts on the left by
linear maps on V (G also acts on the left on its dual space $V^*$).
The Lie algebra of S is the semidirect product Lie algebra,
$s={\mathcal{G}} \bowtie V$ with brackets
$
[(\xi_1,v_1),(\xi_2,v_2)]=([\xi_1,\xi_2],\xi_1v_2-\xi_2v_1),
$
where the induced action of $\mathcal{G}$ by concatenation is denoted
as $\xi_1 v_2$.
Let $(g,v)\in S=G\times V, \quad (\xi,u)\in
s={\mathcal{G}}\times V$, $(\mu,a)\in s^*={\mathcal G}^*\times V^*$, $g\xi=Ad_g\xi$,
$g\mu=Ad^*_{g^{-1}}\mu$, $ga$ denote the induced left action of $g$ on $a$ (the
left action of G on V induces a left action on $V^*$ --- the inverse of the
transpose of the action on V), $\rho_v: {\cal G}\to V$ is a linear map
given by $\rho_v(\xi)=\xi v$, $\rho^*_v: V^*\to{\cal G}^*$ is its dual.
Then adjoint and coadjoint actions are given by simple concatenation:
$(g,v)(\xi,u)=(g\xi,gu-(g\xi)v)$,
$(g,v)(\mu,a)=(g\mu+\rho^*_v(ga),ga)$.
Also, let be $\rho^*_v a=v\diamond a\in{\cal G^*}$ for
$a\in V^*$, which is a bilinear operation in $v$ and $a$. So, we have the coadjoint
action:
$
(g,v)(\mu,a)=(g\mu+v\diamond(ga),ga).
$
Using concatenation notation for Lie algebra actions we have alternative
definition of $v\diamond a\in{\mathcal G}^*$.
For all $v\in V$, $a\in V^*$, $\eta\in{\mathcal G}$ we have
$
<\eta a,v>=-<v\diamond a, \eta>
$.
Now we consider the manifestation of semiproduct structure
of symmetry group on dynamical level.
Let $F,G$ be real valued functions on the dual space ${\mathcal G}^*$,
$\mu\in{\mathcal G}^*$. Functional
derivative of F at $\mu$ is the unique element $\delta F/\delta\mu\in{\mathcal
G}$:
$
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
\lbrack F(\mu+\epsilon\delta\mu)-F(\mu)\rbrack/\epsilon=
<\delta\mu,{\delta F}/{\delta\mu}>
$
for all $\delta\mu\in{\mathcal G}^*$, $<,>$ is pairing between $\mathcal G^*$ and
$\mathcal G$.
Define the $(\pm)$ Lie-Poisson brackets by
$\{F,G\}_\pm(\mu)=\pm <\mu,\lbrack{\delta F}/{\delta\mu},
{\delta G}/{\delta\mu}\rbrack>.$
The Lie-Poisson equations, determined by
$\dot{F}=\{F,H\}$
or intrinsically
$\dot{\mu}=\mp ad^*_{\partial H/\partial\mu}\mu.$
For the left representation of G on V $\pm$ Lie-Poisson bracket of two
functions $f,k: s^*\to {\bf R}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\{f,k\}_{\pm}(\mu, a)=\pm <\mu,\lbrack\frac{\delta f}{\delta\mu},
\frac{\delta k}{\delta\mu}\rbrack>\\
&&\pm
<a,\frac{\delta f}{\delta\mu}\frac{\delta k}{\delta a}-
\frac{\delta k}{\delta\mu}\frac{\delta f}{\delta a}>,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta f/\delta\mu\in{\mathcal G}$, $\delta f/\delta a\in V$ are
the functional derivatives of f. The Hamiltonian vector field of
$h: s^*\in{\bf R}$ has the expression
$X_h(\mu,a)=\mp(ad^*_{\delta h/\delta\mu}\mu-{\delta h}/{\delta
a}\diamond a, -{\delta h}/{\delta\mu}a).$
Thus, Hamiltonian equations on the dual of a semidirect product are [9]:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:mua}
\dot{\mu}=\mp ad^*_{\delta h / \delta\mu}\mu\pm\frac{\delta h}{\delta a}\diamond
a,\quad
\dot{a}=\pm\frac{\delta h}{\delta\mu} a
\end{eqnarray}
So, we can see the explicit contribution to the Poisson brackets
and the equations of motion
which come from the semiproduct structure.
Now we consider according to [9] Lagrangian side of a theory.
This approach is based on variational principles with symmetry and is not
dependent on Hamiltonian formulation, although it is demonstrated in [9] that this
purely Lagrangian formulation is equivalent to the Hamiltonian formulation
on duals of semidirect product (the
corresponding Legendre transformation is a diffeomorphism).
We consider the case of the left representation and
the left invariant Lagrangians ($\ell$ and L),
which depend in additional on another parameter $a\in V^*$ (dynamical
parameter),
where V is representation space for the Lie group G and L has an invariance
property related to both arguments. It should be noted that the resulting
equations of motion, the Euler-Poincare equations, are not the Euler-Poincare
equations for the semidirect product Lie algebra ${\mathcal G}\bowtie V^*$ or
${\mathcal G}\bowtie V$.
So, we have the following:
{\bf 1.} There is a left representation of Lie group G on the vector space V and G
acts in the natural way on the left on $TG\times V^*: h(v_g,a)=(hv_g,ha)$.
{\bf 2.} The function $L: TG\times V^*\in{\bf R}$ is the left G-invariant.
{\bf 3.} Let $a_0\in V^*$, Lagrangian $L_{a_0}: TG\to{\bf R}$,
$L_{a_0}(v_g)=L(v_g,a_0)$. $L_{a_0}$ is left invariant under the lift to TG of
the left action of $G_{a_0}$ on G, where $G_{a_0}$ is the isotropy group of
$a_0$.
{\bf 4.} Left G-invariance of L permits us to define
$\ell:{\mathcal G}\times V^*\to{\bf R}$
by
$\ell(g^{-1}v_g,g^{-1}a_0)=L(v_g,a_0).$
This relation defines for any $\ell:{\mathcal G}\times V^*\to{\bf R}$ the left
G-invariant function $L: TG\times V^*\to{\bf R}$.
{\bf 5.} For a curve $g(t)\in G$ let be
$\xi(t):=g(t)^{-1}\dot{g}(t)$
and define the curve $a(t)$ as the unique solution of the following linear
differential equation with time dependent coefficients
$\dot{a}(t)=-\xi(t)a(t),$
with initial condition $a(0)=a_0$. The solution can be written as
$a(t)=g(t)^{-1}a_0$.
Then we have four equivalent descriptions of the corresponding dynamics:
{\bf 1.} If $a_0$ is fixed then Hamilton's variational principle
$\delta\int_{t_1}^{t_2}L_{a_0}(g(t),\dot{g}(t){\rm d}t=0$
holds for variations $\delta g(t)$ of $g(t)$ vanishing at the endpoints.
{\bf 2.} $g(t)$ satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations for $L_{a_0}$ on G.
{\bf 3.} The constrained variational principle
$\delta\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\ell(\xi(t),a(t)){\rm d}t=0$
holds on ${\mathcal G}\times V^*$, using variations of $\xi$ and $a$ of the form
$\delta\xi=\dot{\eta}+[\xi,\eta]$, $\delta a=-\eta a$, where
$\eta(t)\in{\mathcal G}$ vanishes at the endpoints.
{\bf 4.} The Euler-Poincare equations hold on ${\mathcal G}\times V^*$
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta\xi}=
ad_\xi^*\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta\xi}+\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta a}\diamond a
\end{equation}
So, we may apply our wavelet methods either on the level of variational formulation
or on the level of Euler-Poincare equations.
\section{Continuous Wavelet Transform}
Now we need take into account the Hamiltonian
or Lagrangian structures related with systems (2) or (3).
Therefore, we need to consider generalized wavelets, which
allow us to consider the corresponding structures instead of
compactly supported wavelet representation from parts 1-4.
In wavelet analysis the following three concepts are used now:
1).\ a square integrable representation $U$ of a group $G$,
2).\ coherent states (CS) over G,
3).\ the wavelet transform associated to U. We consider now
their unification [10]-[12].
Let $G$ be a locally compact group and $U_a$ strongly continuous,
irreducible, unitary representation of G on Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$.
Let $H$ be a closed subgroup of $G$, $X=G/H$ with (quasi) invariant measure $\nu$
and $\sigma: X=G/H\to G$ is a Borel section in a principal bundle $G\to G/H$.
Then we say that $U$ is square integrable $mod(H,\sigma)$ if there exists a
non-zero vector $\eta\in{\mathcal H}$ such that
$0<\int_X|<U(\sigma(x))\eta|\Phi>|^2{\rm d}\nu(x)=<\Phi|A_\sigma\Phi>\
<\infty,$
$ \forall\Phi\in{\mathcal H}$.
Given such a vector $\eta\in{\mathcal H}$ called admissible for $(U,\sigma)$ we
define the family of (covariant) coherent states or wavelets, indexed by points
$x\in X$, as the orbit of $\eta$ under $G$, though the representation $U$ and the
section $\sigma$ [10]-[12]:
$S_\sigma={\eta_{\sigma(x)}=U(\sigma(x))\eta|x\in X}$.
So, coherent states or wavelets are simply the elements of the orbit under U of
a fixed vector $\eta$ in representation space.
We have the following fundamental properties:
{\bf 1.}Overcompleteness:
the set $S_\sigma$ is total in ${\mathcal H}:(S_\sigma)^\perp={0}$.
{\bf 2.} Resolution property:
the square integrability condition may be represented as a
resolution relation:
$\int_X|\eta_\sigma(x)><\eta_{\sigma(x)}|{\rm d}\nu(x)=A_\sigma,$
where $A_\sigma$ is a bounded, positive operator with a densely defined
inverse. Define the linear map
$W_\eta: {\mathcal H}\to L^2(X,{\rm
d}\nu),(W_\eta\Phi)(x)=<\eta_{\sigma(x)}|\Phi>.$
Then the range $H_\eta$ of $W_\eta$ is complete with respect to the scalar
product $<\Phi|\Psi>_\eta=<\Phi|W_\eta A^{-1}_\sigma W^{-1}_\eta\Psi>$ and $W_\eta$ is
unitary operator from ${\mathcal H}$ onto ${\mathcal H}_\eta$.
$W_\eta$ is Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT).
{\bf 3.} Reproducing kernel.
The orthogonal projection from $L^2(X,{\rm d}\nu)$ onto ${\mathcal H}_\eta$ is
an integral operator $K_\sigma$ and $H_\eta$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert
space of functions:
$\Phi(x)=\int_XK_\sigma(x,y)\Phi(y){\rm d}\nu(y), \quad \forall \Phi\in{\mathcal
H}_\eta.$
The kernel is given explicitly by
$K_\sigma(x,y)=<\eta_{\sigma(x)}A_\sigma^{-1}\eta_{\sigma(y)}>$, if
$\eta_{\sigma(y)}\in D(A^{-1}_\sigma)$, $\forall y\in X$.
So, the function $\Phi\in L^2(X,{\rm d}\nu)$ is a wavelet transform (WT)
iff it satisfies this reproducing relation.
{\bf 4.} Reconstruction formula.
The WT $W_\eta$ may be inverted on its range by the adjoint operator,
$W_\eta^{-1}=W_\eta^*$ on ${\mathcal H}_\eta$ to obtain for
$\eta_{\sigma(x)}\in D(A_\sigma^{-1})$, $\forall x\in X$
$W_\eta^{-1}\Phi=\int_X\Phi(x)A_\sigma^{-1}\eta_{\sigma(x)}{\rm d}\nu(x), \
\Phi\in{\mathcal H}_\eta.$
This is inverse WT.
If $A_\sigma^{-1}$ is bounded then $S_\sigma$ is called a frame, if
$A_\sigma=\lambda I$ then $S_\sigma$ is called a tight frame. This two cases
are generalization of a simple case, when $S_\sigma$ is an (ortho)basis.
The most simple cases of this construction are:\\
{\bf 1.} $H=\{e\}$. This is the standard construction of WT over a locally compact
group. It should be noted that the square integrability of U is equivalent to
U belonging to the discrete series. The most simple example is related to
the affine $(ax+b)$ group and yields the usual one-dimensional wavelet
analysis
$[\pi(b,a)f](x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}f\left(\frac{x-b}{a}\right).$
For $G=SIM(2)={\bf R}^2\bowtie({\bf R}^{+}_*\times SO(2))$,
the similitude group of the plane, we have the corresponding two-dimensional
wavelets.
{\bf 2.} $H=H_\eta$, the isotropy (up to a phase) subgroup of $\eta$: this is the
case of the Gilmore-Perelomov CS. Some cases of group G are:
{\bf a).} Semisimple groups, such as SU(N), SU(N$|$M), SU(p,q), Sp(N,{\bf R}).
{\bf b).} the Weyl-Heisenberg group $G_{WH}$ which leads to the Gabor
functions, i.e. canonical (oscillator)coherent states associated
with windowed Fourier
transform or Gabor transform (see also part 6):
$[\pi(q,p,\varphi)f](x)=\exp(i\mu(\varphi-p(x-q))f(x-q)$.
In this case H is the center of $G_{WH}$.
In both cases time-frequency plane corresponds to the phase
space of group representation.
{\bf c).} The similitude group SIM(n) of ${\bf R}^n(n\ge3)$:
for $H=SO(n-1)$ we have
the axisymmetric n-dimensional wavelets.
{\bf d).} Also we have
the case of bigger group, containing
both affine and We\-yl-\-Hei\-sen\-berg group, which interpolate between
affine wavelet analysis and windowed Fourier analysis: affine
Weyl--Heisenberg group [12].
{\bf e).} Relativity groups. In a nonrelativistic setup, the natural kinematical
group is the (extended) Galilei group. Also we may adds independent space and
time dilations and obtain affine Galilei group. If we restrict the dilations by
the relation $a_0=a^2$, where $a_0, a$ are the time and space dilation we
obtain the Galilei-Schr\"odinger group, invariance group of both Schr\"odinger
and heat equations. We consider these examples in the next section. In the same
way we may consider as kinematical group the Poincare group. When $a_0=a$ we
have affine Poincare or Weyl-Poincare group. Some useful generalization of that
affinization construction we consider for the case of hidden metaplectic structure
in part 6.
But the usual representation is not
square--integrable and must be modified: restriction of the
representation to a suitable quotient space of the group (the
associated phase space in our case) restores square --
integrability: $G\longrightarrow$ homogeneous space.
Our goal is applications of these results to problems of
Hamiltonian dynamics and as consequence we need to take into account
symplectic nature of our dynamical problem.
Also, the symplectic and wavelet structures
must be consistent (this must
be resemble the symplectic or Lie-Poisson integrator theory).
We use the
point of view of geometric quantization theory (orbit method)
instead of harmonic analysis. Because of this we can consider
(a) -- (e) analogously. In next part we consider construction of invariant
bases.
We are very grateful to M.~Cornacchia (SLAC),
W.~Her\-r\-man\-nsfeldt (SLAC)
Mrs. J.~Kono (LBL) and
M.~Laraneta (UCLA) for
their permanent encouragement.
|
\section{Introduction}
The most important difference between mm and cm
interferometry is the effect of the troposphere at mm wavelengths.
The optical depth of the troposphere becomes significant below 1 cm,
leading to increased system temperatures due to atmospheric emission,
and increased demands on gain calibration due to variable
opacity (Yun et al., 1998, Kutner and Ulich 1981). Even more dramatic
is the effect of the troposphere on
interferometer phases. Variations in the tropospheric water vapor column
density lead to variations in electronic pathlength, and hence variations in
interferometric phase. This can cause loss of amplitude of the cross
correlations, or `visibilities',
over the integration time (`coherence'), reduced spatial resolution
(`seeing'), and pointing errors (`anomalous refraction').
Until recently, mm interferometric arrays have been restricted to
maximum baselines of a few hundred meters. Diffraction limited
resolution images at mm wavelengths can be made on such baselines,
since the tropospheric phase fluctuations on such baselines at good
observatory sites are typically one radian or less under good weather
conditions. However, many existing mm arrays are expanding to
baselines of 1 km or more, and the planned large millimeter array
facility at the Chajnantor site in Chile will have baselines as long
at 10 km. Even at this premium site, phase fluctuations due to the
troposphere will be larger than 1 radian at 230 GHz on these
baselines, except under the best weather conditions. Hence,
tropospheric seeing will preclude diffraction limited resolution
imaging at frequencies of 230 GHz for arrays larger than about 1 km,
even at the best possible sites, if no corrections are made for
tropospheric phase noise. At higher frequencies, the maximum
baselines which would permit uncorrected observations would be even
shorter.
In this paper we review the theory of tropospheric phase noise
in mm interferometry, along with examples showing tropospheric induced
phase fluctuations and their effect on
images made with interferometric arrays.
We then consider three techniques for reducing tropospheric phase
noise: (i) Fast Switching phase calibration, (ii) Paired Array phase
calibration, and (iii) radiometric phase calibration.
The first two techniques entail using celestial calibration sources
near the target source, with either a calibration cycle time fast
enough to `stop' the troposphere (Fast Switching), or by using some of
the antennas as a tropospheric `calibration array' (Paired Array).
We present extensive observational data
using the Very Large Array (VLA) in Socorro, NM, USA,
at 22 GHz and 43 GHz designed to
test the efficacy of these first two techniques on baselines longer
than a few km.
The radiometric phase correction technique entails real-time
estimation of the precipitable water vapor content along each
antenna's line of sight through the troposphere via a radiometric
measurement of the brightness temperature of the atmosphere above each
antenna. A number of issues are addressed, including: (i) the
required radiometric sensitivity as a function of frequency and site
quality, (ii) the constraints on ancillary data, such as atmospheric
data and models, in order to perform an absolute radiometric phase
correction, and (iii) the limitations to making radiometric phase
corrections by calibrating the relationship between brightness
temperature fluctuations and interferometric phase using celestial
sources.
\section{A General Description of the Troposphere and
the Mean Tropospheric Effect on Interferometric Phase}
The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere, extending
from the ground to the stratosphere at an elevation of 7 km to 10 km.
The temperature decreases with altitude in this layer, clouds form,
and convection can be significant (Garratt 1992).
The troposphere is composed predominantly of N$_2$, O$_2$, plus
trace gases such as water vapor, N$_2$O, and CO$_2$, plus
particulates such as liquid water and dust in clouds.
The troposphere becomes increasingly opaque with increasing frequency,
mostly due to absorption by O$_2$ and H$_2$O.
Figure 1 shows models of the atmospheric transmission
at cm and mm wavelengths for the VLA site at 2150
m altitude, and the planned
millimeter array (MMA) site in Chile at 4600 m altitude
(Holdaway and Pardo 1997, Liebe 1989).
The plot shows a series of strong absorption lines including the water
lines at 22 GHz and 183 GHz, and the
O$_2$ lines at 60 GHz and 118 GHz, plus a systematic decrease in the
transmission with increasing frequency between the lines. This
`pseudo-continuum' opacity is due to the sum of the pressure broadened
line wings of a multitude of sub-mm and IR lines of water vapor.
The plot for the MMA site at Chajnantor in Chile
includes the typical value for the column density of
precipitable water vapor, w$_{\circ}$ = 1 mm, while the water vapor
column for the VLA site is assumed to be
w$_{\circ}$ = 4 mm, where precipitable water vapor (PWV) = the depth of the
water vapor if converted to the liquid phase.
Figure 2 shows the relative contributions from water vapor and
dry air (O$_2$ plus other trace gases) for the VLA site. Below 130 GHz,
both O$_2$
and H$_2$O contribute significantly to the optical depth. Above 130
GHz, H$_2$O dominates the optical depth.
The troposphere has a non-unit refractive index, $n$.
The refractive index is defined by the phase change experienced
by an electromagnetic wave, $\phi_e$, propagating over a physical
distance, D:
$$ \phi_e = {{2 \pi}\over{\lambda}} \times n \times \rm D, $$
or, in terms of `electrical pathlength', L$_{\rm e}$:
$$ \rm L_{e} = \lambda \times {{\phi_e}\over{2 \pi}} = {\it n} \times D $$
The refractive index of air is non-dispersive
(ie, independent of frequency) except near the strong resonant
water and O$_2$ lines, and is typically given as a difference
with respect to vacuum ($n_{vacuum}$ $\equiv$ 1),
in parts per million, $N$, as (Waters 1976):
$$ N \equiv (n - 1) \times 10^{6} $$
The index of refraction of air is typically separated into
the dry air component, $N_{d}$, and the water vapor component,
$N_{wv}$. These terms behave as (Waters 1976, Bean and Dutton
1968):
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{d} = 2.2 \times 10^{5} \times \rho_{tot} \nonumber \\
N_{wv} = 1.7 \times 10^{9} \times {{\rho_{wv}}\over{\rm T_{\rm atm}}}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{tot}$ is the total mass density in gm cm$^{-3}$,
and $\rho_{wv}$ is the water vapor mass density.
The inverse
dependence on temperature for $N_{wv}$ is due to the
increased effect of collisions on the (mis-)alignment of the permanent
electric dipole moments of the water molecules with increasing
temperature (Waters 1976, Bean and Dutton 1968).
A detailed derivation of these relationships can be found in
Thompson, Moran, and Swenson (1986).
For water vapor alone, it can be shown that $\rho_{wv}$ = ${\rm
w}\over{\rm D}$. Using the equations above then leads to the
relationship between the electrical pathlength, L$_{\rm e}$, and the
precipitable water vapor column, w:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm L_e = 1.7\times10^3 {{w}\over{T_{\rm atm}}} \approx 6.3\times\rm w
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
or:
\begin{equation}
\phi_e \approx {{12.6 \pi}\over{\lambda}} \times \rm w
\end{equation}
for T$_{\rm atm}$ $\approx$ 270 K. This relation between electrical
pathlength and precipitable water vapor column
has been verified experimentally for a number of atmospheric
conditions (Hogg, Guiraud, and Decker 1981).
\section{Phase Variations due to the Troposphere}
Variations in precipitable water vapor lead to
variations in the effective electrical path length, corresponding
to variations in the phase of an electromagnetic wave
propagating through the troposphere (Tatarskii 1978).
Such variations are seen as
`phase noise' by radio interferometers. Since the troposphere is
non-dispersive, the phase contribution by a given amount of water vapor
increases linearly with frequency (except in the vicinity of
the strong water lines). Hence, tropospheric phase
variations are most prominent for mm and
sub-mm interferometers, and can be the limiting factor for
the coherence time and spatial resolution of mm interferometers
(Hinder and Ryle 1971, Lay 1997, Wright 1996).
The standard model for tropospheric phase
fluctuations involves variations in the water vapor column density
in a turbulent layer in the troposphere with
a mean height, h$_{\rm turb}$, and a vertical extent, W, which
moves at some velocity, v$_a$.
This model includes the `Taylor hypothesis', or `frozen screen
approximation', which states that: `if the turbulent intensity
is low and the turbulence is approximately stationary and homogeneous,
then the turbulent field is unchanged over the atmospheric boundary
layer time scales of interest and advected with the mean wind'
(Taylor 1938, Garratt 1992).
Under this assumption one can relate temporal and spatial
phase fluctuations with a simple Eulerian transformation
between baseline length, b, and v$_a$:~ b = v$_a$$\times$time.
In the following sections we adopt a value of
v$_a$ = 10 m s$^{-1}$. This process is shown schematically in Figure
3.
A demonstration of tropospheric phase fluctuations is shown in Figure
4 for observations made with the VLA at 22 GHz. The VLA is an
aperture synthesis array comprised of 27 parabolic
antennas of 25m diameter, operating at frequencies from 75 MHz to 50
GHz (Napier, Thompson, and Ekers 1983). The antennas are situated in a
`Y' pattern, along three arms situated north, southwest, and
southeast. The maximum physical baseline in the largest configuration
is 33 km. The complex cross correlations of the electric fields
measured at each antenna are calculated between all pairs of antennas
(`interferometers') as a function of time.
The Fourier transform of
these measurements of the spatial coherence function of the electric
field then gives the sky brightness distribution (Clark 1998).
For these observations, two
subarrays were employed, one observing the celestial calibrator
0423+418, and the second observing the calibrator 0432+416.
The sub-arrays were `inter-laced', meaning that every second antenna
along each arm of the array observed a given source.
Antenna-based phase and amplitude solutions were derived from the data
in each sub-array using self-calibration
with an averaging time of 30 sec (Cornwell 1998).
Figure 4 shows the
antenna-based phase solutions from two pairs
of neighboring antennas along the southwest arm. The antennas at
stations W16 and W4 were
observing 0423+418 while the antennas at W18 and W6 were observing
0432+416. For adjacent pairs of antennas (W16-W18 and W6-W4) the
temporal variations in the phase track each other closely.
This close relationship for phase variations
between neighboring antennas in the two different
subarrays is the signature that the phase
variations are primarily tropospheric in origin, and are correlated on
relevant timescales and baseline lengths.
An important aspect of tropospheric phase fluctuations arising from
the Taylor hypothesis is the relationship between the amplitude of the
fluctuations and the time scale: large amplitude fluctuations occur
over long periods and are partially correlated between antennas,
while small amplitude fluctuations occur over short periods and are
uncorrelated between antennas, depending on the baseline length.
This effect can be seen in Figure 4 by the fact that the antennas at
the outer stations (W14 and W16) show larger amplitude fluctuations
relative to the inner stations (W4 and W6). This occurs because the
antenna-based phase solutions for each subarray are referenced to
antennas at the
center of the array, such that the reference antennas are within about
250 m of W4 and W6, but are separated from W16 and W14 by about
2000 m.
An example of what occurs in the image plane due to tropospheric phase
fluctuations is shown in Figure 5. Observations were made of the
celestial calibrator 2007+404 at 22 GHz with the VLA at a resolution
of 0.1$''$ (maximum baseline = 30 km) for a period of 1 hour.
The data were self-calibrated using a long solution averaging time of
30 minutes, ie. just a mean phase was removed from each half of the
data. `Snap-shot' images were then made from one minute of data at the
beginning and end of the observation (upper left and upper right
frames in Figure 5, respectively). Two important trends are apparent
in these two frames. First, notice the positive-negative
side-lobe pairs straddling the peak, indicative of antenna-based
phase errors (Ekers 1998). These image artifacts are due to phase
fluctuations which arise in small scale water vapor structures in the
troposphere that are not correlated between antennas. Second, notice
that the peak in each image has shifted from the true source position.
This position shift is due to phase fluctuations
which arise in large scale water vapor structures in the troposphere
that are correlated between antennas, ie. a phase gradient across the
array. These two frames are analogous to optical `speckle' images,
although the timescales in the radio are much longer than in the
optical due to the larger spatial scales for the turbulence.
The lower left frame shows the image of 2007+404 made using the
full hour of data, but with a self-calibration averaging time of
30 minutes. The source appears extended in this image. The lower right
frame shows the same image after self-calibration with an averaging
time of 30 seconds, and in this case the source is
unresolved, ie. the source size is equivalent, within the noise, to
the interferometric synthesized beam.
The lower left image has a peak surface brightness of 1.0
Jy beam$^{-1}$, an off-source rms noise level of 47 mJy beam$^{-1}$,
and a total flux density of 1.5 Jy. The lower right
image has a peak surface brightness of 1.6
Jy beam$^{-1}$, an off-source rms noise level of 5 mJy beam$^{-1}$,
and a total flux density of 1.6 Jy.
Not correcting for tropospheric phase noise in the lower left frame
has: (i) increased the off-source
noise in the image, (ii) decreased the `coherence' (ie. lowered
the peak surface brightness),
and (iii) degraded the resolution (`seeing').
The important lesson from Figure 5 is that, while tropospheric phase
errors can be quantified in terms of an antenna-based phase error, the
errors are partially correlated between antennas on certain
spatial and temporal scales, leading to positional shifts of sources
as well as the standard positive-negative side-lobe pairs.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that short baselines
only `sample' the power in the phase screen on scales of order
the baseline length.
\section{Root Phase Structure Function}
Tropospheric phase fluctuations are usually
characterized by the spatial phase structure function, $\rm D_{\Phi}(b)$,
\begin{equation}
\rm D_{\Phi}(b) \equiv \langle ( \Phi(x + b) - \Phi(x) )^2 \rangle,
\end{equation}
where b is the distance between two antennas, $\rm \Phi(x + b)$ is the
atmospheric phase measured at one antenna and $\rm \Phi(x)$ is the
atmospheric phase measured at the second antenna, and the brackets
represent an ensemble average. Usually in radio astronomy the
ensemble average is replaced by a time average on one particular
baseline. An interferometric array will sample the phase structure
function at several baselines. For a single interferometer, the
Taylor hypothesis (which asserts that temporal phase fluctuations are
equivalent to spatial phase fluctuations) permits us to measure
temporal phase fluctuations on a single baseline and translate these
into the equivalent spatial phase structure function. In the
following discussion we consider the square root of the phase
structure function (the `root phase structure function'), which
corresponds to the rms phase variations as a function of baseline
length:
$$\rm \Phi_{rms} \equiv \sqrt{D_{\Phi}}$$.
Kolmogorov turbulence theory (Coulman 1990) predicts a function of
the form:
\begin{equation}
\rm \Phi_{\rm rms}(b) = {K\over{\lambda_{mm}}} ~b^{\alpha}
~~ deg,
\end{equation}
where b is in km, and $\lambda$ is in mm. A
typical value of K = 100 for the MMA site in Chajnantor under
good weather conditions, and K = 300 is typical
for the VLA site (Carilli, Holdaway, and Sowinski 1996, Sramek 1990).
Kolmogorov turbulence theory predicts
$\alpha$ = ${1\over3}$ for baselines longer than the width of the
turbulent layer, W, and $\alpha$ = ${5\over6}$ for baselines
shorter than W (Coulman 1990). The change in power-law index at b $=$
W is due to the finite vertical extent
of the turbulent layer. For baselines
shorter than W the full 3-dimensionality
of the turbulence is involved (thick-screen), while for longer baselines
a 2-dimensional approximation applies (thin-screen).
Turbulence theory also predicts an `outer-scale', L$_{\circ}$, beyond which the
rms phase variations should not increase with baseline length
(ie. $\alpha$ = 0). This scale corresponds to
the largest coherent structures, or maximum correlation length,
for water vapor fluctuations in the troposphere, presumably set by
external boundary conditions.
Recent observations with the VLA
support Kolmogorov theory for tropospheric phase fluctuations.
Figure 6 shows the root phase structure function made using the BnA
configuration of the VLA. This configuration has good baseline
coverage ranging from 200m to 20 km, hence sampling all three
hypothesized ranges in the structure function.
Observations were made at 22 GHz of
the VLA calibration source 0748+240. The total observing time
was 90 min, corresponding to a tropospheric travel distance of 54 km,
using v$_a$ = 10 m s$^{-1}$ (see section 6.2).
The open circles show the nominal tropospheric root phase structure
function over the full 90 min time range.\footnote{Note that the
total observing time for calculating the rms phase fluctuations
must be long for the larger configurations of the
VLA, since the phase variations on a
given baseline may have a significant, and perhaps even dominant,
contribution from structures in the troposphere as large as five times
the baseline length (Lay 1997).}
The solid squares are the rms phases after subtracting (in
quadrature) a constant electronic noise term of 10$^{\circ}$, as derived from
the data by requiring the best power-law on short baselines.
The 10$^{\circ}$ noise term is consistent with previous measurements at the
VLA indicating electronic phase noise increasing with frequency as
0.5$^{\circ}$ per GHz (Carilli and Holdaway 1996).
The three regimes of the structure function as predicted
by Kolmogorov theory are verified in Figure 6.
On short baselines (b $\le$ 1.2 km) the measured power-law index
is 0.85$\pm$0.03 and the predicted value is 0.83. On intermediate
baselines (1.2 $\le$ b $\le$ 6 km)
the measured index is 0.41$\pm$ 0.03 and the predicted value
is 0.33. On long baselines (b $\ge$ 6 km) the measured index is
0.1$\pm$0.2 and the predicted value is zero. The implication is that
the vertical extent of the turbulent layer is:~ W
$\approx$ 1 km, and that the outer scale of the turbulence is:~
L$_{\circ}$ $\approx$ 6 km. The increase in the scatter of the rms phases
for baselines longer than
6 km may be due to an anisotropic outer scale (Carilli and
Holdaway 1997).
In practice, single baseline
site testing interferometers tend to see values of $\alpha$ which form a
continuous distribution between the theoretical thin and thick layer
values of ${1\over3}$ and ${5\over6}$
(Holdaway et al., 1995). The distribution cuts off
fairly sharply at these two theoretical values. Such a distribution
could be due to the presence of both a thin turbulent layer associated
with the ground or an inversion layer and a thick turbulent layer. By
changing the relative weight of each of these two layers with their
theoretical power law exponents, the resulting phase structure
function will be very close to a power law with an exponent between
the two theoretical values. Alternatively, the intermediate power law values
could just reflect the transition between thin and thick turbulence.
\section{Effects of Tropospheric Phase Noise}
\subsection{Coherence}
Tropospheric phase noise leads to a number of adverse effects on
interferometric observations at mm wavelengths. First is the loss of
coherence of a measured visibility on a given baseline over a given
averaging time due to phase variations. For a given visibility, V =
V$_{\circ}$e$^{i \phi}$, the effect on the measured amplitude due to phase
noise in a given averaging in time is:
\begin{equation}
<\rm V> = \rm V_{\circ} \times <e^{i \phi}> = V_{\circ} \times e^{-\phi_{\rm rms}^2/2}
\end{equation}
assuming Gaussian random phase fluctuations with an
rms variation of $\phi_{\rm rms}$ over the averaging time (Thompson,
Moran, and Swenson 1986). For example,
for $\phi_{\rm rms}$ = 1 rad, the coherence is:~ ${<\rm V>}\over{\rm
V_{\circ}}$ = 0.60, meaning the observed visibility amplitude is reduced by
40$\%$ from the true value.
\subsection{Seeing}
A second effect of tropospheric phase
fluctuations is to
limit the spatial resolution of an observation in a manner analogous to
optical seeing, where optical seeing is due to thermal
fluctuations rather than water vapor fluctuations.
Since interferometric phase corresponds to the
measurement of the position of a point
source (Perley 1998), it is clear that
phase variations due to the troposphere will lead to positional
variations of a source, and hence `smear-out' a point source image
over time (Figure 5). The magnitude of tropospheric seeing can be
calculated by considering the coherence as a function of baseline
length. Since the coherence decreases for longer baselines given an
averaging time long compared to the array crossing time, the observed
visibility amplitude decreases with increasing baseline length, as
would occur if the source were resolved by the array. Using equation 3
for the root phase structure, and equation 4 for the coherence, the
visibility amplitude as a function of baseline length becomes:
\begin{equation}
<\rm V > = V_{\circ} \times exp(-[{{K' b^\alpha}\over{\lambda \sqrt{2}}}]^2)
\end{equation}
Note that the exponent must be in radians, so K$'$ = K $\times$ ${2
\pi}\over{360}$.
The baseline length corresponding to the half-power point of the
visibility curve, b$_{1/2}$, then becomes:
$$
\rm b_{1/2} = (1.2 \times {{{\lambda_{mm}}\over{K'}}})^{1/\alpha} ~~km
$$
For example, at 230 GHz using
the typical value of $\alpha$ = 5/6, and a typical value for K$'$ at
the MMA site of 1.7, the value of b$_{1/2}$ = 0.9 km.
This means that the resolution of the array is limited by tropospheric
seeing to: $\theta_{seeing}$
$\approx$ ${\lambda}\over{b_{1/2}}$ $\approx$ 0.3$''$ at 230 GHz.
For average weather conditions, tropospheric seeing precludes
diffraction limited resolution imaging
for arrays larger than about 1 km at the MMA site in Chile,
if no corrections are made for tropospheric phase noise.
A rigorous treatment of tropospheric seeing, with predicted
source sizes under various assumptions about the turbulence, can be
found in Thompson, Moran, and Swenson (1986).
Two important points need to be remembered when considering
tropospheric seeing. First is that the root phase structure function
flattens dramatically on baselines longer than $\approx$ 1 km, such
that the tropospheric seeing degrades slowly with longer baselines.
And second, there is an
explicit connection between the coherence loss and the seeing: on the
short baselines, where the phase errors are smaller, there is less
coherence loss, and the correct flux density is measured even for a long
averaging time. On the longer
baselines, the phase errors are larger, causing decorrelation of the
visibilities, either within an integration or across many
integrations, thereby fictitiously resolving the source. It is the
selective loss of coherence on the long baselines which determines the
seeing.
This phenomenon can be seen in the
lower left frame of Figure 5, in which the peak surface brightness is
only 60$\%$ of the expected peak, but the total flux density averaged
over the `seeing disk' is 94$\%$ of the true value, ie. the shortest
baselines see the total flux density of the source even for long
averaging times.
\subsection{Anomalous Refraction}
A final problem arising from tropospheric phase variations is
`anomalous refraction', or tropospheric induced pointing errors
(Holdaway 1997, Butler 1997, Holdaway and Woody 1998). This effect
corresponds to tropospheric seeing on the scale of the antenna
itself. Phase gradients across the antenna change the apparent
position of the source on a time scale $\approx$ ${D}\over{\rm v_a}$
$\approx$ 1 second, for an antenna with a diameter $D = 10$ m. A
straight-forward application of Snells' law shows that the effect in
arc-seconds should decrease with antenna diameter as $D^{\alpha - 1}$,
or about $D^{-0.4}$ for median $\alpha$ of 0.6. The decrease in the
pointing error with dish diameter is due to the fact that the value of
$\alpha$ in the root phase structure function is less than unity, and
hence the angle of the `wedge' of water vapor across the antenna
becomes shallower with increasing antenna size. However, in terms of
fractional beam size, the effect becomes worse with antenna size as
$D^{\alpha}$. For the 10m MMA antennas the expected magnitude of the
effect at an elevation of 50$^o$ is $\approx$ 0.6$''$, which is about
50$\%$ of the pointing error budget for the antennas.
\section{Stopping the Troposphere: Techniques to Reduce the
Effects of Tropospheric Phase Noise}
An important point to keep in mind is that while tropospheric phase
variations can be quantified in terms of a baseline-length
dependent structure function, the errors are fundamentally
antenna-based, and hence can be corrected by antenna-based calibration
schemes, such as self-calibration or fast switching calibration.
\subsection{Self-Calibration}
A straight forward method of reducing phase errors due to the
troposphere is self-calibration (Cornwell 1998). Self-calibration
removes the baseline-dependent term in the root structure function,
$\Phi_{\rm rms}$(b), leaving the residual tropospheric phase noise
dictated by the `effective baseline': b$_{\rm eff}$ = ${\rm v_a
t_{\rm ave}}\over2$
= half the distance the troposphere moves during the self-calibration
averaging time, t$_{\rm ave}$. The factor of two arises from the fact that
the mean calibration applies to the middle of the solution interval.
The Taylor hypothesis dictates a
relationship between temporal and spatial fluctuations
such that the longer baselines
will not sample the full power in the root phase structure function if
the calibration cycle time is shorter than the baseline crossing time
for the troposphere.
Of course, we would like to make $\rm t_{\rm ave}$ as short as possible, but
for a target source of some given brightness, we are limited in that we
must detect the source in t$_{\rm ave}$ on each baseline with sufficient
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR $\approx$ 2 for arrays with large numbers
of antennas; Cornwell 1998) to be
able to solve for the phase. Hence, there will be sources which are so
weak that they cannot be detected in a time short enough to track the
atmospheric phase fluctuations.
For the MMA at
230 GHz, self-calibration should be possible on fairly weak continuum
sources (of order 10 mJy), with fairly short integration times
($\approx$ 30 sec), leading to residual rms phase errors $\le$
20$^o$. For the completed VLA 43 GHz system the limit is 50 mJy
sources with 30 second averaging times with residual rms phase
variations of 10$^o$. Self-calibration is not possible for weaker
continuum sources, or for weak spectral line
sources, or in the case where absolute positions are required. In
these cases other
methods must be employed to `stop' tropospheric phase variations.
\subsection{Fast Switching}
Another method for reducing tropospheric phase variations is
`Fast Switching' (FS) phase calibration. This method is simply normal
phase calibration using celestial calibration sources close to
the target source (Fomalont and Perley 1998), only with a
calibration cycle time, t$_{cyc}$, short enough to reduce tropospheric
phase variations to an acceptable level (Holdaway 1992, Holdaway and
Owen 1995, Carilli and Holdaway 1996, 1997).
The expected residual phase fluctuations after FS calibration
can be derived from the root phase structure function (equation 3),
assuming an `effective baseline length', b$_{\rm eff}$, given by:
\begin{equation}
\rm b_{\rm eff}~ \approx~ d~ +~ {{v_a t_{cyc}}\over2}
\end{equation}
where $v_a$ = wind speed, and d = the physical
distance in the troposphere between the calibrator and source.
The FS technique will be effective for calibration cycle times
shorter than the baseline crossing time of the troposphere = ${\rm
b}\over{\rm v_{a}}$.
Moreover, a significant gain is made when b$_{\rm eff}$ $<$ 1 km, thereby
allowing for corrections to be made on the steep part of the root
phase structure function (Figure 6), implying a timescale of 200
seconds or less for effective FS corrections.
As with self-calibration, the calibrator source must be detected with
sufficient SNR on time scales short enough to track the
atmospheric phase fluctuations.
The effectiveness of FS phase calibration is shown
in Figure 7 for 22 GHz data from the VLA on
baselines ranging from 100 m to 20 km.
The solid squares show the nominal tropospheric root phase
structure function averaged over 90 minutes (Figure 6).
The open circles are the rms phases of the visibilities after applying
antenna based phase solutions averaged over 300 seconds. The stars are the
rms phases of the visibilities after applying
antenna based phase solutions averaged over 20 seconds.
The residual root structure function using a 300 second calibration cycle
parallels the nominal tropospheric root structure function out to a
baseline length of 1500m, beyond which the root structure function
saturates at a constant rms phase value of
20$^{\circ}$. The implied wind velocity is then:~ v$_a$ = ${2 \times
1500 m}\over{300 sec}$ = 10 m s$^{-1}$. Using a 20 second calibration
cycle reduces b$_{\rm eff}$ to only 100 m, which is shorter than the shortest
baseline of the array, and the saturation rms is 5$^{\circ}$.
The important point is that, after applying standard phase calibration
techniques on timescales short compared the array crossing time of the
troposphere, the resulting rms phase fluctuations are {\sl independent
of baseline length for b $>$ b$_{\rm eff}$.} The FS technique
allows for diffraction limited
imaging of faint sources on arbitrarily long baselines. Note that this
conclusion should also apply to Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI),
although the problems are accentuated due to the fact that
antennas can be observing at very different elevations at
any given time, and that VLBI observations typically employ low
elevation observations in order to maximize mutual visibility times for
widely separated antennas (see the discussion of the
VLBI phase referencing technique by Beasley and Conway 1995).
An important question to address when considering FS phase
calibration is: are there enough calibrators in the
sky in order to take advantage of a switching time as short as 40
seconds? This depends on the slew rate and settling time of the
telescope, the set-up time of the electronics, the sensitivity of the
array, and the sky surface density of celestial calibrators.
Holdaway, Owen, and Rupen (1994) estimated the calibrator
source counts at 90~GHz. They measured the 90~GHz flux densities of 367
flat spectrum quasars known from centimeter wavelength surveys, thereby
determining the distribution of the spectral index between 5~GHz and
90~GHz, which was statistically
independent of source flux density. By applying this spectral index distribution to
well understood 5~GHz flat spectrum source counts, they were able to
estimate the integral source counts for appropriate phase calibrators
at 90~GHz. They estimate that the integral source counts over the
whole sky between 0.1 to 1.0 Jy is about 170 $S^{3/2}_{90}$, where
S$_{90}$ is the 90 GHz source flux
density in Jy. Then, the typical distance to
the nearest appropriate calibrator at 90~GHz will be about
$\rm \theta \approx 7 \times S_{\nu}^{0.75}~~ deg$.
For calibrators with S$_{\nu}$
$\ge$ 50 mJy, and assuming a slew rate of 2 deg s$^{-1}$,
the 40 element MMA should be able to employ FS phase calibration on most
sources with total cycle times $\le$ 20 sec, leading to residual rms
phase fluctuations $\le$ 20$^o$ at 230 GHz, and on-source duty cycles
$\approx$ 75$\%$. One important practical problem is the lack of
all-sky surveys at high frequency from which to generate calibrator
source lists. However, the MMA will be both agile and sensitive enough to
survey a few square degrees around the target source in a few minutes
prior to the observations, thereby permitting the determination
of the optimal calibrator.
\subsection{Paired Array Calibration}
A third method for reducing tropospheric phase noise for faint
sources is paired antenna, or paired array, calibration.
Paired Array (PA) calibration involves phase calibration of
a `target' array of antennas using a separate `calibration' array,
where the target array is observing continuously a weak source of scientific
interest while the calibration array is observing a nearby calibrator
source (Holdaway 1992, Counselman et al., 1974, Asaki et al., 1996, 1998,
Drashkik and Finkelstein 1979). In its simplest form
PA calibration implies applying the phase solutions
from a calibration array antenna
to the nearest target array antenna at each integration time.
An improvement can be made
by interpolating the solutions from a number of nearby calibration
array antennas to a given target array antenna at each integration
time. Ultimately, the discrete
measurements in space and time of the phases from the
calibration array could be incorporated into a physical model for the
troposphere to solve for, and remove, the effects of the tropospheric phase
screen on the target source as a function of time and space using some
intelligent method of data interpolation, such as forward
projection using a physical model for the troposphere and
Kalman filtering of the spatial time series (Zheng
1985).
For simple pairs of antennas, the residual phase error
can be derived from the root phase structure function with:~
$$\rm b_{\rm eff} \approx d + \Delta b$$
where d is the same as in equation 10, and $\Delta$b is the baseline
length between the calibration antenna and the target source antenna.
Figure 4 shows an observation for which PA calibration was
implemented. Again, observations were made at 22 GHz using two
`inter-laced' subarrays observing two close calibrators, 0432+416 and
0423+416. Notice how the phase variations for adjacent antennas in the
different subarrays track each other closely. This correlation between
phase variations from neighboring antennas in different subarrays
observing different sources implies that the tropospheric phase
variations can be corrected using PA calibration.
In Figure 4 the temporal variations for neighboring antennas track
each other well, but the mean phase over the observing time range is
different between antennas. This phase off-set is due
to the electronics and/or optics at each antenna, and should be slowly
varying in time. Before interpolating phase solutions from the
calibration array to the target array one must first determine, and
remove, the electronic phase off-sets. This can be done by observing a
celestial calibrator every 30 min or so. A demonstration of this
process is shown in Figure 8. The upper frame in Figure 8 shows a
random phase distribution along the west arm at a given time
before the mean electronic phase is removed, while the lower frame in
Figure 8 shows a smooth phase gradient along the arm after correction
for the electronic phase term, indicating a tropospheric
phase `wedge' down the array arm at this time.
A quantitative measure of the effects of PA calibration
can be seen in the root phase structure function plotted in Figure
9. The open triangles show the
root phase structure function for the given observing day, as
determined from the data with only the mean phase calibration (30 min
averaging) applied. This function can be fit by a power-law in
rms phase versus baseline length with index 0.65.
The rms magnitude of 35$^o$ on a baseline of 1000m is
somewhat higher than the expected value of about 25$^o$ on a typical
summer evening at the VLA (Carilli etal. 1996).
The stars in Figure 9 correspond to the `noise floor' for
the phase measurements, as determined by calculating the
root structure function from self-calibrated data with an averaging
time of 30 seconds.
The solid squares in Figure 9 show the root structure
function for the data with PA calibration applied.
The PA process in this case entailed interpolating phase solutions
from neighboring antennas observing the `calibration source' 0423+418,
to the antennas observing the `target source' 0432+416.
The residual rms phase values are about 10$^o$ on short baselines,
and increase very slowly with baseline length. These data indicate
a significant improvement in rms phase fluctuations after
application of PA calibration for
baselines longer than about 300 m.
The increased noise floor for the PA calibrated data
relative to self-calibration indicates residual short-timescale
phase differences which do not replicate between the target and
calibration arrays.
This noise floor is a combination of
`jitter' in the electronic phase contribution, and
residual tropospheric phase noise as determined by b$_{\rm eff}$
above. Note that the residual noise floor increases slowly with
baseline length. This is due to the logarithmically increasing
separation between VLA antennas along the arm.
\section{Radiometry}
The brightness temperature of atmospheric emission,
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm atm}$, can be measured
using a radiometer, and is given by the
radiometry equation (Dicke et al., 1946):
\begin{equation}
\rm T_{\rm B}^{\rm atm}~ =~ \rm T_{\rm atm} ~ \times ~ (1~ -~
e^{-\tau_{\rm tot}})
\end{equation}
where T$_{\rm atm}$ is the physical temperature of the atmosphere, and
$\tau_{\rm tot}$ is the optical depth, which depends on, among other things,
the precipitable water vapor content (PWV) of the troposphere.
By measuring fluctuations in atmospheric brightness temperature
with a radiometer, one can infer the fluctuations in the column
density of water vapor of the troposphere (Barrett and Chung 1962,
Staguhn et al., 1998, Staelin 1966, Westwater and Guiraud 1980,
Rosenkranz 1989, Bagri 1994, Sutton and Hueckstadt 1997,
Lay 1998). The relationship between electrical pathlength and water
vapor column (equation 1) can then be used to derive the variable
contribution from water vapor to the interferometric phase (Elgered
1993). This technique has been used with varying degrees of success
at connected-element mm interferometers (Welch 1994, Woody and Marvel
1998, Bremer et al., 1997), and in geodetic VLBI experiments (Elgered et
al. 1991).
We assume that the atmospheric opacity can be divided into three parts:
\begin{equation}
\rm \tau_{\rm tot} ~ = ~ A_{\nu}\times w_{\circ}~ +~ B_{\nu}~ +
~A_{\nu}\times w_{\rm rms}
\end{equation}
where: (i) A$_{\nu}$ is the
optical depth per mm of PWV as
a function of frequency,
(ii) w$_{\circ}$ is the temporally stable (mean)
value for PWV of the troposphere, (iii) B$_\nu$ is the total
optical depth due to dry air as
a function of frequency (also assumed to be
temporally stable), and (iv) w$_{\rm rms}$ is the time variable component
of the PWV of the troposphere. It is this time variable component which
causes the tropospheric phase `noise' for an interferometer.
In effect, we assume a constant mean optical depth: $\rm \tau_{\circ} \equiv
A_{\nu}\times w_{\circ}~ +~ B_{\nu}$, with a fluctuating term due to changes
in PWV:~ $\rm \tau_{\rm rms} \equiv A_{\nu}\times w_{\rm rms}$, and that
$\tau_{\circ}$ $>>$ $\tau_{\rm rms}$.
Inserting equation 8 into equation 7, and making the reasonable assumption
that A$_\nu$$\times$w$_{\rm rms} << 1$, leads to:
\begin{equation}
\rm T_{\rm B} ~ =~ T_{\rm atm}\times [1 - e^{-\tau_{\circ}}] ~~ + ~~
T_{\rm atm}\times e^{-\tau_{\circ}}\times[A_{\nu}\times w_{\rm rms} ~ + ~
{{(A_{\nu}\times w_{\rm rms})^2}\over{2}} ~ + ~ ...]
\end{equation}
The first term on the right-hand side of equation 9 represents the
mean, non-varying T$_{\rm B}$ of the troposphere. The second term represents
the fluctuating component due to variations in PWV, which we define
as:
\begin{equation}
\rm T_{\rm B}^{\rm rms} ~ \equiv ~ T_{\rm atm}\times e^{-\tau_{\circ}}\times[A_{\nu}\times
w_{\rm rms} ~ + ~ {{(A_{\nu}\times w_{\rm rms})^2}\over{2}} ~ + ~
...]
\end{equation}
At first inspection, it would appear that equation 10 applies to
fluctuations in a turbulent layer at the top of the
troposphere, since the fluctuating component is fully attenuated
(ie. multiplied by $e^{-\tau_{\circ}}$). However, for a turbulent
layer at lower altitudes there is the additional term of attenuation
of the atmosphere above the turbulent layer by the turbulence.
It can be shown that the terms exactly cancel for an isobaric,
isothermal atmosphere, in which case
equation 10 is {\sl independent} of the height of the turbulence.
Absolute radiometric phase correction entails measuring variations in
brightness temperature with a radiometer, inverting equation 10 to
derive the variation in PWV, and then using equation 1 to derive the
variation in electronic phase along a given line of sight.
As benchmark numbers for the MMA we set the requirement that we
need to measure changes in tropospheric induced phase above a given
antenna to an accuracy of ${\lambda}\over{20}$ at 230 GHz at the
zenith, or $\phi_{\rm rms}$ = 18$^o$. This
requirement inserted into equation 10 then yields a required
accuracy of:~ w$_{\rm rms}$ = 0.01 mm.
This value of w$_{\rm rms}$ then sets the required sensitivity,
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$, of the
radiometers as a function of frequency through equation 10. For the VLA
we set the ${\lambda}\over{20}$
requirement at 43 GHz, leading to:~ w$_{\rm rms}$ = 0.05 mm.
In its purest form, the inversion of equation 10 requires:~ (i) a
sensitive, absolutely calibrated radiometer, (ii) accurate
models for the run of temperature and pressure as a function of
height in the atmosphere, and (iii) an accurate value for the height
of the PWV fluctuations.
Figure 10 shows the required sensitivity of the radiometer,
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$, given the benchmark numbers for w$_{\rm rms}$ for the VLA and
the MMA and using equation 10. It is important to keep in mind that
lower numbers on this plot imply that more sensitive radiometry is required
in order to measure the benchmark value of w$_{\rm rms}$.
The required T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ values generally
increase with increasing frequency due to the increase in A$_{\nu}$,
with a local maximum at the 22 GHz water line,
and minima at the strong O$_2$ lines (59.2 GHz and 118.8 GHz).
The strong water line at 183.3 GHz shows
a `double peak' profile, with a local minimum in T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ at the
frequency corresponding to the peak of the line. This behavior
is due to the product:~ A$_{\nu}$ $\times$ e$^{-\tau_{\circ}}$ in equation 10.
The value of A$_{\nu}$ peaks at the line frequency, but this is
off-set by the high total optical depth at the line peak.
This effect is dramatic for the VLA case,
where the required T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ at the 183 GHz line peak is very low.
\subsection{Absolute Radiometric Phase Corrections}
In this section we consider making an absolute correction to the
electronic phase at a given antenna using an accurate, absolutely
calibrated measurement of T$_{\rm B}$,
and accurate measurements of tropospheric parameters (temperature and
pressure as a function of height, and the scale height of the PWV
fluctuations). We consider requirements on the gain
stability, sensitivity, and on atmospheric data, given the benchmark
values of w$_{\rm rms}$ and
using equation 10 to relate w$_{\rm rms}$ and T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$.
We consider the requirements at a number of frequencies for the MMA
site, including: (i) the water lines at 22.2 GHz and 183.3 GHz, (ii)
the half power of the water line at 185.5 GHz, and (iii) two continuum
bands at 90 GHz and 230 GHz. For the VLA we only consider the 22.2
GHz line.
The results are summarized in Table 1. Row 1 shows the optical
depth per mm PWV, A$_\nu$, at the different frequencies for the model
atmospheres discussed in section 4, while row 2 shows the total
optical depth, $\tau_{\rm tot}$, for the models. Row 3 shows the required
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ values as derived from equation 10. It is important to
keep in mind that these values are simply the expected change in
T$_{\rm B}$ given a change in w of 0.01 mm for the MMA and 0.05 mm for the
VLA, for a single radiometer looking at the zenith. All subsequent
calculations depend on these basic T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$
values. The values range from 19 mK at 90 GHz,
to 920 mK at 185.5 GHz, at the MMA site, and 120 mK for the VLA site
at 22 GHz.
We first consider sensitivity and gain stability. Row 4 lists
approximate numbers for expected receiver temperatures,
T$_{\rm rec+spill}$, in the case of
cooled systems (eg. using the astronomical receivers for radiometry).
Row 5 lists the contribution to the system temperature from the
atmosphere, T$_{\rm rec,atm}$, and row 6 lists the
expected total system temperature, T$_{\rm tot}$ (sum of row 4 and 5).
Row 7 lists the rms sensitivity of the radiometers, T$_{\rm rms}$, assuming
1000 MHz bandwidth, one polarization, and a 1 sec
integration time. In all cases the expected sensitivities of the
radiometers are well
below the required T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ values, indicating that sensitivity
should not be a limiting factor for these systems. Row 8 lists the
required gain stability of the system, defined as the ratio of total system
temperature to T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$:~ $\delta$Gain $\equiv$
$\rm {T_{\rm tot}}\over{T_B^{\rm rms}}$. Values range from 210 for the
185.5 GHz
measurement to 5800 for the 90 GHz measurement at the MMA, and 450 for
the VLA site at 22 GHz.
Rows 9 and 10 list total system temperatures and expected rms
sensitivities in the case of uncooled radiometers.
We adopt a constant total system temperature of
T$_{\rm tot}$ = 2000 K, but the other parameters remain the same
(bandwidth, etc...). The radiometer sensitivity is then 63 mK in 1 second.
This sensitivity is adequate
to reach the benchmark T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ values in row 3, although at 230
GHz the sensitivity value is within a factor two of the required
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$. The required gain stabilities in this case are
listed in
row 11. The requirement becomes severe at 230 GHz
($\delta$Gain = 15000).
We next consider the requirements on atmospheric data, beginning with
T$_{\rm atm}$. The dependence of T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ on T$_{\rm atm}$ comes in
explicitly in equation 10 through the first multiplier, and implicitly
through the effect of T$_{\rm atm}$ on $\tau_{\circ}$. For simplicity, we
consider only the explicit dependence,
which will lead to an under-estimate of the
expected errors by at most a factor $\approx$ 2 -- adequate for the
purposes of this document (Sutton and
Hueckstaedt 1997). Under this simplifying assumption the required accuracy,
$\delta$T$_{\rm atm}$, becomes:
$$\rm \delta T_{\rm atm} ~ \approx ~ {{T_B^{\rm
rms}}\over{[1-e^{-\tau_{\circ}}]}} ~ K$$
The values $\delta$T$_{\rm atm}$ are listed in row 12. Values in
parentheses are the percentage accuracy in terms of the ground
atmospheric temperature. Values are typically of order 1 K, or a few
tenths of a percent
of the mean. A related requirement is the accuracy of the gradient in
temperature:~ $\delta$$\rm {dT}\over{dh}$ $\approx$ $\rm {\delta
T_{\rm atm}}\over{h_{\rm turb}}$, ~ in
the case of a turbulent layer at h$_{\rm turb}$ = 2 km, and
assuming a very accurate measurement of T$_{\rm atm}$ on the ground
and a very accurate measurement of h$_{\rm turb}$.
These values are listed in row 13.
The accuracy requirements range from 0.25 K km$^{-1}$ to
1.5 K km$^{-1}$, or roughly 10$\%$ of the mean gradient.
Similarly, we can consider the required accuracy of the measurement of
the height of the troposphere, $\delta$h$_{\rm turb}$
$\approx$ $\rm {\delta T_{\rm atm}}\over{{{dT}\over{dh}}}$,
assuming a perfect measurement of the ground
temperature and temperature gradient.
These values are listed in row 14. Values are typically a few tenths
of a km, or roughly 10$\%$ of h$_{\rm turb}$.
We consider the requirements on atmospheric pressure given
the T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ requirements. The relationship between T$_{\rm B}$ and w
is affected by atmospheric pressure through the change in the pressure
broadened line shapes. An increase in pressure will transfer power
from the line peak into the line wings, thereby flattening the overall
profile. The expected changes in optical depth (or brightness
temperature) as a function of frequency have been quantified by
Sutton and Hueckstaedt (1997), and their coefficients relating changes
in pressure with changes in optical depth are listed in row 17. Note
the change in sign of the coefficient on the line peaks versus
off-line frequencies. Sutton and Hueckstaedt point out that, since
the integrated power in the line is conserved, there
are `hinge points' in the line profiles where pressure changes have
very little effect on T$_{\rm B}$, ie. for an increase in pressure at fixed
total PWV the wings of the line get broader while peak gets lower.
These hinge points are close
to the half power points in T$_{\rm B}$ of the lines.
Rows 15 and 16 list the requirements on the accuracy of P$_{\rm atm}$,
and on the value of h$_{\rm turb}$.
The values of $\delta$P$_{\rm atm}$ are derived from the equation:~
$\delta$P$_{\rm atm}$ = $\rm {A_{\nu}w_{\rm rms}}\over{\tau_{\rm tot}X}$,
where $\rm X$ is the coefficient listed in row 17.
We find that the value of P$_{\rm atm}$ needs to be known to about 1$\%$,
and the height of the turbulent
layer needs to be known to a few percent. The exception is
at the hinge point of the line ($\approx$ 185.5 GHz), where the
optical depth is nearly independent of P$_{\rm atm}$.
There are a few potential difficulties with absolute radiometric phase
corrections which we have not considered. First
is the question of how to
make a proper measurement of the `ground temperature'?
It is possible, and perhaps
likely, that the expected linear temperature gradient
of the troposphere displays a
significant perturbation close to the ground. The method for making
the `correct' ground temperature measurement remains an important
issue to address in the context of absolute radiometric phase
correction. Second, we have only considered a simple model in
which the PWV
fluctuations occur in a narrow layer at some height h$_{\rm turb}$, which
presumably remains constant over time.
If the fluctuations are distributed over a large range of altitude
then one needs to know the height of the dominant fluctuation at {\sl
each time} to convert T$_{\rm B}$ into electrical pathlength. And when
fluctuations at
different altitudes contribute at the same time, this conversion
becomes problematical. Again, the required accuracies for the height of
the fluctuations are given in rows 14 and 16 in Table 1.
A possible solution to this problem is to
find a linear combination of channels for which
the effective conversion factor is insensitive to altitude under a
range of conditions, ie. hinge points generalized to a multi-channel
approach (Lay 1998, Staguhn et al., 1998).
And third, the shape of the pass band of the radiometer
needs to be known very accurately in order to obtain absolute T$_{\rm B}$
measurements.
A final uncertainty involved in making absolute radiometric phase
corrections are errors in the theoretical atmospheric
models relating w and T$_{\rm B}$ (Elgered 1993). Sutton and
Hueckstaedt (1997) point out that model errors are by far the
dominant uncertainties
when considering absolute radiometric phase correction, and they
have calculated a number of models with different line shapes and
different empirically determined water vapor continuum
`fudge-factors'. Row 18 in Table 1 lists the approximate differences
between the various models at various frequencies. Models can differ
by up to 3 mm in PWV, corresponding to 19.5 mm in electrical
pathlength, or 30$\pi$ rad in electronic phase at 230 GHz.
The differences are most pronounced in the continuum bands, but
are only negligible close to the peak of the strong 183 GHz
line. This is an area of very active research, and it
may be that this uncertainty is greatly reduced in the near future
(Rosenkranz 1998).
Given the status of current atmospheric models, radiometric
phase correction then requires some form of empirical
calibration of the water vapor continuum contribution in order to
relate T$_{\rm B}$ to w. The exception may be a measurement close
to the peak of the 183 GHz line, but in this case saturation
becomes a problem. Perhaps most importantly,
if the calibrated continuum term is due to incorrect line shapes, it
will depend on both T$_{\rm atm}$ and P$_{\rm atm}$, in which case
the continuum term may require frequent calibration.
Overall, absolute radiometric phase correction requires: (i) systems that
are sensitive (19 $\le$ T$_{\rm rms}$ $\le$ 920 mK), and
stable over long timescales (200 $\le$ $\delta$Gain $\le$ 15000), and (ii)
knowledge of the tropospheric parameters, such as
T$_{\rm atm}$, P$_{\rm atm}$, and h$_{\rm turb}$, to a few percent or less.
And even if such accurate measurements are available, fundamental
uncertainties in the atmospheric models relating T$_{\rm B}$ and PWV may
require empirical calibration of the T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ - w$_{\rm rms}$
relationship at regular intervals.
Lay (1998) has recently presented an interesting radiometric phase
correction method using
multifrequency measurements of the 183 GHz water line profile.
His method is insensitive to atmospheric
parameters, since it relies on using the line profile, and in
particular, the hinge points of the lines. This method may
allow for an absolute radiometric phase correction to be made
without great uncertainties due to the atmospheric models.
\subsection{Empirically Calibrated Radiometric Phase Corrections}
Many of the uncertainties in Table 1 arise from the fact that we are
demanding an absolute phase correction at each antenna
based on the measured T$_{\rm B}$
plus ancillary data (T$_{\rm atm}$, P$_{\rm atm}$, h$_{\rm turb}$,...), using a
theoretical model of the atmosphere to relate T$_{\rm B}$ to w. This sets
very stringent demands on the absolute calibration, on the
accuracy of the ancillary data, and on the accuracy of the
theoretical model atmosphere. The current atmospheric
models under-predict w by large factors in the continuum bands,
thereby requiring calibration of (possibly time dependent)
water vapor continuum `fudge-factors'.
One way to avoid some of these problems is to calibrate
the relationship between fluctuations in
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ with fluctuations in antenna-based phase,
$\phi_{\rm rms}$, by observing a strong celestial calibrator at regular
intervals. This empirically calibrated phase correction method
would circumvent dependence on ancillary data
and model errors (Woody and Marvel 1998), and mitigate long term gain
stability problems in the electronics. This technique can be thought
of as calibrating the `gain' of both the atmosphere and the
electronics, in terms of relating T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ to
$\phi_{\rm rms}$.
In its simplest form, empirically calibrated radiometric phase
correction would be used only to increase the coherence time on
source. No attempt would be made to connect the phase of a celestial
calibrator with that of the target source using radiometry,
and hence the absolute phase on the target source would still be
obtained from the calibration source.
Such a process is being implemented at the
Owen Valley Radio Observatory (Woody and Marvel 1998).
In this case the absolute phase is obtained from the first accurate
phase measurement on
the celestial calibrator, while the subsequent time series of phase
measurements on the calibrator are then used to derive the
T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ to $\phi_{\rm rms}$ relationship.
This process results in additional
phase uncertainty in a manner analogous to
Fast Switching phase calibration (Holdaway and Owen 1995).
The residual error is set by the distance between the calibrator and
source, and the time required to obtain the first accurate record:
t$_{cal} \equiv$ (the slew time + the integration time
required for the first accurate phase measurement). In this case:
$$\rm b_{eff}~ \approx~ v_{a} \times t_{cal}~ + ~d,$$
where d is the physical distance in the troposphere set by
the angular separation of the calibrator and the source, and
b$_{eff}$ is the `effective baseline' to be inserted into equation 3
in order to estimate the residual uncertainty in the absolute phase.
For example, assuming t$_{cal}$ = 10 sec, and
the calibrator-source separation = 2$^o$,
leads to b$_{eff}$ = 170 m, or
$\phi_{\rm rms}$ = 20$^o$ at 230 GHz at the MMA site. Note that the
temporal character of this `phase noise' is unusual in that the short
timescale (t $<<$ t$_{cyc}$) variations are removed by radiometry,
while the long timescale variations (t $>>$ t$_{cyc}$) are removed by
celestial source calibration (Lay 1997).
An example of such a relatively calibrated radiometric phase
correction is shown in Figure 11, using data from the VLA at 22 GHz.
Observations were made
of the celestial calibrator 0319+415 (3C 84).
In the upper frame,
the dash line shows the interferometric phase time series measured
between antennas 5 and 9, corresponding to a baseline length of about
3 km. The solid line shows the predicted phase time series derived by
differencing measurements of the 22 GHz system temperature at each
antenna. A single scale factor relating phase
fluctuations and fluctuations in system temperature differences was
derived from all the data, by requiring a minimum residual rms
scatter in the phase fluctuations after applying radiometric phase
correction. A constant off-set was also applied to each data set.
Note the clear correlation between measured interferometric phase
variations, and the phase variations predicted by radiometry.
The middle frame shows the residual phase variations after radiometric
correction. The rms variations in the raw phase time series before
correction are 32$^o$. After applying the radiometric correction, the
rms phase variations are reduced to 17$^o$.
The lower frame shows the residual phase variations after radiometric
correction, but now making a correction for the first and second
half of the data separately. The residual rms phase variations are now
13$^o$. The scale factor changes by about 10$\%$ over the 36
minutes.
This `empirically calibrated' radiometric phase correction technique
has been implemented successfully at the Owens Valley Radio
Observatory and at the IRAM interferometer (Woody and Marvel 1998,
Bremer et al., 1997).
A number of questions remain to be answered concerning this
technique, including:
(i) over what time scale and distance will this technique allow
for radiometric phase corrections when switching between
the source and the calibrator? And
(ii) how often will calibration of the T$_{\rm B}^{\rm rms}$ -
$\phi_{rms}$ relationship be required, ie. how stable are the
radiometers and the mean parameters of the atmosphere?
\subsection{Clouds and Other Issues}
Water droplets present the problem that the drops
contribute significantly to the measured T$_{\rm B}$ but not to w, thereby
invalidating the model relating T$_{\rm B}$ and w. This problem can be
avoided by using multichannel measurements around the water lines (183
GHz or 22 GHz), since T$_{\rm B}$ for the lines is not affected by water
drops. Alternatively, a dual-band system could be used to separate
the effect of water drops from water vapor (eg. 90 GHz and 230 GHz),
since the frequency dependence of T$_{\rm B}$ is different for the two
water phases. This later method requires a multi-band
radiometer, which may be difficult within the context of the MMA
antenna design. The question of whether clouds will be a significant
problem on high quality sites such as the MMA site in
Chile remains to be answered.
A final error introduced when using radiometric phase calibration is
due to the different path through the troposphere
seen by the radiometer with that seen by the
astronomical receiver. If the radiometer is not the astronomical
receiver itself, then the angular separation of the radiometer beam
and the telescope beam, $\theta_{diff}$,
can be of order a few degrees, depending on the lay-out of the
receivers and the telescope optics.
This angle corresponds to 100 m or so at a height of 2 km. The
magnitude of the error introduced by such an observing path difference
can be derived from the root phase structure function assuming
b$_{eff}$ = h$_{\rm turb}$ $\times$ $\theta_{diff}$.
\section{Fast Switching vs. Paired Array Calibration vs. Radiometric
Phase Correction}
Fast Switching phase calibration has been used extensively, and
successfully, at the VLA for diffraction limited imaging of faint
astronomical sources on 30 km baselines at 43 GHz
(Lim et al., 1998, Wilner et al., 1996).
However, the required switching times at higher frequencies (10's of
seconds or less) has thus
far precluded the use of FS for existing mm observatories.
Paired Array calibration has been
demonstrated effective in reducing tropospheric phase noise for
interferometers (Asaki et al., 1996, 1998),
but has not yet been implemented as a standard technique for
astronomical observing. Radiometric phase correction has been used
to varying degrees of success at different observatories, but mostly
on an experimental basis (Welch 1994, Bremer 1997, Woody and Marvel
1998, Elgered et al., 1991). We summarize the relative advantages and
disadvantages of the three techniques.
The advantages of FS are that: (i) FS uses the full array to observe
the target source, and (ii) FS removes the long and short term
electronic phase noise along with the tropospheric phase noise. The
disadvantages are that: (i) FS places stringent constraints on
telescope design in terms of slew rate, mechanical settling time, and
electronic set-up time, and (ii) on-source observing time is lost due
to frequent moves and calibration.
Simulations for the MMA (Holdaway 1998)
indicate that overall fast switching efficiencies (including both
sensitivity losses due to decreased observing time and increased
decorrelation) of about 0.75 should be possible,
assuming a distribution of observing frequencies from 30~GHz to 650~GHz
and using the measured distribution of atmospheric phase conditions
at the Chajnantor site. Typical switching times range from 10 to
20 seconds.
The advantages of PA calibration are that: (i) the `target
array' observes the source continuously, and (ii) the demands on the
antenna mechanics and electronics are less stringent than for FS. The
disadvantages are that: (i) the electronic phase noise is not
removed, (ii) the geometry of the array must allow for neighboring
antennas, even in large (sparsely populated) arrays, and (iii) the
number of visibilities
from the target source array decreases quadratically with the
decreasing number of antennas. These latter two effects can reduce
significantly the Fourier spacing coverage and sensitivity of the array.
One possible solution to these problems
is to have a `calibration array' of smaller,
cheaper antennas strategically placed with respect to the antennas of
the main array which
is dedicated to tropospheric phase calibration by observing celestial
calibrators at a fixed frequency (eg. 90 GHz).
The solutions would then be extrapolated to the
observing frequency of the main array using the linear relationship
between tropospheric phase and frequency (equation 1).
This would require a separate correlator and IF system, and
complications may arise due to the fact that the wet troposphere
becomes dispersive at frequencies higher than about
400 GHz (Sutton and Hueckstaedt 1997).
For PA and FS calibration,
if the bulk of the phase fluctuations occur in a
thin turbulent layer, it may be possible to perform an
intelligent method of data interpolation, such as forward
projection using a physical model for the troposphere and
Kalman filtering of the spatial time series,
to account for the motion of the atmosphere across the array.
The advantages of radiometric phase correction are that it: (i)
alleviates constraints on telescope
mechanics and array design, and (ii) the full array can observe
the target source continuously. The disadvantages are that: (i) it
places constraints on receiver lay-out such that the radiometer is always
looking at the sky, (ii) it does not remove the electronic phase
noise, and (iii) there remains significant questions about the
viability of absolute radiometric phase correction, or the limitations
imposed when using an `empirically calibrated' radiometric phase
correction technique (see sections 7.1 and 7.2).
All three calibration methods are being investigated for the MMA, and
we envision that all the methods will be employed to some degree
at the MMA, depending on the configuration, the observing conditions,
and the scientific requirements of a given observation.
\footnotesize\acknowledgments
We thank F. Owen,
O. Lay, E. Sutton, and J. Carlstrom for useful comments on sections
of this paper, and K. Desai
for allowing us to use a figure from a previous publication.
This research made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Data Base (NED)
which is operated by the Jet propulsion Lab, Caltech, under contract
with NASA. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of
the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative
agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
\clearpage
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
According to the holographic principle \cite{hoof,suss1,suss2}, the bulk
theory (with gravity) and the boundary theory (without gravity) are
equivalent. Such correspondence gives insight into one theory
from the other. Interest in the holographic principle is
revived from the recent observation \cite{mald1} that the bulk
gravity theory in the near horizon geometry of brane configuration
is equivalent to the boundary theory described by the corresponding
worldvolume field theory in the decoupling limit. (The closely related
previous works in Refs. \cite{duff1,town1,town2} study the correspondence
between the bulk theory on the AdS space and the boundary supersingleton field
theory.) In particular, when the near horizon geometry is the AdS space,
i.e. D3-brane, M2-brane and M5-brane cases, the boundary theory is conformal.
However, it is found out in Refs. \cite{jevi1,jevi2} that even for other
branes, whose near horizon geometry is not the AdS type and therefore
the corresponding boundary theory is not a ``genuine'' conformal
theory, one can still define ``generalized'' conformal theory.
The symmetry group of such generalized conformal theory can be manifestly
seen in the bulk theory in the so-called ``dual'' frame
\cite{duff2,town1,town2,boon1,boon2,town3}. The dual frame is regarded as a
preferred frame for supergravity probes in the near horizon background of
the source branes. In this frame, the near horizon geometry of a $p$-brane
supergravity solution takes the AdS$_{p+2}\times S^n$ form. The $SO(p+1,2)$
isometry of the AdS$_{p+2}$ part is realized in the boundary theory as the
``generalized'' conformal symmetry of Refs. \cite{jevi1,jevi2}. The dual
frame is also called a ``holographic'' frame, since an UV/IR connection
between the bulk and the boundary theory is manifest in this frame.
In this paper, we study the D0-brane case of such generalized conformal
theory. D0-brane is particularly interesting for its relevance to M
theory. An important discovery of the M(atrix) model
\footnote{This model was proposed \cite{halp1} long ago as the $N=16$
supersymmetric gauge quantum mechanics. See also Ref. \cite{halp2}.}
is that difficult problems of quantum M theory is reduced to non-relativistic
quantum mechanics. Originally, it is conjectured \cite{matr1} that M-theory
in the infinite momentum frame (IMF) \cite{wein} is exactly described by the
$U(\infty)$ $D=1$ super-Yang-Mills (SYM) theory, which is the worldvolume
theory of the bound state of the infinite number ($N\to\infty$) of D0-branes.
The $D=1$ $U(N)$ SYM theory, which is the supersymmetric matrix model
description of the supermembrane theory \cite{dewi}, is nothing but the
maximally supersymmetric $U(N)$ Yang-Mills theory dimensionally reduced
from $9+1$ to $0+1$ dimensions (i.e. $N\times N$ hermitian matrix quantum
mechanics). It is further conjectured \cite{matr2} that the equivalence
of (M)atrix theory to M-theory is also valid for a finite $N$.
The conjecture states that M-theory compactified on a light-like circle
with finite momentum along the circle is exactly described by a $U(N)$
matrix theory. The quantization of such theory is called the discrete
light-cone quantization (DLCQ). One can think of this light-like circle
as a small space-like circle that is boosted by a large amount \cite{seib1}.
Just like M-theory in the IMF, M-theory in the light-cone frame (LCF)
is described purely by D0-branes with positive momentum and has the
Galilean invariance in the transverse space \cite{matr2}. Therefore,
M-theory on a light-like circle can be viewed as a theory of the finite
number of D0-branes in the low velocity (non-relativistic) limit.
This idea can also be understood from the bulk/boundary duality as
follows. When compactified on a light-like circle, the supergravity
M-wave solution (viewed as the supergraviton with the momentum number
$N$) becomes the near horizon limit of supergravity solution for $N$
coinciding D0-branes \cite{tsey1}. Since M-theory in the LCF in the
supergravity solution level is related to the near horizon limit of
the supergravity D0-brane solution, by the generalized AdS/CFT
duality \cite{mald2,jevi1,jevi2} M-theory in the LCF has to be related to
the boundary theory of the bound state of $N$ D0-branes. This boundary theory
is the maximally supersymmetric $SU(N)$ Yang-Mills theory dimensionally
reduced from $9+1$ to $0+1$ dimensions, as stated in the (M)atrix theory
conjecture.
In this paper, we view the non-relativistic (matrix) quantum mechanics
of bound states of D0-brane as a system of the probe D0-brane moving
in the background of large number of source D0-brane bound state.
This view of (M)atrix model is also taken in Ref. \cite{tsey1}, which
reproduces the (M)atrix model graviton-graviton scattering calculation
from the effective action for a probe moving in the background of the
M-wave supergravity solution. It is further shown in Refs. \cite{jevi1,jevi2}
that the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action for a radially moving probe
D0-brane in the background of the source D0-brane bound state can also be
determined by imposing the generalized conformal symmetry of the boundary
theory, which is just the $D=1$ $U(N)$ SYM theory describing the
M theory in the LCF.
The quantum mechanics of the probe D0-brane in the near horizon
background of the source D0-brane is a reminiscence of the conformal
quantum mechanics of the charged test particle moving in the near
horizon background of the $D=4$ extreme Reissner-Nordstr\"om black
hole studied in Ref. \cite{kall1}. The radial motion of such test particle
is described by the relativistic conformal quantum mechanics with the
$SL(2,{\bf R})\cong SU(1,1)$ symmetry. This is a generalized version
of (non-relativistic) conformal mechanics studied in Refs.
\cite{scm1,ap,scm2}. One can view such generalized conformal mechanics
of the radial motion of the test particle as the boundary conformal field
theory counterpart of the bulk gravity theory in the near horizon Ads$_2$
geometry of the extreme Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole, since the $SO(1,2)
\cong SU(1,1)$ isometry of the AdS$_2$ space is realized as the symmetry
of the dynamics of the test particle in the spacetime with one lower
dimension. Since the near horizon geometry of the source D0-brane
supergravity solution in the dual frame is AdS$_2\times S^8$, one
would expect that the dynamics of the probe D0-brane in this
background has the $SL(2,{\bf R})\cong SO(2,1)$ symmetry. In the D0-brane
case, since this symmetry does not extend to the genuine conformal symmetry
of the boundary theory but only to the so-called generalized conformal
symmetry \cite{jevi1,jevi2} as pointed out in the above, the quantum
mechanics of the probe D0-brane will have a generalized conformal symmetry.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we summarize the
properties of the near horizon geometry of the supergravity D0-brane
solution. In section 3, we study the ``generalized'' conformal
quantum mechanics of D0-brane, elaborating its relation to M theory
as pointed out in the above.
\section{$D0$-brane Solution in the Near Horizon Region}
In this section, we survey aspects of the $D0$-brane supergravity
solution and its near horizon geometry, illuminating their relations.
The string-frame type-IIA effective supergravity action for $D0$-brane
solution is given by
\begin{equation}
S={1\over{16\pi G_{10}}}\int d^{10}x\sqrt{-G^{str}}
[e^{-2\phi}({\cal R}^{str}+2\partial_M\phi\partial^M\phi)
-{1\over{2\cdot 2!}}F_{MN}F^{MN}],
\label{iibsg}
\end{equation}
where $G_{10}$ is the 10-dimensional gravitational constant,
${\cal R}^{str}$ and $G^{str}$ are the Ricci scalar and the
determinant for the the string-frame metric tensor $G^{str}_{MN}$,
$\phi$ is the dilaton in the NS-NS sector and $F_{MN}$ is the field
strength for the RR 1-form potential $A_M$ that $D0$-branes couple to.
The supergravity solution for the $D0$-brane has the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2_{str}&=&G^{str}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=-H^{-{1\over 2}}dt^2+H^{1\over 2}
(dx^2_1+\dots+dx^2_9),
\cr
e^{\phi}&=&g_{s}H^{3\over 4},\ \ \ A_t=-g^{-1}_{s}H^{-1};\ \ \
H=1+{Q\over{r^7}}\equiv 1+\left({{\mu}\over r}\right)^7,
\label{sgdzero}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_s$ is the string coupling constant, which is just the vacuum
expectation value or the asymptotic value of the dilaton $e^{\phi}$.
Here, the $D0$-brane charge $Q$ is related to the string theory
quantities as
\begin{equation}
Q=(\alpha^{\prime})^{7\over 2}g_sN,
\label{charge}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha^{\prime}$ is related to the string length scale $l_s$
as $l_s=\sqrt{\alpha^{\prime}}$ and $N$ is the number of the $D0$-branes.
By expanding the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action for the D0-brane to the
lowest order in $\alpha^{\prime}$, one finds the following relation of
the string theory quantities to the Yang-Mills gauge coupling $g_{YM}$:
\begin{equation}
g^2_{YM}={{g_s}\over{(\alpha^{\prime})^{3\over 2}}}.
\label{ymcouple}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the constant $Q$ in the harmonic function is rewritten in
terms of the SYM quantities as $Q=\mu^{7}=(\alpha^{\prime})^5g^2_{YM}N$.
In order to decouple the massive string modes (whose masses are
proportional to $1/\alpha^{\prime}$) and the gravity modes (whose
strength goes as $g^2_s(\alpha^{\prime})^4$) from the massless
open string modes, which describe the Yang-Mills theory, one has to
take $\alpha^{\prime}\to 0$, while keeping $g_{YM}$ as a finite constant,
which means for the D0-brane case $g_s\to 0$ as well (Cf. Eq.
(\ref{ymcouple})). Furthermore, the above metric (\ref{sgdzero}) can be
regarded as the gravitational field felt by a probe D0-brane in the
background of the collection of $N$ numbers of source D0-branes with the
radial coordinate $r$ being interpreted as the distance between and probe
and source $D0$-branes \cite{mald3}. So, in order to keep the mass
$m_{string}=r/\alpha^{\prime}$ of the state of open string, which stretches
between the source and the probe, finite, one has also take the limit
$r\to 0$ while keeping the following combination as a finite constant:
\begin{equation}
U\equiv {r\over{\alpha^{\prime}}},
\label{higgs}
\end{equation}
thereby going to the near horizon region of the supergravity solution
(\ref{sgdzero}). This combination also corresponds to the conventional
super-Yang-Mills scalar $\Phi^I=X^I/l^2_s$, whose vacuum expectation
value sets the energy scale. In this decoupling limit, the supergravity
solution (\ref{sgdzero}) takes the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2_{str}&=&-\left({r\over\mu}\right)^{7\over 2}dt^2+
\left({\mu\over r}\right)^{7\over 2}(dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2_8)
\cr
&=&\alpha^{\prime}\left[-{{U^{7\over 2}}\over{g_{YM}\sqrt{N}}}dt^2
+{{g_{YM}\sqrt{N}}\over{U^{7\over 2}}}(dU^2+U^2d\Omega^2_8)\right],
\cr
e^{\phi}&=&g_{s}\left({\mu\over r}\right)^{{21}\over 4}=g^2_{YM}
\left({{g^2_{YM}N}\over{U^7}}\right)^{3\over 4},
\cr
A_t&=&g^{-1}_{s}\left({r\over\mu}\right)^7={\sqrt{\alpha^{\prime}}
\over{g^2_{YM}}}{{U^7}\over{g^2_{YM}N}}.
\label{sgdecoupl}
\end{eqnarray}
The above supergravity solution (\ref{sgdecoupl}) can be trusted when
the spacetime curvature ${\cal R}\sim U^3/(g^2_{YM}N)$ is much smaller
than the string scale $(\alpha^{\prime})^{-1}$ and string coupling
$e^{\phi}$ is very small, leading to the following constraints on $U$
and the original radial coordinate $r$:
\begin{equation}
g^{2\over 3}_{YM}N^{1\over 7}\ll U \ll g^{2\over 3}_{YM}N^{1\over 3},
\label{ucnstrnt}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\alpha^{\prime}}g^{1\over 3}_{s}N^{1\over 7}\ll r \ll
\sqrt{\alpha^{\prime}}g^{1\over 3}_{s}N^{1\over 3}.
\label{rcnstrnt}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the near horizon condition $r\ll\mu=Q^{1\over 7}$
is expressed in terms of string theory quantities as
$r\ll \sqrt{\alpha^{\prime}}(g_sN)^{1\over 7}$. So, for sufficiently
large $N$ and small $g_s$, the supergravity solution (\ref{sgdecoupl})
can be trusted in the overlapping region of $U$.
Note, the near horizon geometry of the D0-brane supergravity solution
in the string frame is not AdS$_2\times S^8$, since when the metric is
expressed in the following suggestive form
\begin{equation}
ds^2_{str}=\alpha^{\prime}\left[-{{U^2}\over\sqrt{\rho_0}}dt^2+
\sqrt{\rho_0}{{dU^2}\over{U^2}}+\sqrt{\rho_0}d\Omega^2_8\right],
\label{adsform}
\end{equation}
the radius $\rho_0\equiv Q/((\alpha^{\prime})^5U^3)$ of the
would-be AdS space depends on the coordinate $U$.
However, with the suitable choice of frame, called the ``dual'' frame
\cite{duff2,town1,town2,town3}, the spacetime metric in the near-horizon
region takes the AdS$_2\times S^8$ form. Namely, if one applies the Weyl
transformation
\footnote{In this paper, we do not include a factor involving $N$ in
the Weyl transformation of the metric, unlike Ref. \cite{town3}, so that
the metric in the standard AdS form in the horospherical coordinates has
explicit dependence on $N$.}
on the metric as $G^{str}_{MN}\to G^{dual}_{MN}=e^{-{2\over 7}\phi}
G^{str}_{MN}$, then the metric in (\ref{sgdecoupl}) transforms to
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2_{dual}&=&G^{dual}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=g^{-{2\over 7}}_{s}\left[
-\left({r\over\mu}\right)^5dt^2+\left({{\mu}\over r}\right)^2dr^2+
\mu^2d\Omega^2_8\right]
\cr
&=&N^{2\over 7}\alpha^{\prime}\left[-{{U^{5}}\over{g^{2}_{YM}N}}dt^{2}
+{{dU^{2}}\over{U^{2}}}+d\Omega^{2}_{8}\right].
\label{dualmet}
\end{eqnarray}
By further redefining the radial coordinate as $\bar{r}=({{25}\over 4}
g^{4\over 7}_{s}\mu^3)^{-{1\over 2}}r^{5\over 2}$ or $u=({{25}\over 4}
g^{2}_{YM}N^{3\over 7})^{-{1\over 2}}U^{5\over 2}$,
one can bring the metric to the following standard AdS$_2\times S^8$
form in the horospherical coordinates:
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2_{dual}&=&-\left({{5g^{1\over 7}_{s}}\over{2\mu}}\right)^2\bar{r}^2dt^2+
\left({{2\mu}\over{5g^{1\over 7}_{s}}}\right)^2{{d\bar{r}^2}\over{\bar{r}^2}}
+\left({\mu\over {g^{1\over 7}_{s}}}\right)^{2}d\Omega^2_8
\cr
&=&\alpha^{\prime}\left[-\left({{5}\over{2N^{1\over 7}}}\right)^2u^2dt^2+
\left({{2N^{1\over 7}}\over{5}}\right)^2{{du^2}\over{u^2}}+N^{2\over 7}
d\Omega^2_8\right],
\label{dualads}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u=\bar{r}/\alpha^{\prime}$.
In the dual frame, in which the metric in the near horizon takes the
above AdS form, the effective action (\ref{iibsg}) takes the
following form:
\begin{equation}
S={1\over{16\pi G_{10}}}\int d^{10}x\sqrt{-G^{dual}}
\left[e^{-{6\over 7}\phi}({\cal R}^{dual}+{{16}\over {49}}
\partial_M\phi\partial^M\phi)-{1\over 4}e^{{6\over 7}\phi}
F_{MN}F^{MN}\right].
\label{dualact}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, one can view the $D0$-brane solution (\ref{sgdzero})
as being magnetically charged under the Hodge-dual field strength to the
field strength of the 1-form potential in the RR sector. Namely, the
supergravity solution (\ref{sgdzero}) solves the equations of motion of
the following effective action and is magnetically charged under the
7-form potential $A_{M_1\cdots M_7}$:
\begin{equation}
S^{\prime}={1\over{16\pi G_{10}}}\int d^{10}x\sqrt{-G^{str}}
[e^{-2\phi}({\cal R}^{str}+2\partial_M\phi\partial^M\phi)
-{1\over{2\cdot 8!}}F_{M_1\cdots M_8}F^{M_1\cdots M_8}],
\label{hdgact}
\end{equation}
where $F_{M_1\cdots M_8}$ is the field strength of the 7-form potential
$A_{M_1\cdots M_7}$.
In the dual frame with the spacetime metric $G^{dual}_{MN}=e^{-{2\over 7}
\phi}G^{str}_{MN}$, the action (\ref{hdgact}) takes the following form
\cite{town3}:
\begin{equation}
S^{\prime}={1\over{16\pi G_{10}}}\int d^{10}x\sqrt{-G^{dual}}
e^{-{6\over 7}\phi}\left[{\cal R}^{dual}+{{16}\over {49}}
\partial_M\phi\partial^M\phi-{1\over {2\cdot 8!}}
F_{M_1\cdots M_8}F^{M_1\cdots M_8}\right].
\label{dualhdgact}
\end{equation}
As in Ref. \cite{town3}, if one properly includes the factor involving $N$
in the Weyl transformation of the metric, i.e. $G^{str}_{MN}\to
G^{dual}_{MN}=(Ne^{\phi})^{-{2\over 7}}G^{str}_{MN}$, then the
new radial coordinate $u$ (with which the near horizon metric takes
the AdS form in the horospherical coordinates) is related to $U$ as
$u={2\over 5}{{U^{5/2}}\over{g_{YM}N^{1/2}}}$. This is reminiscence of
the holographic UV/IR connection between the bulk and the boundary theory
\cite{suss3,polc1}, if one identifies $u$ with the energy scale $E$ of the
boundary theory \cite{town3}.
In this case, the effective action in the dual frame takes the
following form \cite{town3}:
\begin{equation}
S^{\prime}={{N^2}\over{16\pi G_{10}}}\int d^{10}x\sqrt{-G^{dual}}
(Ne^{\phi})^{-{6\over 7}}\left[{\cal R}^{dual}+{{16}\over {49}}
\partial_M\phi\partial^M\phi-{1\over {2\cdot 8!}}{1\over{N^2}}
F_{M_1\cdots M_8}F^{M_1\cdots M_8}\right].
\label{orgdualact}
\end{equation}
The near horizon form of D0-brane solution to the associated equations
of motion is:
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2_{dual}&=&-{{u^2}\over{u^2_0}}dt^2+u^2_0{{du^2}\over{u^2}}
+d\Omega^2_8,
\cr
e^{\phi}&=&{1\over N}(g^2_{YM}N)^{7\over{10}}\left({u\over{u_0}}
\right)^{-{{21}\over{10}}},
\cr
F_8&=&7N\,vol(S^8),
\label{dualneard0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u_0=2/5$. From this solution, one can see that there is the
Freund-Rubin compactification \cite{freu} on $S^8$ of the $D=10$ action
(\ref{orgdualact}) to the following 2-dimensional effective gauged
supergravity action \cite{town3}:
\begin{equation}
S^{\prime}=N^2\int d^2x\sqrt{-g}(Ne^{\phi})^{-{6\over 7}}
\left[{\cal R}+{{16}\over{49}}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi
+{{63}\over 2}\right].
\label{2dact}
\end{equation}
The near-horizon D0-brane supergravity solution (\ref{dualneard0}) is reduced
under this $S^8$ compactification to a domain solution
\cite{pope1,pope2,town4}, which is supported by the cosmological term in
the action (\ref{2dact}).
\section{Generalized Conformal Mechanics of D0-branes}
We consider a probe D0-brane with mass $m$ and charge $q$ moving in the
near horizon geometry of the source $N$ D0-brane bound state. The
gravitational field felt by the probe D0-brane in the string [dual] frame
is given by Eqs. (\ref{sgdecoupl}) and (\ref{adsform}) [Eqs. (\ref{dualmet})
and (\ref{dualads})]. Here, once again, $r$ is the radial distance between
the source and the probe D0-branes. The probe D0-brane moves with
the 10-momentum $p=(p_M)=(p_t,p_1,...,p_9)$ and its time-component
is the (static-gauge) Hamiltonian $H=-p_t$. The expression for
the Hamiltonian of the probe D0-brane in the near horizon background
of the source D0-brane can be obtained by solving the mass-shell
constraint of the probe D0-brane.
Unlike the case of Ref. \cite{kall1}, which studies a charged particle
in the Einstein-Maxwell theory, the probe D0-brane satisfies the mass-shell
constraint which is different from the ordinary constraint $0=(p-qA)^2+m^2=
G^{MN}(p_M-qA_M)(p_N-qA_N)+m^2$. This is due to the non-trivial dilaton
field that is present for the D0-brane solution. So, here we rederive the
mass-shell condition for the case of D0-branes. The action for the probe
D0-brane with the mass $m$ and the charge $q$ moving in the background of
the source D0-brane has the following form:
\begin{equation}
S=\int d\tau\,L=\int d\tau\left(me^{-\phi}\sqrt{-G^{str}_{MN}\dot{x}^M
\dot{x}^N}-q\dot{x}^MA_M\right),
\label{dpartact}
\end{equation}
where $v^M=\dot{x}^M\equiv{{dx^M}\over{d\tau}}$ is the 10-velocity of the
probe D0-brane. Note, since we choose the static gauge for the action,
the worldline time $\tau$ and the target-space time $t$ are set to equal.
Once again, $G^{str}_{MN}$ and $A_M$ are the fields produced by the source
D0-brane. Note, in this action the metric $G^{str}_{MN}$ is in the string
frame. The (generalized) momentum conjugate to $x^M(\tau)$ is
\begin{equation}
P_M=-{{\delta L}\over{\delta\dot{x}^M}}={{me^{-\phi}\dot{x}_M}
\over\sqrt{-G^{str}_{MN}\dot{x}^M\dot{x}^N}}+qA_M.
\label{conjmom}
\end{equation}
As usual, $p_M=m\dot{x}_M/\sqrt{-G^{str}_{MN}\dot{x}^M\dot{x}^N}$ is the
ordinary 10-momentum of the D0-brane. From this, one obtains the following
mass-shell constraint for the probe D0-brane in the string-frame background
of the probe D0-brane:
\begin{equation}
G^{str\,MN}(P_M-qA_M)(P_N-qA_N)+m^2e^{-2\phi}=0.
\label{massshell}
\end{equation}
To obtain the expression for the Hamiltonian $H=-P_t$ for the probe
D0-brane mechanics, we solve this mass-shell constraint (\ref{massshell}).
We consider the following general spherically symmetric $D=10$ metric
Ansatz:
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N&=&-A(r)dt^2+B(r)dr^2+C(r)d\Omega^2_8
\cr
&=&-A(r)dt^2+B(r)dr^2+C(r)[d\theta^2+\cos^2\theta d\psi^2_1+
\cos^2\theta\cos^2\psi_1d\psi^2_2
\cr
& &+\cos^2\theta\cos^2\psi_1\cos^2\psi_2d\psi^2_3+\mu^2_id\phi^2_i],
\label{sphansatz}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\mu_1=\sin\theta,\ \
\mu_2=\cos\theta\sin\psi_1,\ \
\mu_3=\cos\theta\cos\psi_1\sin\psi_2,\ \
\mu_4=\cos\theta\cos\psi_1\cos\psi_2\sin\psi_3.
\label{mudefs}
\end{equation}
Then, the expression for the Hamiltonian $H$ takes the following form:
\begin{equation}
H={{P^2_r}\over{2f}}+{{g}\over{2f}},
\label{genhamilton}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f&\equiv&{1\over 2}A^{-{1\over 2}}Be^{-\phi}\left[\sqrt{m^2+e^{2\phi}
(P^2_r+BC^{-1}\vec{L}^2)/B}+qA^{-{1\over 2}}A_te^{\phi}\right],
\cr
g&\equiv&Be^{-2\phi}\left[(m^2-q^2A^{-1}A^2_te^{2\phi})+C^{-1}
e^{2\phi}\vec{L}^2\right].
\label{deffg}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $A_t$ is the time component of the 1-form field $A_M$ of the
near-horizon source D0-brane supergravity solution (\ref{sgdecoupl})
and $\vec{L}^2$ is the angular momentum operator of the probe D0-brane
given by
\begin{equation}
\vec{L}^2=P^2_{\theta}+{{P^2_{\psi_1}}\over{\cos^2\theta}}+
{{P^2_{\psi_2}}\over{\cos^2\theta\cos^2\psi_1}}+
{{P^2_{\psi_3}}\over{\cos^2\theta\cos^2\psi_1\cos^2\psi_2}}+
\sum^4_{i=1}{{P^2_{\phi_i}}\over{\mu^2_i}}.
\label{angop}
\end{equation}
First, we consider the probe D0-brane moving in the string-frame near
horizon background of the source D0-brane. In the original work
\cite{kall1} of the superconformal mechanics of a test charged
particle in the near horizon geometry of the Reissner-Nordstr\"om
black hole, it was necessary to redefine the radial coordinate so
that the metric components $A$ and $B$ in Eq. (\ref{sphansatz})
satisfy the relation $A=B^2$ for the purpose of setting the factor
$A^{-{1\over 2}}B$ in Eq. (\ref{genhamilton}) equal to 1. However,
in the D0-brane case, as we will see, it is more convenient to work
with the original form (\ref{sgdecoupl}) of near horizon metric,
since the expression for the Hamiltonian becomes simpler in the
original radial coordinate.
By substituting the string-frame near horizon metric into the
general formulae (\ref{genhamilton}) and (\ref{deffg}), one obtains
the following Hamiltonian for the probe D0-brane in the string-frame
near horizon background of the source D0-brane bound state:
\begin{equation}
H={{P^2_r}\over{2f}}+{{g}\over{2f}},
\label{stringharm}
\end{equation}
where $f$ and $g$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f&=&{1\over 2}g^{-1}_s\left[\sqrt{m^2+g^2_s\left({\mu\over r}\right)^7
\left(P^2_r+{{\vec{L}^2}\over{r^2}}\right)}+q\right],
\cr
g&=&g^{-2}_s\left({\mu\over r}\right)^{-7}
(m^2-q^2)+{{\vec{L}^2}\over {r^2}},
\label{gfforstring}
\end{eqnarray}
or in terms of the SYM theory variables
\begin{equation}
H={{P^2_U}\over{2f}}+{{g}\over{2f}},
\label{stringharmym}
\end{equation}
where $f$ and $g$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f&=&{1\over 2}\alpha^{\prime\,{1\over 2}}g^{-2}_{YM}
\left[\sqrt{m^2+{{\alpha^{\prime\,-1}g^6_{YM}N}\over{U^7}}
\left(P^2_U+{{\vec{L}^2}\over{U^2}}\right)}+q\right],
\cr
g&=&\left({{\alpha^{\prime\,-1}g^6_{YM}N}\over{U^7}}\right)^{-1}
(m^2-q^2)+{{\vec{L}^2}\over{U^2}}.
\label{gfforstringym}
\end{eqnarray}
It is interesting that the term $A^{-1}A^2_te^{2\phi}$ in Eq. (\ref{deffg})
becomes 1 for the near horizon D0-brane solution (\ref{sgdecoupl}).
So, the expressions for $f$ and $g$ becomes greatly simplified.
And, in particular, in the extreme limit ($m-q\to 0$) of the probe D0-brane,
the first term in $g$ drops out. This also generally holds for any dilatonic
0-brane supergravity solutions.
Just as in the case of the test charged particle in the Reissner-Nordsr\"om
black hole background, the mechanics of the probe D0-brane has the
$SL(2,{\bf R})$ symmetry with the following generators:
\begin{equation}
H={{P^2_r}\over{2f}}+{g\over{2f}},\ \ \ \
K=-{1\over 2}fr^2,\ \ \ \
D={1\over 2}rP_r,
\label{sl2rgen}
\end{equation}
where the Hamiltonian $H$ generates the time translation,
$K$ generates the special conformal transformation and
$D$ generates the scale transformation or the dilatation.
These generators satisfy the following $SL(2,{\bf R})$ algebra:
\begin{equation}
[D,H]=H,\ \ \ \ [D,H]=-K,\ \ \ \ [H,K]=2D.
\label{sl2ralg}
\end{equation}
This is the D0-brane generalization of conformal quantum mechanics studied
in Refs. \cite{scm1,scm2,kall1}.
In fact, the near horizon solution (\ref{sgdecoupl}), when uplifted
as a solution of the 11-dimensional gravity (i.e. the 11-dimensional
plane wave solution), is invariant under the $SU(1,1)\cong SL(2,{\bf R})$
isometry
\footnote{At the 10-dimensional level, such $SL(2,{\bf R})$
transformations act on the near-horizon supergravity D0-brane solution
in such a way that the constant $Q$ in the harmonic function $H$
transforms as if it is a ``field'' on the worldvolume and then is set
to a constant after the transformations \cite{jevi2}.}
generated by the scale transformation $\delta_D$, the special
coordinate transformation $\delta_K$ and the time translation
$\delta_H$ \cite{jevi1}. Under the time translation, $\delta_Ht=1$,
$\delta_HU=0$ and $\delta_Hg_s=0$. Under the special coordinate
transformation, $\delta_Kt=-(t^2+k{{g^2_{YM}}\over{U^5}})$,
$\delta_KU=2tU$ and $\delta_Kg_s=6tg_s$. Finally, under the dilatation,
$\delta_Dt=-t$, $\delta_DU=U$ and $\delta_Dg_s=3g_s$. And $A_t$ transforms
as a conformal field of dimension 1. These infinitesimal transformations
satisfy the following $SL(2,{\bf R})$ algebra just like the symmetry
generators (\ref{sl2rgen}) of the probe D0-brane mechanics:
\begin{equation}
[\delta_D,\delta_H]=\delta_H,\ \ \ \
[\delta_D,\delta_K]=-\delta_K,\ \ \ \
[\delta_H,\delta_K]=2\delta_D.
\label{sl2r11d}
\end{equation}
Note, the string coupling $g_s$ changes under the dilatation and the
special coordinate transformation, and especially $g_s$ becomes time
dependent after the special coordinate transformation is applied.
Thereby, this $SL(2,{\bf R})$ isometry of the near horizon geometry
does not extend to a conformal symmetry of the complete supergravity
solution. The corresponding boundary theory, i.e. $0+1$ dimensional
SYM matrix quantum mechanics, has the same $SL(2,{\bf R})$ symmetry,
but the string coupling $g_s$ also transforms under this symmetry,
unlike the case of D3-brane. However, as noted in Ref. \cite{jevi1},
since the dilaton coupling $g_s$ is related to the matrix model coupling
constant, one can still think of `generalized' $SL(2,{\bf R})$ conformal
symmetry in which the string coupling is now regarded as a part of
background fields that transform under the symmetry. The `generalized'
conformal symmetry therefore transforms a matrix model at one value of
the coupling constant to another. Note, as pointed out in the previous
section, D0-brane in the dual frame has description in terms of domain-wall
solution after the compactification on $S^8$. So, this is also related to
the fact that in the domain-wall/QFT correspondence the choice of horosphere
(the hypersurface of constant $u$) for the Minkowski vacuum corresponds
to a choice of coupling constant of a non-conformal QFT \cite{town3}.
In the non-conformal case, the interpolation between the AdS Killing horizon
(in the dual frame) and its boundary therefore corresponds to an
interpolation between strong and weak coupling, or vice versa.
The extreme limit of the probe D0-brane ($(m-q)\to 0$) can be interpreted
as the M theory in the LCF, since in this case both the source and the probe
D0-branes are in the BPS limit. In this case, the functions $f$ and $g$ are
simplified to
\begin{equation}
f={1\over 2}g^{-1}_s\left[\sqrt{m^2+g^2_s\left({\mu\over r}\right)^7
\left(P^2_r+{{\vec{L}^2}\over{r^2}}\right)}+m\right],\ \ \ \
g={{\vec{L}^2}\over {r^2}},
\label{extfgstr}
\end{equation}
or in terms of the SYM theory variables
\begin{equation}
f={1\over 2}\alpha^{\prime\,{1\over 2}}g^{-2}_{YM}
\left[\sqrt{m^2+{{\alpha^{\prime\,-1}g^6_{YM}N}\over{U^7}}
\left(P^2_U+{{\vec{L}^2}\over{U^2}}\right)}+m\right],\ \ \ \
g={{\vec{L}^2}\over{U^2}}.
\label{extfgstrym}
\end{equation}
Unlike the case of a charged test particle in the near horizon
Reissner-Nordsr\"om black hole background studied in Ref. \cite{kall1},
we do not let the mass of the source D0-brane bound state go to
infinity, since the number $N$ of the D0-branes in the M theory
on the LCF is kept finite. The fact that we are considering the
near horizon geometry of the D0-brane supergravity solution means
that we are in the LCF of M theory, since the near horizon geometry
of the D0-brane supergravity solution is also the null reduction of
the M wave supergravity solution \cite{tsey1}, which is interpreted as
M theory in the LCF. Taking $N$ to infinity, i.e. infinitely massive
source D0-brane, corresponds to M theory in the IMF. Note, the IMF
is defined as the limit in which $N$ and $R_{11}$ go to infinity
such that the momentum $P_{11}=N/R_{11}$ also goes to infinity. Since
$P_{11}\sim g^{-7/2}_{YM}N^{1/4}U^{21/4}$ and $R_{11}\sim g^{7/2}_{YM}
N^{3/4}U^{-21/4}$, one can take both $P_{11}$ and $R_{11}$ to
infinity while taking $N\to\infty$, if $U$ is in the range of
$g^{2/3}_{YM}N^{-1/21}\ll U\ll g^{2/3}_{YM}N^{1/7}$. However, this
range of $U$ is beyond the range of validity (\ref{rcnstrnt}) of the
near horizon solution (\ref{sgdecoupl}). In other words, one cannot
go to the IMF of M theory while keeping the parameters within the
validity of the near horizon solution (\ref{sgdecoupl}). Anyway, the
IMF means decompactification ($R_{11}\to\infty$) to the eleven
dimensions. So, we should rather consider the M wave solution in the
case $N\to\infty$.
By expanding this Hamiltonian for an extreme $D0$-brane probe, one
obtains a Hamiltonian of the form which is the sum of the non-relativistic
kinetic term for the probe and the velocity dependent potential given by
the sum of terms of the form $\sim {{v^{2n+2}}\over{r^{7n}}}$
($n\in{\bf Z}^+$). This should reproduce the (M)atrix theory calculation
of graviton-graviton scattering and its supergravity calculation
reproduction of Ref. \cite{tsey1}. This is because the above action
(\ref{dpartact}) is just the reduction of the action for the probe
in the background of $D=11$ plane wave (describing the motion of the
probe graviton in the background of the moving heavy source graviton) on
a light-like circle to 10 dimensions, i.e. M theory in the LCF.
Note also that since M theory in the LCF has ``Galilean'' invariance (or is
described by non-relativistic quantum mechanics) in the transverse space,
the above Hamiltonian for an extreme probe D0-brane has the non-relativistic
structure. These above arguments, together with the fact that the
generalized conformal mechanics of probe D0-brane and the boundary $SU(N)$
SYM theory (i.e. the (M)atrix model of M theory in the LCF) satisfy the
same $SL(2,{\bf R})$ symmetry, implies the equivalence between the
(M)atrix model with finite $N$ and the generalized conformal mechanics
of D0-brane.
Next, we consider the probe D0-brane moving in the background of the
dual-frame metric of the source D0-brane bound state. Since the dual
frame can be considered as a ``holographic frame'' describing supergravity
probes \cite{town3}, it is worthwhile to consider the case of the dual frame.
In this frame, the near horizon metric takes the AdS$_2\times S^8$ form.
So, one should expect that the `generalized' conformal mechanics with the
$SL(2,{\bf R})$ symmetry can also be realized in the dual frame. The
action for the probe D0-brane in the dual frame background of the source
D0-brane is given by (\ref{dpartact}) with the string-frame metric
$G^{str}_{MN}$ replaced by the dual-frame metric $G^{dual}_{MN}$ through
the relation $G^{str}_{MN}=e^{{2\over 7}\phi}G^{dual}_{MN}$. So, for the
probe D0-brane in the dual frame, the dilaton factor $e^{-\phi}$ in Eqs.
(\ref{dpartact}) and (\ref{conjmom}) [the dilaton factor $e^{-2\phi}$ in
Eqs. (\ref{massshell}) and (\ref{deffg})] is replaced by $e^{-{6\over 7}
\phi}$ [$e^{-{{12}\over 7}\phi}$].
Substituting the dual-frame near horizon solution (\ref{dualmet}) into
this general expression for the Hamiltonian corresponding to the dual
frame, one finds that the Hamiltonian in the dual frame has the same form
as the string-frame Hamiltonian (\ref{stringharm}) with the same $f$ and
$g$ (\ref{gfforstring}). In fact, in general the Hamiltonian
describing probe D0-brane is independent of the near horizon spacetime
frame of the source D0-brane. So, the dynamics of the probe D0-brane in
the dual frame also has the $SL(2,{\bf R})$ symmetry with the same
symmetry generators (\ref{sl2rgen}) and algebra (\ref{sl2ralg}) as the
string-frame case.
As pointed out in the previous section, the source D0-brane solution
also has the (Hodge) dual description in terms of the 8-form field
strength, whose magnetic charge now is carried by the source D0-brane.
In this case, by compactifying the D0-brane solution on $S^8$ one obtains
a domain wall solution in $1+1$ dimensions \cite{town4,town3}. This domain
wall solution solves the equations of motion of a $D=2$ $SO(9)$ gauged
maximal supergravity theory, which is an $S^8$ compactification of the
type IIA supergravity. This $SO(9)$, which is the largest subgroup
of the $SO(16)$ and the isometry group of $S^8$ upon which the D0-brane is
compactified, is also the R-symmetry group of the corresponding boundary
$D=1$ QFT. In general, the R-symmetry of the supersymmetric QFT on the
domain wall worldvolume matches the gauge group, which is the isometry
group of the compactification manifold, of the equivalent gauged
supergravity \cite{town3}.
Putting together all the above facts, namely ($i$) generalized
conformal mechanics of the probe D0-brane in the string-frame
near horizon background of the source D0-brane is related to
the M theory in the LCF, ($ii$) the generalized conformal mechanics
of the probe D0-branes in the string and the dual frames of the
near horizon source D0-branes are described by the same Hamiltonian,
($iii$) upon the dimensional reduction on $S^8$ the bulk theory of
the source D0-brane in the dual frame in the Hodge-dual description
(in terms of the 8-form field strength) is the $D=2$ $SO(9)$ gauged
maximal supergravity theory, one arrives at the speculation that
the M theory in the LCF is related to the $D=2$ $SO(9)$ gauged
maximal supergravity theory (i.e. a $D=2$ Kaluza-Klein supergravity
theory with domain wall vacuum).
\vskip2.mm
|
\section{Introduction}
The quantization of superstrings in non-trivial backgrounds has become
an urgent problem since it has been realized that there is a direct
relationship to the strong coupling dynamics of gauge field theories. In
particular, one is often interested in conformal field theories which
are related to spacetimes which contain an anti-deSitter factor.\cite{Juan}
For
examples with $AdS_3$ and backgrounds of NSNS fields, several cases have
been worked out\cite{GKS,EFGT,KLL,BORT,newKS} for finite $N$. The more
interesting case with RR backgrounds, corresponding to configurations of
D-branes, are much more difficult. Work on $AdS_3$ has been presented in
Ref. \cite{BVW}, while $AdS_5\times S^5$ has been discussed
in the Green-Schwarz formalism\cite{Metsaev:1998it,renata}. Ref.
\cite{ARMR} discusses the latter in the context of an
expansion around flat spacetime.
In this paper, we consider RR backgrounds in the covariant RNS formalism.
We begin with the theory in flat spacetime and demonstrate, that in the
large $N$ limit, string perturbation theory organizes itself into a
$\sigma$-model which is exactly conformal. This procedure may be thought
of as summing of worldsheet holes, with closed string loops suppressed
because of large $N$. We check conformal invariance
of the string path integral explicitly at leading non-trivial order, an
application of the Fischler-Susskind mechanism.\cite{WFLS}
The $\sigma$-model is of a non-standard type because of the RR background,
but can be written formally in a way which is useful for perturbative
calculations.
The case of $AdS_5\times S^5$ is of particular interest. This model has
a great deal of symmetry and it is possible that a free conformal field
theory description exists, perhaps similar to the NS backgrounds with
$AdS_3$. There are a number of oddities, centering around the properties
of superconformal ghosts, as well as the properties of the spacetime
supersymmetry algebra, which remain elusive.\cite{BLL} The present
construction however is certainly not such an exact description, and
must be discussed in the context of a weak curvature expansion. The analysis
may be applied to other cases as well, such as the $D1-D5$ system, but we
confine our attention here to $AdS_5\times S^5$.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss general
properties of string perturbation theory and demonstrate that in the
large $N$ limit, the leading effect corresponds to a sum over worldsheet
boundaries. We argue that these effects can be accounted for by a
formal $\sigma$-model which includes the RR background. In order
to define the $\sigma$-model it is necessary to introduce an operator
which acts like the square-root of the picture-changing operator, $P_{1/2}$.
In section 3,
we discuss the conformal invariance of this $\sigma$-model at lowest
order in $\alpha'$ and demonstrate that the Fischler-Susskind mechanism properly
resums the background geometry. In section 4, we discuss some simple
aspects of the spectrum of excitations around this background, and
demonstrate that at a given level, R and NS states mix. In section 5,
we consider the realization of spacetime symmetry charges in terms of
worldsheet currents and comment on the supersymmetry algebra. Our
analysis here is limited by our incomplete knowledge of the properties
of $P_{1/2}$. Further comments and speculations are reserved for the
final section.
\section{Background of D3-branes: Summing over Boundaries}
The basic idea here for computing the partition function is familiar
from field theory: consider a scalar field theory, with a background
field turned on. The one-loop determinant may be thought of as being
built up by summing over multiple insertions of the background.
\centerline{\littlefig{485oneloopeff.EPSF}{3}}
Indeed, in string theory in NSNS backgrounds, it is well known that
summing over multiple insertions of vertex operators simply
exponentiates those vertex operators, resulting in a $\sigma$-model.
Here, we repeat this analysis in the case of interest, with
RR-backgrounds, and we will discover in exactly what sense the RR vertex
operator exponentiates. We will find that it is possible to write a
formal expression (involving one term) that quantifies the effect of the
RR-background. This is necessarily formal, because it involves an
operator which changes ghost number in a non-standard way. The
alternative is to remove this operator, but at the expense of
introducing an infinite number of non-local operators into the
``$\sigma$-model''. The utility of the formal expression is that it
automatically generates the correct combinatorics, and has a clear
interpretation for any non-zero S-matrix element.
Let us begin by discussing the classical geometry exterior to a
collection of $N$ D3-branes. The background is given by
\beql{bgmetric}
ds^2=f(r)^{1/2}dx_\perp^2+f(r)^{-1/2}dx_\parallel^2
\end{equation}
where $f(r)=1+R_s^4/r^4$, $r$ being the radial perpendicular coordinate.
The radius of curvature satisfies $R_s^4=4\pi gN\alpha'^2$. In addition,
there is a self-dual RR five-form fieldstrength, with total flux $N$, and
the dilaton is constant. One notes that for large $gN$, the curvature
of spacetime is everywhere small, and therefore solving the equations of
motion at first order in $\alpha'$ is a very good approximation. Furthermore,
it has been argued from spacetime considerations that the near-horizon
geometry is exact to all orders in $\alpha'$ and $g$.
Our first task is to understand these results directly from string
perturbation theory, where we integrate open string loops to all orders.
In fact, the parameter that controls this perturbative expansion
is $R_s/r$, so we will consider very large $r$: we are expanding around
flat spacetime. Furthermore, for $R_s^2>>\alpha'$, it is possible to neglect
the effects of higher string modes, even in the near-horizon limit.
In principle, since we are including open string loops to all orders, it
would seem that we also need to include closed string loops. However,
closed string loops are suppressed in large $N$: they contribute at order
$g^2\sim (gN)^2\times {1\over N^2}$, and can be safely ignored. Open string loops
contribute at order $gN$ since the worldsheet boundary can be placed at
any of the $N$ D-branes.
To begin, let us consider the effects of a single boundary.
Polchinski\cite{RRPol} computed the tadpoles of the graviton and RR
4-form potential in the presence of a D-brane to determine that a single
D-brane carried one unit of RR-charge. The same calculation can be used
to deduce that the gravitational field at a distance $r$ from a D3-brane
has strength $\tilde G(X)=R_s^4/2r^4$.
In this calculation, the information about polarizations is lost. This
information may be recovered by a consideration of scattering of
gravitons off of a D-brane.\cite{Klebanov:1996ni,Gubser:1996wt}
The result is that the polarization manifestly preserves
$SO(6)\times SO(3,1)$,
\begin{equation}
g_{\mu\nu}(X)={R_S^4\over 2r^4} t_{\mu\nu}
\equiv{R_S^4\over 2r^4}\left( \delta^\perp_{\mu\nu}-\delta^\parallel_{\mu\nu}\right)
\end{equation}
This is the leading term in an expansion of the supergravity
metric \eq{bgmetric} and we will see that it is consistent from
the point of view of the string path integral as well.
If we are at large $r$, we can think of this as a gravitational
fluctuation, with (on-shell) vertex operator in the (0,0)
picture\footnote{Our normalizations are $\langle
X(z)X(z')\rangle=-{\alpha'\over2}\ln|z-z'|^2$ and
$\langle\psi(z)\psi(z')\rangle=1/(z-z')$. Furthermore,
$G(X)={\tilde G(X)\over 4\pi}$ (the $4\pi$ is introduced to account for
the differing normalizations of metric and vertex operator.)}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gravitonvop}
\delta V_g &=& -{2\over\alpha'}t_{\mu\nu}
\left(-G(X)\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu
+{\alpha'\over 2}(\psi\cdot\partial G(X))\psi^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu\right.\nonumber\\
& &\left.+{\alpha'\over 2}\pa X^\mu(\tilde\psi\cdot\partial G(X))\tilde\psi^\nu
-\left({\alpha'\over 2}\right)^2 \psi^\lambda\psi^\mu\tilde\psi^\rho\tilde\psi^\nu
\partial_\lambda\partial_\rho G(X)\right)
\end{eqnarray}
We will find that it is necessary to modify this vertex operator by
contact terms; we will see that this is equivalent to going to $N=1$
superspace.
The RR vertex operator in the $(-{1\over2},-{1\over2})$-picture takes
the form\footnote{$C$ is charge conjugation, $\Gamma_{-1}$ is
10-dimensional chirality, and $\Gamma_{\perp(\parallel)}$ is chirality
in the 6(4)-dimensional subspace.}
\beql{RRvop}
\delta V_{RR}
=\tilde S^T C\Gamma^{\mu_1\ldots\mu_5}\left( {1+\Gamma_{-1}\over 2}\right) S
H_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_5}e^{-\phi/2}e^{-\bar\phi/2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\mu_1\ldots\mu_5}H_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_5}
=\Gamma_\parallel\Gamma^\alpha\partial_\alpha G(X)
\end{equation}
The normalization of $V_{RR}$ may be determined by factorization.
The first step is to check under which conditions the operator
\eq{gravitonvop} is well-defined; instead of defining it to be
normal-ordered, we require that the singularities are absent. There are
both quadratic divergences (contact terms)\cite{MGNS} and logarithmic divergences
to consider. We will confine our attention to the $\pa X\bar\pa X$ part of
the graviton vertex operator. The other terms follow from
worldsheet supersymmetry.
The prefactor $G(X)$ will be dealt with by expansion around a fixed
configuration:
$G(X)=\langle G(X)\rangle+X^\mu\langle \partial_\mu G(X)\rangle+\ldots$.
Point-splitting $\delta V_g$ (eq. \eq{gravitonvop}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:selfcontract}
\int d^2z\ \delta V_g=\int d^2z\ :\delta V_g: +
{\rm tr\ } t\ 2\pi\delta^{(2)}(\epsilon)\int d^2z :G(X):\\
-{1\over 2}\ln |\epsilon|^2\ \int d^2z :\Box G(X) t_{\mu\nu}\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu:
+\ldots\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
In the ellipsis are the fermion terms. There are higher order terms in $\alpha'$,
but they are all proportional to (derivatives of) $\Box G$.
Now, because $G(X)$ is a harmonic function, $\Box G(X)$ vanishes, at least away
from the branes. Thus $\delta V_g$ is defined up to a contact term. This
contact term may be removed by modifying $\delta V_g$ by terms which vanish
on the (tree-level) equations of motion. In fact, these modifications are
equivalent to introducing $N=1$ superspace
\begin{equation}
{\bf X}=X+i\theta\psi+i\bar\theta\tilde\psi+\theta\bar\theta F
\end{equation}
whereupon the vertex operator is written:
\beql{newgop}
\delta V_g=t_{\mu\nu}\int d^2z\int d^2\theta\ G({\bf X})D{\bf X}^\mu\bar D{\bf X}^\nu.
\end{equation}
The new terms in the vertex operator
which are relevant for the contact terms are
\begin{equation}
Gt_{\mu\nu}(\psi^\mu\bar\partial \psi^\nu+\tilde\psi^\nu\partial\tilde\psi^\mu+F^\mu F^\nu)
\end{equation}
The fermionic terms in the vertex operator are just the appropriate covariantizations
\begin{equation}
\psi^\mu(G\bar\partial \delta^\nu_\lambda +\bar\partial X^\nu \partial_\lambda G)\psi^\lambda,
\end{equation}
etc. These give additional contractions which cancel the contact term.
Thus we have shown that the vertex $\delta V_g$ is well-defined. The RR
vertex operator requires no such treatment, as there are no contact
terms;\footnote{This assumes the spin field $S^\alpha$ is normal-ordered.}
it is regular, as long as $\Box G=0$. With these operators in
hand, we are prepared to consider string worldsheets with multiple
insertions. We will find that there are additional logarithmic
short-distance singularities, which can be canceled by the
Fischler-Susskind mechanism, namely by modifying the function $G$. This
calculation appears in Section 3.
Let us consider the scattering of string states off of the D-branes
at low momentum transfer. The momentum transfer is the Fourier transform of
the coordinate $r$. We want to show that the contributions to this
scattering are dominated by the exchange of massless states. The boundary
on the D-brane may then be replaced in this factorization limit, by an
insertion of a massless background vertex.
Indeed, this is what we would expect from looking at a Born-Oppenheimer
approximation to the scattering. In essence, if each boundary has this
property, then the relevant limit for calculating amplitudes involves
long thin tubes attached to the brane, so each boundary is effectively
shrunk to zero size, and can be replaced by a local insertion of a
massless vertex operator, which depends on $r$. This
dependence comes about as each long thin tube extends from where the
interaction takes place to the D-brane, and hence involves the Green's
function $\sim {1\over r^4}$ for the massless state in consideration.
The fact that the amplitude factorizes into a long thin tube for each
boundary is a non-trivial statement, as one might imagine that there
might be hard momentum flowing from one hole to another, thus making the
boundaries big. We will argue that these effects cancel each other by
supersymmetry. Indeed, in a low momentum scattering, the amplitude of
external states factorizes onto a one point function of a vertex
operator that is almost on-shell and massless, on a Riemann surface with
$ m>1$ holes. As we have more than one hole in the surface, the diagram
without insertion is a self energy diagram of the brane configuration,
and by supersymmetry vanishes; addition of the massless state insertion
to this diagram is zero on-shell, as it probes the self-energy of the
brane externally. The argument breaks down for $m=1$, as this probes
the 'tree' level contribution to the mass of the brane, and this is the
D-brane tension. Thus, the relevant limit of moduli space that
contributes to the amplitude involves long thin tubes for all the
insertions, and hence we get only effects from massless vertex operators
in the full calculation.
Summing over this restricted moduli space of zero size holes
integrates these vertex operator insertions over a Riemann surface with
fixed complex structure. We sum
over all inequivalent surfaces, and since the boundaries are all
identical, we should divide out by the permutation symmetry to
avoid overcounting.
The sum over boundaries generates the series
\begin{equation}
1+\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac 1{m!}\left(\int_\Sigma V_B \right)^m = \exp{\int_\Sigma d^2 z V_B}
\end{equation}
with $V_B$ a massless string state generated by the boundary.
That is, the sum over boundaries generates an expression which has a sigma model
interpretation where we modify the action by
\beql{genexp}
S\to S+\int_\Sigma d^2 z V_B(r)
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the impact parameter quantum field on the worldsheet.
The sum over spin structures implies that
$V_B$ is given by the combined graviton and self dual RR tadpole
which we extracted in eqs. \eq{newgop},\eq{RRvop} above.
From the point of view of
string perturbation theory around flat spacetime, this corresponds to
a partial resummation. As far as the metric is concerned,
the exponentiation is standard. For the RR background, as discussed,
the combinatorics are right for exponentiation, but the superconformal
ghost factors make this problematic. A $\sigma$-model for these backgrounds
may be written, formally, in several ways. The basic issue is that
we wish to write an expression with zero ghost charge. In an S-matrix
element, it would be convenient to take the external states in a fixed
picture, and the insertion of eq. \eq{genexp} implies that each term
in $V_B$ should be in the same picture.
There may exist a field redefinition which mixes ghosts and matter
fields similar to Ref. \cite{Berkovits:1994wr,BVW} that would sidestep this problem
but instead we propose to formally write the $\sigma$-model as
\begin{equation}
S_{RR}\sim \int P_{1/2}\bar P_{1/2} V_{(-1/2,-1/2)}
\end{equation}
where $P_{1/2}$ ($\bar P_{1/2}$) increases the L(R)-ghost charge by $1/2$ and
satisfies $P_{1/2}^2=P_{+1}$ ($\bar P_{1/2}^2=\bar P_{+1}$). Such
operators are clearly not well-defined. However, this expression has two
important properties: {\it it generates the correct combinatorics, and is
unambiguous for any non-zero S-matrix element}. The basic point is that
in an expansion of this exponential, the RR background vertex only
contributes in pairs (on any topology). Using this $\sigma$-model,
one can systematically compute perturbative corrections. For a given
on-shell S-matrix element on a given topology,
one introduces the correct background ghost charge explicitly, then takes
each vertex operator, and each background vertex in the $(0,0)$ picture,
defined as above. Further issues involving the properties of $P_{1/2}$
may be found in Sections 5,6.
An alternative procedure would be the following.
Since the one-point function of $V_{RR}$
is zero on any topology, one could attempt to write non-local expressions
of the form
\begin{equation}
S_{RR}\sim \int V_{(+1/2,+1/2)}\int V_{(-1/2,-1/2)}+\ldots
\end{equation}
but the combinatorics of such an action are not correct: one needs to
correct this at order $V^4$ and so on. An action with an infinite number
of non-local terms is certainly not a terribly convenient representation.
\section{Fischler-Susskind and the $\sigma$-model}
Having discussed the general form of string perturbation theory in this
background, we now give an explicit calculation of the modifications to
the background which follow from conformal invariance of the string path
integral. The calculation is an application of the Fischler-Susskind mechanism
for a pair of colliding worldsheet holes. Thus we consider two background
vertex operators, defined above, and bring them close together.
\smallskip
\centerline{\littlefig{opprodFS.EPSF}{2}}
\noindent The calculation of the short-distance singularity is somewhat involved
but straightforward, and
we present here only the result. The quadratic divergences (contact terms)
cancel exactly, given the modified form of the vertices discussed above.
For simplicity, we write here the contributions to only the $\pa X\bar\pa X$ part
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^2z\ \delta V_g(z)\cdot\int d^2z'\ \delta V_g(z')=&&\nonumber\\
-4\pi\ln |\epsilon|^2\int d^2z
\Bigg(\pa X^\mu\partial_\mu G\ \bar\pa X^\nu (t^2)_\nu^{\ \lambda}\partial_\lambda G\\
+\bar\pa X^\mu\partial_\mu G\ \pa X^\nu (t^2)_\nu^{\ \lambda}\partial_\lambda G
\nonumber\\
-{1\over2}({\rm tr\ } t^2) \pa X^\mu\partial_\mu G\ \bar\pa X^\nu\partial_\nu G
-\pa X^\mu t_\mu^{\ \rho}\partial_\rho G\ \bar\pa X^\nu t_\nu^{\ \lambda}\partial_\lambda G\nonumber\\
+(\partial G\cdot \partial G)(t^2)_{\mu\nu}\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu
+G\Box G\ t_{\mu\nu}\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu\Bigg)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since $G(X)$ depends only on $r$, using the form of $t_{\mu\nu}$ discussed
earlier this reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^2z\ \delta V_g(z)\cdot\int d^2z'\ \delta V_g(z')=\nonumber\\
4\pi\ln |\epsilon|^2\int d^2z
\left(4\partial_\mu G\partial_\nu G-(\partial G\cdot \partial G)\eta_{\mu\nu}\right)
\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu+\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
which is in the form of a graviton vertex operator.
There is also a logarithmically divergent contribution of the same form
from two background RR vertices. After some Dirac algebra, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^2z\ \delta V_{RR}(z)\cdot\int d^2z'\ \delta V_{RR}(z')=\nonumber\\
4\pi\ln|\epsilon|^2\int d^2z
\left(-4\partial_\mu G\partial_\nu G+2(\partial G\cdot \partial G)t_{\mu\nu}\right)
\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain this result, the normalization of the RR vertex operator is
required, as given in \eq{RRvop}, and discussed in Section 5.
The total logarithmic divergence in the graviton channel is then of the form
\beql{totdiv}
4\pi\ln |\epsilon|^2\int d^2z
(\partial G\cdot \partial G)\left( \delta^\perp_{\mu\nu}-3\delta^\parallel_{\mu\nu}\right)
\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu+\ldots
\end{equation}
Note that the terms in $\partial r\bar\partial r$ have cancelled precisely between
NS and R contributions.\footnote{Even if this were not true, a field
redefinition can remove such terms.} In this sense, we have started in the
``right" coordinate system.
The divergence \eq{totdiv} may be removed by modifying the
graviton background through the addition of a term
\begin{equation}
-2\pi \left( {2\over \alpha'}\right) G^2(X)
\left( \delta^\perp_{\mu\nu}-3\delta^\parallel_{\mu\nu}\right)
\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu+\ldots
\end{equation}
where the ellipsis contains fermionic terms, determined by
supersymmetry. These terms have a logarithmically divergent
self-contraction which exactly cancels that of eq. \eq{totdiv}. To see
this, one can use eq. \eq{selfcontract} with $G$ replaced by $-2\pi
G^2$: since $G^2$ is not harmonic, there is a non-zero contribution from
$\Box G^2$.
At this order then, the graviton background has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{1\over 2\pi\alpha'}\left\{ \left(\tilde G-{1\over2}\tilde G^2\right)\delta^\perp_{\mu\nu}
+\left(-\tilde G+{3\over2}\tilde G^2\right)\delta^\parallel_{\mu\nu}\right\}
\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu+\ldots\\
\simeq{1\over 2\pi\alpha'}
\left\{ (f^{1/2}-1)\delta^\perp_{\mu\nu}+(f^{-1/2}-1)\delta^\parallel_{\mu\nu}\right\}
\pa X^\mu\bar\pa X^\nu+\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
where $f=1+2\tilde G(r)$ is the harmonic function appearing in the
supergravity metric. Thus we see that at lowest order, the
Fischler-Susskind mechanism does build up properly the background
geometry of the 3-branes. Similar calculations may be performed without
difficulty to demonstrate the appropriate modification of the RR
background. We believe that this works to all orders in ${R_s\over r}$;
comments in this regard may be found in a later section of this paper.
Certainly, this is not in disagreement with spacetime arguments that the
near-horizon geometry is exact.\cite{MGTB,Kallosh:1998qs}
We present the following worldsheet argument that this is exact to all
orders in $R_s/r$. Since $\alpha'/R_s^2$ is small, it is useful to
consider an expansion of the $\sigma$-model in powers of curvature. In
order to simplify this expansion, one goes to normal coordinates around
a point. In
terms of this expansion in curvature, the Ramond background is a first
order perturbation, and the curvature correction to the metric is second
order. In contrast, for the coordinates we were using before, which are
not normal coordinates, the first correction comes from the Christoffel
symbols, which are set to zero locally on the normal coordinate system.
This can be done for the full geometry, but for simplicity, we specialize
now to the near horizon region.
For $AdS_5\times S^5$, expanding around zero in the normal coordinates we have
\begin{equation}
ds^2 \sim \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + A x_{AdS}^2 dx^2_{AdS}
-A x^2_{S_5} dx_{S_5}^2+\dots
\end{equation}
where $A$ is determined by the curvature of the space.
Also
\begin{equation}
V_{RR} =P_{1/2}\bar P_{1/2} S^\alpha \tilde S^\beta h_{\alpha\beta}
\end{equation}
with $h_{\alpha\beta} \sim [C(\Gamma_{AdS} + \Gamma_{S_5})]_{\alpha\beta}$.
The $\Gamma$ matrices used are products of the five gamma matrices tangent
to $AdS_5$ and $S_5$ respectively.
Again we consider the collision of two background vertices.
The algebra is straightforward,
and we proceed by cancelling the logarithmic corrections from the square of the
Ramond background, and the curvature self-contraction. This produces the
beta function for the graviton, and it reads
\begin{equation}
(R_{\mu\nu} + (H^2)_{\mu\nu})\log(|\epsilon|^2)=0
\end{equation}
We have used the $P_{1/2}$ operators for the Ramond vertex. As we
have two Ramond vertex operators and to leading order they are on-shell
(they are constant), the factors of $P_{1/2}$ give us a picture-changing
operator, and the
result is unambiguous. We thus reproduce the supergravity equations of
motion for the graviton. This computation generalizes to any
weakly coupled string theory at small curvature in the presence of RR
backgrounds and gives the supergravity equations of motion.
This computation is one-loop in the $\sigma$-model and thus is correct
to leading order in
$\alpha'$. Again according to \cite{MGTB,Kallosh:1998qs}, this result is
exact for the near-horizon geometry to all orders in $\alpha'$.
\section{Spectrum: Mixing of RR and NSNS states}
We have suggested in the above discussions that the $\sigma$-model may
be consistently defined, and it is exactly conformal. The next step
would be to discuss the spectrum of excitations around the background.
Since the $\sigma$-model is known and exactly conformal, in principle
one could write equations for vertex operators which make them of
dimension $(1,1)$. The best we can do at present is to compute vertex
operators for these excitations perturbatively in the normal coordinate
expansion, starting with flat spacetime operators.
Note that in the approximation in which we are working, the spacing of
states is as shown in the accompanying figure. The gap between levels is of order
$\sqrt{\alpha'}$ while the spacing between $S^5$ harmonics is of order
$1/R_s$.
\smallskip
\centerline{\littlefig{spectrumlevels.EPSF}{3}}
We expect this spectrum to be modified by the background. The
leading effect is to mix states at the same level. Because of the RR
background, the states which in flat space are RR and NSNS mix with one
another, which means that there are no longer separately conserved number
operators in the R- and NS-sectors. At most, we can expect that a linear
combination is still a good quantum number, and thus organizes the spectrum,
although it seems unlikely that even this is true at finite $N$.
Let us consider the one-loop partition function. In flat spacetime, bosonic
symmetries which act on states come in the NS sector, and thus spacetime
symmetries may be thought of as acting on, for example, the NSNS part of
the partition function and the RR part {\it separately}. Once we turn on
the background, this can no longer be true: there will be spacetime
symmetries in the RR sector and thus at best we can classify states as
bosonic or fermionic (which cancel by supersymmetry).
In this section, we simply demonstrate this mixing at lowest order in
$\alpha'$. The mixing is of order one. In principle, one can
systematically compute higher order corrections. The basic idea is again
an application of the Fischler-Susskind mechanism. We consider some
arbitrary $(1,1)$ operator ${\cal O}e^{ip\cdot X}$ inserted on the
worldsheet. We compute the effects of the background perturbatively by
considering the effects of background vertex operators.
\smallskip
\centerline{\littlefig{spectrumFS.EPSF}{2}}
The leading effect will come from
a single RR insertion
\begin{equation}
\delta V_{RR}=\int d^2z\ P_{1/2}\bar P_{1/2}
(CH)_{\alpha\beta}\tilde S^\alpha S^\beta e^{-\phi/2}e^{-\bar\phi/2}
\end{equation}
The operator product of $\delta V_{RR}$ with the vertex ${\cal O}$ will be of the form
\begin{equation}
\int d^2z\ {1\over |z-z'|^2} (CH)_{\alpha\beta}
\left[ \bar Q^\alpha Q^\beta {\cal O}e^{ip\cdot X}\right]
\end{equation}
This is logarithmically divergent, and converts NS to R and vice versa.
If need be this can be brought back to, say, the $(0,0)$ or
$(-{1\over2},-{1\over2})$-picture by applying the picture-changing
operator.\footnote{Note that at lowest order, we can assume that the
picture changing operator is unchanged from its flat-space value. Higher
order corrections must take this consistently into account.}
Thus the leading order effect is to mix NS with R:
\begin{equation}
\delta\pmatrix{{\cal O}_{NS}\cr {\cal O}_R}=
\pmatrix{0&M\cr \tilde M& 0}\pmatrix{{\cal O}_{NS}\cr {\cal O}_R}
\end{equation}
where $M$ and $\tilde M$ are suitable (logarithmically divergent)
mixings that may be computed from the operator products mentioned above
(we consider an explicit example below.) In order to eliminate the
divergence, we should modify the vertex operators, in two steps. First,
we diagonalize
\begin{equation}
{\cal O}_D\sim \alpha {\cal O}_{NS}+\beta {\cal O}_R
\end{equation}
and then modify the operator ${\cal O}_D$ to eliminate the divergence.
In the weak curvature limit, it
is sufficient to consider
\begin{equation}
:{\cal O}_D\ e^{ik\cdot X}:\to :{\cal O}_De^{ik\cdot X}: e^{i\delta k\cdot X}
\end{equation}
Going beyond the weak curvature approximation is a difficult problem,
equivalent to solving for the explicit form of the vertex operators in
this background, and we do not attempt such an analysis here. The
modification of the momenta accounts for the change in the mass of states in
the background and is the only source of a logarithmic divergence within
the vertex operator.
In principle, this analysis may be carried out for any state in the
string spectrum, although it is technically challenging. We confine the
discussion to a demonstration of the mixing effect for components of the
massless gravity multiplet. For these states, the analysis reduces to
that of Ref. \cite{Kim:1985ez} for supergravity in $AdS_5\times S_5$.
Begin then with massless states:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal O}_{NS}&=&\int d^2z\ h^{(NS)}_{\mu\nu}(-\pa X^\mu+ik\cdot\psi\psi^\mu)
(-\bar\pa X^\nu+ik\cdot\tilde\psi\tilde\psi^\nu)
e^{ik\cdot X}\\
{\cal O}_R&=&\int d^2z\ h^{(R)}_{\alpha\beta}\tilde S^\alpha S^\beta
e^{-\phi/2}e^{-\bar\phi/2}e^{ik\cdot X}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that
\begin{equation}
V_B\cdot {\cal O}_{NS}
=-\int d^2z'\ e^{-\phi/2}e^{-\bar\phi/2}e^{ik\cdot X}S^\alpha\tilde S^\beta\cdot
2\pi\ln\epsilon\ h^{(NS)}_{\mu\nu}k_\lambda k_\rho
(C\Gamma^{\lambda\nu}H\Gamma^{\rho\mu})_{\alpha\beta}\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
V_B\cdot {\cal O}_{R}
=\int d^2z\ 2\pi\ln\epsilon\ h^{(R)}_{\alpha\beta} (C\Gamma^\mu H\Gamma^\nu)^{\alpha\beta}
\psi^\mu\tilde\psi^\nu e^{-\phi}e^{-\bar\phi}
\end{equation}
These results are equivalent to a mixing matrix of the form:
\begin{equation}
-2\pi\ln\epsilon\ \pmatrix{0&h^{(NS)}_{\mu\nu}k_\lambda k_\rho
(C\Gamma^{\lambda\nu}H\Gamma^{\rho\mu})_{\alpha\beta}\cr
-h^{(R)}_{\alpha\beta} (C\Gamma^\mu H\Gamma^\nu)^{\alpha\beta} &0}
\end{equation}
and agrees with the supergravity analysis of \cite{Kim:1985ez}. This
mixing suggests that the spacetime symmetries will not respect the
splitting between R and NS.
\section{Spacetime Algebra
Let us consider the realization of spacetime symmetries
on the worldsheet and their algebra. In this discussion, there are some
subtleties because of limited knowledge of $P_{1/2}$. However, modulo
these subtleties, we are able to reproduce the correct spacetime supersymmetry
in the curvature expansion around the near-horizon geometry. A fuller discussion
will appear in a subsequent publication.
We know that in the presence of D-branes, half of the supersymmetry is
broken, but is recovered in the near-horizon region as a superconformal
symmetry. Our first task is to recover this fact in string perturbation
theory.
It is natural to define supercharges
\begin{eqnarray}
q^\alpha&=&\oint dz\ S^\alpha e^{-\phi/2}\\
\bar q^\alpha&=&\oint d\bar z\ \tilde S^\alpha e^{-\bar\phi/2}
\end{eqnarray}
which certainly generate symmetries in flat spacetime.
In a RR background, at lowest order in $\alpha'$, there is only one
linear combination
\beql{mixedsuperch}
Q^\alpha\sim P_{1/2}q^\alpha+\Gamma_\parallel\bar P_{1/2}\bar q^\alpha
\end{equation}
retained. To see this, we simply need to require that the supersymmetry
annihilates the background
\beql{bgsusy}
Q^\alpha\cdot V_{B}=0
\end{equation}
This calculation in fact is another way to fix the normalization of the
RR vertex operator. At lowest order, our lack of understanding of
$P_{1/2}$ is irrelevant. At higher orders, we need to know $P_{1/2}$,
and furthermore we
expect that eq. \eq{mixedsuperch} is further modified by functions of
$r$. Once this happens, there is no possible splitting between
holomorphic and anti-holomorphic fields.
This effect can be computed from worldsheet considerations (given
$P_{1/2}$) by a further application of Fischler-Susskind. From the
spacetime point of view, they are determined by the requirement that $Q$
be associated to a Killing spinor.
We note the very important point here that the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic
charges mix with one another in the RR background. There is nothing
really exotic about this: given a conserved current $J$, we can write
$\bar\partial J+\partial \bar J=0$, and the spacetime charge
$T=\oint dz\ J+\oint d\bar z\ \bar J$ is well-defined, being independent of
contour. Only in special cases are $J$ and $\bar J$ separately conserved.
In the near-horizon limit, we expect that exactly this happens, and the
other linear combination of spacetime supercharges $S^\alpha$, comes
back. Indeed, in normal coordinates for the near-horizon case, we begin
with 32 supercharges, and eq. \eq{bgsusy} does not eliminate any. Instead,
\eq{bgsusy} defines the modifications to the supercharges in the presence
of the background. We may write the Killing spinor equation in the form
\beql{killing}
\nabla Q+Q\cdot V_B=0
\end{equation}
which is the more general form of \eq{bgsusy}. Consider solving this
equation order by order in the curvature expansion:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q^\alpha&=&Q^\alpha_{(0)}+Q^\alpha_{(1)}+\ldots\\
\bar Q^\alpha&=&\bar Q^\alpha_{(0)}+\bar Q^\alpha_{(1)}+\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
The lowest order terms are the flat space expressions
$Q_{(0)}=q$, $\bar Q_{(0)}=\bar q$. At next order, the RR background in
$V_B$ gives a non-zero contribution to the second term in eq. \eq{killing}
which is proportional to $\bar P_{1/2}\bar q^\alpha$. Since in the normal
coordinate expansion, the Christoffel symbols vanish, \eq{killing} then
implies that
\begin{equation}
Q_{(1)}\sim \oint d\bar z \bar P_{1/2} X\cdot \Gamma\tilde S
\end{equation}
with a similar expression for $\bar Q_{(1)}$. Thus we see that indeed the
supercharge has both holomorphic and antiholomorphic contributions. This
is precisely what we need to reproduce the spacetime algebra. With the
expressions that we have given, one may check the following commutators are
induced by the worldsheet representation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\{ Q^\alpha, \bar Q^\beta\} &\sim & \oint (\Gamma_{\mu\nu})^{\alpha\beta}
(X^\mu\cdot \pa X^\nu-X^\mu\cdot\bar\pa X^\nu)+\ldots\\
\{ Q^\alpha, Q^\beta\} &\sim & \oint (\Gamma_\mu)^{\alpha\beta}\pa X^\mu+\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
In general, in order to compute such effects precisely, we need to
understand in more detail the operator $P_{1/2}$. We believe that these
obstacles can be overcome.
\section{Conclusions and discussion}
In this paper, we have analyzed the background produced by D3-branes. We
have discussed how a $\sigma$-model description can be used. The background
geometry is recovered by summing over boundaries of worldsheets, and
systematically applying the Fischler-Susskind mechanism. Our results
suggest to us that an exact string conformal field theory description
may exist. In order to `derive' such a description from perturbation
theory requires further understanding of the square root of the
picture changing operator. Our results indicate that this is not such
an unnatural object. With this operator we can construct a perturbation
expansion which is independent of the zero mode of the bosonized superconformal
ghost system. This indicates that picture-changing is still a property of
these $\sigma$-models, but the detailed form is modified by the background.
It is plausible that the approach of \cite{BVW} is related to these remarks.
The case of $AdS_3$ discussed there is considerably different however. In
particular, there are half as many supersymmetries as for $AdS_5$, and
consequently more freedom to choose pictures, and as well the target space
of the $\sigma$-model is a group manifold. It seems difficult
to imagine that a free-field realization exists in that the mixing of
holomorphic and anti-holomorphic currents would seem to invalidate the
idea of a spectrum generating algebra.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgments:} We wish to thank F. Larsen for
collaboration at an early stage of this work. Research supported in part
by the United States Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-91ER40677 and an
Outstanding Junior Investigator Award.
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright |
\section{Introduction}
The theoretical stellar yields of nitrogen are rather uncertain. It has been
found (Renzini \& Voli 1981; Marigo et al 1996,1998; van den Hoek \&
Groenewegen 1997) that nitrogen production takes place in the asymptotic
giant branch phase of the evolution of intermediate-mass stars, but the
mass range of the nitrogen-producing stars and the predicted
amount of freshly produced nitrogen depend on poorly known parameters.
The theoretical yields of nitrogen by massive stars are essentially unknown.
Therefore, an "empirical" approach (analysis of the relation of N/O
with O/H) has been widely used to study of the origin of nitrogen
(Edmunds \& Pagel 1978; Lequeux et al 1979; Matteucci \& Tosi 1985;
Garnett 1990; Pilyugin 1992, 1993; Vila-Costas \& Edmunds 1993; Marconi et al
1994; among others).
Pagel (1985) called attention to the large scatter in N/O at fixed O/H in
low-metallicity dwarf galaxies. Given the time delay between the injection of
nitrogen by intermediate-mass stars and that of oxygen by shorter lived
massive stars (the time -- delay hypothesis: Edmunds \& Pagel 1978) and the
hypothesis of self-enrichment of star formation regions (Kunth \& Sargent 1986),
models for the chemical evolution of dwarf galaxies reproducing the observed
scatter of N/O have been constructed (Garnett 1990, Pilyugin 1992, Marconi et
al 1994). A significant part (if not all) of nitrogen was assumed in these
models to be produced by intermediate-mass stars. The HII regions with high
N/O abundance ratios have been considered to be in early stages of star
formation (before self-enrichment in oxygen occured), reflecting the chemical
composition of the whole galaxy. The HII regions in advanced stages of the
star formation bursts would have small N/O ratios due to self-enrichment in
oxygen. These HII regions would then reflect the local chemical composition,
and the scatter in their N/O ratios would be caused by different degrees of
temporal decrease of N/O ratio within the HII regions. During the interburst
period the nitrogen is ejected by the intermediate-mass stars, and the matter
ejected by massive and intermediate-mass stars is supposed to be well mixed
throughout the whole galaxy. Some scatter in global N/O ratios among dwarf
galaxies can be caused by enriched galactic winds (Pilyugin 1993, 1994;
Marconi et al 1994).
In this framework, the chemical composition of low-metallicity dwarf galaxies
was expected to be characterised by high N/O ratios with a relatively small
dispersion, and the large observed dispersion in the N/O ratios is supposed
to be due to a temporary N/O decrease inside HII regions in which the chemical
composition is determined spectroscopically.
In contrast with previous measurements, Thuan et al (1995) and Izotov \&
Thuan (1999) have found a remarkably small scatter in the N/O ratios of
the HII regions in low-metallicity (with 12+logO/H $\leq$ 7.6) BCGs.
Izotov \& Thuan concluded that these galaxies are presently undergoing their
first burst of star formation, and that nitrogen in these galaxies is produced
by massive stars only. Since the intermediate and low-mass stars certainly do
not make an appreciable contribution to oxygen production, the N/O ratio
corresponding to the ejecta of massive stars and observed in low-metallicity
BCGs is a lower limit for the global N/O ratios. This conclusion is in conflict
with the fact that the nitrogen to $\alpha$-element abundance ratios measured
in some DLAs are well below than the typlical value observed in low-metallicity
BCGs (Lu et al 1998, and references therein). [Since oxygen abundance
measurements are not available for DLAs, $[N/S]$ or $[N/Si]$ ratios are
considered instead of $[N/O]$. This is justified by the fact that there is no
reason to believe that the relative abundances of O, S and Si which are all
produced in Type II supernovae are different from solar in DLAs.] However, as
suggested by Izotov \& Thuan (1999), the nitrogen to $\alpha$-element abundance
ratios in DLAs can be significantly underestimated if the absorption lines
originate in the HII instead of the HI gas. Nevertheless, the possibility of
a truly low nitrogen abundances in some DLAs cannot be excluded without
additional observations, and these DLAs with low nitrogen to $\alpha$-element
abundance ratios do not confirm the idea that the N/O ratio in low-metallicity
BCGs is a lower limit for the global N/O ratio in galaxies.
The best way to find the lower limit of N/O ratio and hence the amount of
nitrogen produced by massive stars would be to determine the N/O ratios in
galactic halo stars. Unfortunately, at the present state their N/O ratios
cannot be determined with a precision better than a factor 2 or 3. The only firm
conclusion is that nitrogen has a strong primary component (Carbon et al 1987).
The goal of this study is to test whether the constancy of the N/O ratios in
low-metallicity BCGs and and the scatter of the N/Si ratios in DLAs are
compatible with each other and with the existing ideas on the chemical
evolution of galaxies.
\section{Possible interpretation of nitrogen abundances in BCGs and DLAs}
Here we will demonstrate that the constancy of the N/O ratios in
low-metallicity BCGs and the scatter of the N/Si ratios in DLAs can be
reconciled under the following three assumptions: {\it 1}) a significant part
of nitrogen is produced by intermediate-mass stars, {\it 2}) star formation in
BCGs and DLAs occurs in bursts separated by quiescent periods, {\it 3}) the
previous star formation events are responsible for heavy element abundances
observed in the HII regions of the BCGs.
As it was discussed in Introduction, there are no crucial arguments in favor
of or against assumption {\it 1}.
Assumption {\it 2} - that star formation in BCGs and DLAs occurs in bursts
separated by quiescent periods - is commonly accepted in the case of BCGs
after it was initially suggested by Searle \& Sargent (1972). In order to
reproduce the observed properties of low-metallicity BCGs, only a few (in some
cases only one or two) star formation bursts during their life are required
(Tosi 1994). Papaderos et al (1998) have found that the spectrophotometric
properties of SBS 0335-052 can be accounted for by a stellar population not
older than $\sim$ 100 Myr. The possibility of an underlying old (10 Gyr)
stellar population with mass not exceeding $\sim$ 10 times that of young
stellar population mass hawever cannot be definitely ruled out on the basis of
the spectrophotometric properties. In other words, the time interval between
possible previous and current star formation events can be as large as $\sim$
10 Gyr. In the case of DLAs, assumption {\it 2} seems to be also acceptable,
despite the fact that DLAs do not constitute an homogeneous class of galaxies
but belong to the wide variety of morphological types of galaxies (Le Brun et
al 1997). Star formation in a given region in galaxies of any morphological
type seems to be episodic. The DLA observations sample the general interstellar
medium at random times along random lines of sight and may or may not see a
region where a star formation event occured in a recent past.
Assumption {\it 3} - that previous star formation events are responsible for
the observed heavy element abundances in BCGs - is equivalent to say that the
element abundances of HII regions in BCGs are not yet polluted by the stars
of the present star formation event, and that their abundances reflect the
average N/O in the galaxy, which results from cumulative previous star
formation. Martin (1996) has found that the current event of star formation in
the most metal-poor known blue compact galaxy I Zw 18 started 15-27 Myr ago.
The duration of current star formation burst in another extremely metal-poor
blue compact galaxy SBS 0335-052 (Papaderos et al 1998) is also in excess
of the lifetime of the most massive stars. Therefore, a selection effect in
favor of observations of young HII regions in which the massive stars had
not yet have time to explode as supernovae cannot be only reason why the HII
regions are not observed as self-enriched. Massive stars in the current star
formation burst have often had time to synthesize heavy elements and to eject
them via stellar winds and supernova explosions into the surrounding
interstellar gas. Kunth \& Sargent (1986) suggest that the heavy elements
produced in this way initially mix into H II region only, i.e. the giant H II
regions are self-enriched. However, it is possible that the nucleosynthetic
products of massive stars are in high stages of ionization and do not make
appreciable contribution to the element abundance as derived from optical
spectra (Kobulnicky \& Skillman 1997, Kobulnicky 1999). Indeed, the oxygen
abundance in SBS 0335-052 has been measured within the region of 3.6 kpc
(Izotov et al 1997). There is a supershell of radius $\sim$ 380 pc. There is
no difference in oxygen abundances inside and outside the supershell as it
should be expected since $\sim$ 1500 supernovae are required to produce this
supershell (Izotov et al 1997). Other star-forming galaxies, which are
chemically homogeneous despite the presence of multiple massive star clusters,
are reported by Kobulnicky \& Skillman (1998). This can be considered as
evidence that the nucleosynthetic products of massive stars in giant HII
regions are hidden from optical spectroscopic searches because they are
predominantly found in a hot, highly -- ionized superbubble. It should be noted
however that some fraction of supernova ejecta can mix with dense clouds
changing their chemical composition. If such cloud survives and produces a
subgroup of stars shortly, the star formation region will have sub-generations
of stars with different chemical composition. This seems to be the case in
the Orion star formation region (Cunha \& Lambert 1994, Pilyugin \&
Edmunds 1996).
With assumptions {\it 1} and {\it 2} the behaviour of the N/O ratio is
described by models of type suggested by Garnett (1990), Pilyugin (1992),
Marconi et al (1994). Figgure \ref{figure:8566f1} illustrates the time behaviour
of N/O in the interstellar medium of a galaxy in the case when all the nitrogen
is produced by intermediate-mass stars (see also Fig.7 in Pilyugin 1992). Since
only low-metallicity galaxies are considered here, the adopted total astration
level in the models is small (less than 0.05), and the nitrogen yield is
assumed to be independent on metallicity. The nitrogen yields by stars in the
mass interval 3$\div$4M$_{\odot}$ were taken from Renzini and Voli (1981).
As can be seen on Fig.\ref{figure:8566f1}, the N/O ratio increases for about
1 Gyr after the star formation burst and then remains constant. This is due to
the assumption that nitrogen is not produced by stars with masses less than
$\sim$ 3$M_{\odot}$ (Renzini and Voli 1981). If stars with masses less than
$\sim$ 3$M_{\odot}$ also make some contribution to the nitrogen production
(Marigo et al 1996, van den Hoek and Groenewegen 1997), this does not change
appeciably the picture because the amount of nitrogen ejected decreases
strongly with decreasing stellar mass (Renzini and Voli 1981, Marigo et al 1996,
van den Hoek and Groenewegen 1997). Therefore, low-metallicity systems with a
large time interval (more than $\sim$ 1 Gyr) between successive star formation
events will have close values of N/O ratios before the current star formation
event (Fig.\ref{figure:8566f1}).
\begin{figure}[thb]
\vspace{7.0cm}
\special {psfile=pilyugf1.ps hscale=55 vscale=55 hoffset=-20 voffset=200 angle=-90.0}
\caption{\label{figure:8566f1}
The $[N/O]$ as a function of time for two models with different star formation
histories. The dashed line corresponds to the evolution of a system in which
two star formation bursts of equal intensities occured 12 Gyr and 3 Gyr ago.
The solid line corresponds to the evolution of a system in which two star
formation bursts occured 12 Gyr and 5 Gyr ago, the second star formation event
being 5 times stronger than the first one.}
\end{figure}
With this behaviour of the N/O ratio and taking into account assumption {\it 3},
the nitrogen abundances in BCGs and DLAs can be interpreted in the following
way. The low-metallicity BCGs are systems with a small amount of old (with age
$>$ 1 Gyr) underlying stellar population over which the current star formation
burst is superposed; only the stars from the previous star formation event(s)
are responsible for the observed chemical composition in the giant HII regions
in these galaxies. The DLAs with low nitrogen to $\alpha$-element ratios
correspond to systems probed less than 1 Gyr after the last local star formation
event, but after a time sufficient for disappearance of the superbubble and
mixing of the freshly produced heavy elements in the interstellar medium.
Conversely, the DLAs with nitrogen to $\alpha$-element ratios close to that in
low-metallicity BCGs correspond to systems in which the time interval after
last star formation event is sufficiently large for intermediate-mass stars
to have substantially enhanced the nitrogen to $\alpha$-element abundance ratios.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
We have shown that the observed nitrogen abundances in both BCGs and DLAs can
be reproduced if a significant part of nitrogen is produced by intermediate-mass
stars. If one assumes instead that the nitrogen abundances measured in
low-metallicity BCGs is produced by massive stars, the observational data for
BCGs and DLAs are incompatible with each other. Can this be considered as a
crucial argument in favor of dominant production of nitrogen by
intermediate-mass stars? Since the low nitrogen to $\alpha$-element abundance
ratios obtained in some DLAs is not beyond question, the possibility that
nitrogen in low-metallicity BCGs is produced by massive stars cannot be
excluded.
The crucial argument in favor of dominant production of nitrogen by
intermediate-mass stars would be the reliable proof of the existence of
systems with low N/O ratios. Solid determinations of nitrogen abundances in
damped Ly$\alpha$ absorbers can clarify this matter. The Zn/S abundance ratios
in DLAs with low measured nitrogen to $\alpha$-element abundance ratios can also
tell us something about the reality of low N/O ratios in these objects. The
measured value of $[Zn/S]$ in DLA associated with QSO 0100-130 is close to
solar ratio (Prochaska \& Wolfe 1998, Lu et al 1998), indicating that Type I
supernovae have already contributed to the zink abundance. The measured $[N/S]$
in this DLA is close to the $[N/O]$ ratio in low-metallicity BCGs. If values
of Zn/S in DLAs with low N/O ratios are close to the solar ratio, this will
be a strong argument in favor of an underestimation of the nitrogen to
$\alpha$-element abundance ratios. The time scale for nitrogen enrichment is
shorter than the time scale for iron enrichment, and a system with high Fe/O
ratio should not have a low N/O ratio. If values of $[Zn/S]$ in DLAs with
measured low N/O ratios are close to $[Fe/O]$ ratios in the galactic halo stars,
this can be considered as an argument in favor of genuinely low nitrogen to
$\alpha$-element abundance ratios in these DLAs.
Of course, the best way to find the amount of nitrogen produced by massive
stars would be an undisputable determination of N/O ratios in galactic halo
stars.
In summary:
If a significant part of nitrogen is produced by intermediate-mass stars, it
is possible to reconcile the observational data for BCGs and DLAs.
If nitrogen is mainly produced by massive stars, the observational data for
BCGs and DLAs are incompatible with each other. Since the low nitrogen to
$\alpha$-element abundance ratios obtained in some DLAs are not beyond question,
the possibility that nitrogen measured in low-metallicity BCGs is produced by
massive stars cannot however be completely excluded.
\begin{acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Drs. N.G.Guseva and Y.I.Izotov for fruitful discussions.
I thank the referee, Prof. J.Lequeux, for helpful comments and suggestions
which resulted in a better presentation of the work. This work was partly
supported through INTAS grant 97-0033. This study has been done using the
NASA's Astrophysical Data Service.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction} Some recent works have been devoted to the
interaction of ultracold atoms with microwave cavities
\cite{Scu96,Mey97,Lof97,Sch97,Ret98,Zha99}. These studies treated
the interaction between an incident atom in an excited state and a
cavity field containing $n$ photons, taking the quantum mechanical
CM motion of the atom into account. This interaction leads to a
new kind of induced emission intimately associated with the
quantization of the CM motion, named the mazer action
\cite{Scu96}.
After interaction with the cavity, the atom can be found
transmitted in the excited state or in the lower state, or
reflected as well. It has been shown \cite{Scu96} that these event
probability amplitudes (denoted respectively $T_{a,n}$,
$T_{b,n+1}$, $R_{a,n}$ and $R_{b,n+1}$) are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{TRinExpr}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{array}{cc}
T_{a,n}=\frac{1}{2}( t_{+n}+t_{-n} ) \qquad &
T_{b,n+1}=\frac{1}{2}( t_{+n}-t_{-n} ) \\
R_{a,n}=\frac{1}{2}( r_{+n}+r_{-n} ) \qquad &
R_{b,n+1}=\frac{1}{2}( r_{+n}-r_{-n} )
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\end{equation}
where $t_{\pm n}$ and $r_{\pm n}$ are, respectively, the transmission
and reflection amplitudes of the elementary scattering process of
the atom incident upon the potential
\begin{equation}
V_{n}^{\pm}(x)=\pm \hbar g \sqrt{n+1}\:u(x)
\end{equation}
where $x$ is the atom traveling direction, $g$ is the atom~--
field coupling strength and $u(x)$ is the cavity field mode
function.
The induced emission probability of the atom interacting with the cavity field is then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Pem}
P_{em}=|T_{b,n+1}|^2+|R_{b,n+1}|^2
\end{equation}
All these probabilities are strongly dependent on the cavity mode
profile. Their calculation needs to solve the one-dimensional
time-independent Schr\"odinger equation. L\"{o}ffler \textit{et~al.}~\cite{Lof97} have calculated them as a function of the interaction
length $\kappa_{n}L$ ($L$ is the cavity length and
$\kappa_{n}=\kappa \sqrt[4]{n+1}$ with $\kappa=\sqrt{2mg/\hbar}$,
and $m$ the atomic mass) for various cavity mode functions: mesa,
$\textrm{sech}^2$ and sinusoidal modes. For the two first modes,
analytical results of the probability $P_{em}(\kappa_{n}L)$ have
been given. For the sinusoidal modes, detailed Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin solutions have been presented. Nevertheless,
Retamal \textit{et~al.}~\cite{Ret98} have shown that the WKB
approximation may lead to inaccurate predictions for actual
interaction and cavity parameters.
The consideration of actual interaction and cavity parameters is a difficult
numerical task as they can correspond to very large values of
$\kappa_{n}L$. When no analytical solutions of the Schr\"odinger
equation are available, usual numerical integration methods do not
converge rapidly or do not converge at all.
In this paper, we present a novel approach for solving the
one-dimensional time-independent Schr\"odinger equation. Our
method is described in Sec.~\ref{MethodDescription}. It may be
applied for any potential function. It is efficient, stable and
succeeds when other numerical integration methods fail. It may
replace and improve advantageously the WKB approach. Details of
the implementation of our method and validity tests are presented
in Sec.~\ref{MethodImplementation}.
We apply our method for calculating some new $P_{em}(\kappa_{n}L)$
curves. In particular, the Gaussian potential has been considered,
thinking in open cavities in the microwave or optical field
regime. These results are presented in Sec.~\ref{NewResults}.
\section{Description of the method}
\label{MethodDescription}
The one-dimensional time-independent Schr\"odinger equation can be
written in atomic units in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{SchrEq}
\left( \frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+(E-V(x))\right)\phi(x)=0
\end{equation}
We assume here that the potential $V(x)$ has non zero values only in a
given region of the $x$ axis, say $\left[x_a,x_b\right]$. This region
is divided into $J$ grid points, denoted $x_1,\ldots,x_J$ such that
$x_a=x_1<x_2<\cdots<x_{J-1}<x_J=x_b$. Let us note $I_j$ ($0<j<J$) the
region $\left[x_j,x_{j+1}\right]$, $I_0$ $\left]-\infty,x_1\right]$,
and $I_J$ $\left[x_J,+\infty\right[$.
The potential $V(x)$ is approximated in each region $I_j$ by a
straight line connecting $V(x_j)$ and $V(x_{j+1})$. The approximated
potential is noted $V_{approx}(x)$. Then Schr\"odinger equation takes the simple form in
$I_j$ ($0 \leq j \leq J$):
\begin{equation}
\label{ApproxSchrEq}
\left( \frac{d^2}{dx^2}+(a_j+b_{j}x)\right)\phi_{j}(x)=0
\end{equation}
with $a_0=a_J=2E$, $b_0=b_J=0$, and for $0<j<J$
\begin{equation}
\label{ajbjDef}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
a_j=2 \left(E-\frac{x_{j+1}V_{j}-x_{j}V_{j+1}}{x_{j+1}-x_{j}}\right)\\
b_j=-2 \frac{V_{j+1}-V_{j}}{x_{j+1}-x_{j}} \quad \textrm{with}
\quad V_i=V(x_i),i=j,j+1
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
The most general solutions of Eq.~(\ref{ApproxSchrEq}) are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{phij}
\phi_{j}(x)=C_{j}f_{j}^{+}(x)+D_{j}f_{j}^{-}(x)
\end{equation}
where $C_j$ and $D_j$ are two complex constants and $f_{j}^{+}(x)$
and $f_{j}^{-}(x)$ 2 functions depending on the $a_j$ and $b_j$
values. These functions are given in Table~\ref{FunctionsTable}.
As shown in Table~\ref{FunctionsTable}, the functions
$f_{j}^{+}(x)$ and $f_{j}^{-}(x)$ depend on the sign of
$a_j+b_{j}x$. To avoid a change of this sign in a given region
$I_j$, the set $x_1,\ldots,x_J$ must contain the roots of the
equation $V(x)=E$. Thus, the condition $a_j+b_{j}x>0$ (resp.
$a_j+b_{j}x<0$) is equivalent to that $E>V(x)$ (resp. $E<V(x)$)
for $x \in I_j$.
The complex constants $C_j$ and $D_j$ in Eq.~(\ref{phij}) are
determined by use of the wavefunction asymptotic behaviour
knowledge ($(C_0,D_0)$ or $(C_J,D_J)$ are supposed to be known)
and of the set of conditions imposing the continuity of the
wavefunction and its derivative along the $x$ axis~:
\begin{equation}
\label{ContinuityConditions}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \phi_{j}(x_j)=\phi_{j-1}(x_j) \\
\phi'_{j}(x_j)=\phi'_{j-1}(x_j) \end{array} \right. \quad (0 < j \leq J).
\end{equation}
If $(C_0,D_0)$ are given, Eq.~(\ref{ContinuityConditions}) may be
written as
\begin{equation}
\label{ContinuityConditionsA}
\left( \begin{array}{l} C_{j} \\ D_{j} \end{array} \right) = A_{j}(x_j)
\left( \begin{array}{l} C_{j-1} \\ D_{j-1} \end{array} \right)
\quad \textrm{for} \: 0 < j \leq J,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
A_j & = & \frac{1}{f_{j}^{+}g_{j}^{-}-f_{j}^{-}g_{j}^{+}} \times \nonumber\\
& & {}\left( \begin{array}{cc}
f_{j-1}^{+}g_{j}^{-}-f_{j}^{-}g_{j-1}^{+} &
f_{j-1}^{-}g_{j}^{-}-f_{j}^{-}g_{j-1}^{-} \\
f_{j}^{+}g_{j-1}^{+}-f_{j-1}^{+}g_{j}^{+} &
f_{j}^{+}g_{j-1}^{-}-f_{j-1}^{-}g_{j}^{+}
\end{array} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
g_i^{\pm}(x)=\frac{df_i^{\pm}}{dx} \, , \,i=j,j-1.
\end{equation}
If $(C_J,D_J)$ are known, Eq.~(\ref{ContinuityConditions}) should
be written
\begin{equation}
\label{ContinuityConditionsB}
\left( \begin{array}{l} C_{j-1} \\ D_{j-1} \end{array} \right) = B_{j}(x_j)
\left( \begin{array}{l} C_{j} \\ D_{j} \end{array} \right)
\quad \textrm{for} \: J \geq j > 0,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
B_j & = & \frac{1}{f_{j-1}^{+}g_{j-1}^{-}-f_{j-1}^{-}g_{j-1}^{+}} \times \nonumber\\
& & {}\left( \begin{array}{cc}
f_{j}^{+}g_{j-1}^{-}-f_{j-1}^{-}g_{j}^{+} &
f_{j}^{-}g_{j-1}^{-}-f_{j-1}^{-}g_{j}^{-} \\
f_{j-1}^{+}g_{j}^{+}-f_{j}^{+}g_{j-1}^{+} &
f_{j-1}^{+}g_{j}^{-}-f_{j}^{-}g_{j-1}^{+}
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The knowledge of $\phi_{j}(x)$ in each region $I_j$ defines an
approximated wavefunction of the Schr\"odinger equation
(\ref{SchrEq}). The grid point number $J$ fixes the accuracy of
the method. The higher $J$ is, the more accurate is the
approximated potential $V_{approx}(x)$ and the better is the
approximated wavefunction. The actual number $J$ to be considered
for a given accuracy depends on various parameters (potential
form, energy $E$, size of the region $\left[x_a,x_b\right]$). We
show in Sec.~\ref{MethodImplementation} and \ref{NewResults} that
a few hundreds are typical numbers.
The wavefunctions yielded by our method are not divergent at the
classical turning points (where $E = V(x)$), on the contrary of
the WKB method. Although some Bessel functions of
Table~\ref{FunctionsTable} are divergent at these points (as
$z_j(x) \equiv a_j + b_j x = 0$), all the functions $f_{j}^{\pm}(x)$ and their
derivative $g_{j}^{\pm}(x)$ admit finite limits there (see Table~\ref{Limits}).
The transmission and reflection complex amplitudes (denoted
respectively $t$ and $r$) of a particle incident upon a potential
$V(x)$ may be calculated as well (and consequently the induced
emission probability (\ref{Pem})). If we consider the outgoing
wavefunction $\phi_{J}(x)=e^{ikx}$ with $k=\sqrt{2E}$, we can
calculate the corresponding incoming wavefunction
$\phi_{0}(x)=C_0\cos(kx)+D_0\sin(kx)$ by use of
relations~(\ref{ContinuityConditionsB}). We then have
\begin{equation}
\label{tAndr}
t=\frac{2}{C_0-iD_0} \quad , \quad r=\frac{C_0+iD_0}{C_0-iD_0}
\end{equation}
\section{Method implementation}
\label{MethodImplementation}
We have implemented the method described above on a PC Pentium
based computer. Bessel functions of
Table~\ref{FunctionsTable} have been coded using algorithms given
by Zhang and Jin~\cite{Zha96}. The evaluation of the Mathematica
$^{\circledR}$
Bessel functions has been discarded due
to poor performances (thousand times slower than direct
computation). For usual cavity parameters, $C_0$ and $D_0$
coefficients of Eq.~(\ref{tAndr}) can rapidly become very large.
To avoid computation overflow errors, we have adopted a custom number
representation. Our internal range of values was
9.9~E~$\pm$~($\sim$9~E~18) with 15 significants.
As a first test of our method, we checked its ability to converge
when the grid point number $J$ increases. We have calculated the
induced emission probability $P_{em}$ of an atom interacting with
a sech${}^2$ mode profile cavity ($u(x)=\textrm{sech}^2(x/L)$) as
a function of the number $J$ and for a fixed interaction length
$\kappa_{n}L$. Fig.~\ref{FigurePem_JSech2} presents the curve
obtained in the case of $k/\kappa_n=0.01$ and $\kappa_nL=10$. This
curve shows very clearly that $P_{em}$ converges to a given value
as $J$ increases. Also, in that case, a $J$ number of 200 is
sufficient for predictions to the accuracy of the graphics. For
this calculation, the region $\left[x_a,x_b\right]$ was limited to
16 times the cavity length $L$ ($\sim 8$ times the FWHM of the
potential function).
In order to improve the convergence of our method with the number $J$, we renormalized the
approximated potential so that the area under it remained
constant whatever value $J$ had. Instead of using $V_i=V(x_i)$ in
Eq.~(\ref{ajbjDef}), we have used $V_i=\alpha V(x_i)$ with $\alpha$
equal to the ratio of the area under $V(x)$ over the area under
$V_{approx}(x)$.
The study of the sech${}^2$ mode profile is a good test for a
numerical method as there exists an analytical expression for
$P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$. In this case we have (see L\"offler
\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Lof97})
\begin{subeqnarray}
\label{PemAnalSech2} t_n^{\pm} & = & \frac{\displaystyle
\Gamma\left[1/2-i(kL+\xi_n^{\pm})\right] \: \cdot \:
\Gamma\left[1/2-i(kL-\xi_n^{\pm})\right]}{\displaystyle \Gamma\left[-ikL\right] \:
\cdot \: \Gamma\left[1-ikL\right]} \nonumber \\ & & \\
r_n^{\pm} & = & \frac{\displaystyle \Gamma\left[ikL\right] \:
\cdot \:
\Gamma\left[1-ikL\right]}{\displaystyle \Gamma\left[1/2+i\xi_n^{\pm}\right]\:
\cdot \:
\Gamma\left[1/2-i\xi_n^{\pm}\right]}t_n^{\pm}
\end{subeqnarray}
with $\xi_n^{\pm}=\sqrt{\pm(\kappa_nL)^2-1/4}\,$.
Fig.~\ref{FigurePem_knLSech2} shows two $P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ curves
calculated for $k/\kappa_n=0.01$ and $k/\kappa_n=0.1$ in the case
of the $\textrm{sech}^2$ mode profile. On this figure, the solid
lines represent the analytical results deduced from
formulas~(\ref{TRinExpr}), (\ref{Pem}) and (\ref{PemAnalSech2})
while the dotted ones represent those obtained using our method
(the grid point number $J$ was fixed to 200). The agreement
between these results is very good.
\section{New results}
\label{NewResults}
\subsection{Fundamental sinusoidal mode}
The fundamental sinusoidal mode profile
\begin{equation}
u(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}\sin(\pi x /L) \quad & \mathrm{for}
\quad 0 < \mathnormal{x} < L \\ 0 & \mathrm{elsewhere}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
has been studied by L\"offler \textit{et~al.}~\cite{Lof97} and
Retamal \textit{et~al.}~\cite{Ret98}. Their conclusions are not in
agreement with regard to the behaviour of the
induced emission probability for ultracold atoms ($k/ \kappa_n =
0.01$) interacting with large cavities ($\kappa_nL$ of the order
of $10^5$). Such cavity parameters are of a great interest as they
correspond to realistic values for Rydberg atoms interacting with
microwave cavities in recent experiments performed by the Ecole
Normale Sup\'erieure Group \cite{Bru96} (see discussion about the
orders of magnitude in \cite{Ret98}). Retamal
\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Ret98} have predicted well resolved
resonances in the curve $P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ for the parameters
cited above, whereas the curve predicted on the basis of the results of L\"offler \textit{et~al.}~\cite{Lof97}
looks very different.
We have calculated the $P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ curve for an atom
interacting with this mode profile by use of our method.
Fig.~\ref{FigurePem_knLFundSin} presents this curve for
$\kappa_nL$ comprised between 100000 and 100010 ($k/ \kappa_n =
0.01$ and $J=100$). Our curve shows the same well resolved
resonances as those predicted by Retamal
\textit{et~al.} \cite{Ret98}. So we confirm their predictions that
the WKB approximation cannot be used when considering ultracold
atoms with $k/\kappa_n = 0.01$ and realistic interaction lengths of
the order of $10^5$.
Our calculations confirm also that these resonances have
got smeared at $\kappa_nL=10^5$ if we consider warmer atoms
characterized by $k/ \kappa_n = 0.1$. For this last value of $k/ \kappa_n$ the WKB approximation still holds and $P_{em}$ is then invariably
equal to $1/2$. It is good to remark here the importance of still having resolved resonances in $P_{em}$ for actual interaction and cavity parameters, as this result will permit the possibility of testing, in principle, the mazer effect with present cavities. The construction of a re-entrant cavity, as it was proposed in Ref. \cite{Lof97}, would not be necessary for testing the mazer effect, but for improving the resolution of the resonances by approximating a mesa function mode profile.
\subsection{First excited sinusoidal mode}
The first excited sinusoidal mode profile
\begin{equation}
u(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}\sin(2\pi x /L) \quad &
\mathrm{for} \quad 0 < \mathnormal{x} < L \\ 0 & \mathrm{elsewhere}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
has been studied by L\"offler \textit{et~al.}~\cite{Lof97}. These
authors have derived an expression for $P_{em}$ on the basis of a
detailed WKB calculation. They have shown that, for large
interaction lengths (without being very explicit about the word
``large''), the behaviour of the induced emission
probability is described by $P_{em}(\kappa_nL)=\sin^2(\Delta_n)$
with
\begin{equation}
\label{Deltan}
\Delta_n = \kappa_nL \cdot \frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{\pi/2}\!\!\!\!\sqrt{(k/\kappa_n)^2 + \cos(x)}dx
\end{equation}
which can be written $\Delta_n = \kappa_nL \cdot Const.$ if $k/\kappa_n$ is a fixed ratio.
In Fig.~\ref{FigurePem_knLFirstSin}, we present two curves of
$P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ calculated for $\kappa_nL$ comprised between
100000 and 100020 (for $k/\kappa_n = 0.01$ and $k/\kappa_n =
0.1$). The first curve does not exhibit a square sine dependence
over the interaction length, whereas the second one does. This indicates that $\kappa_nL=10^5$ cannot be considered as
``large'' in the sense of L\"offler {\it {et al.}}~\cite{Lof97} for $k/\kappa_n = 0.01$. For $k/\kappa_n = 0.1$, $\Delta_n = 2\pi \kappa_nL / T$, with the period $T$ equals to $\sim\!\!16.3$ (according to
Eq.~(\ref{Deltan})). This period is well reproduced by our
calculations (see curve (b) on Fig.~\ref{FigurePem_knLFirstSin}).
It is a remarkable result of L\"offler {\it {et al.}} \cite{Lof97}
the possibility of building state-changing and state-preserving
mirrors for atoms by modifying the length of the cavity using this
first excited sinusoidal mode. From
Fig.~\ref{FigurePem_knLFirstSin} we conclude that resonances in
$P_{em}$ for the first excited mode are even narrower than those
predicted by a square sine function $\sin^2(\Delta_n)$ . This is a
very convenient result as we are considering actual interaction
and cavity parameters.
\subsection{Gaussian mode}
Up to-date, the Gaussian cavity mode profile has not been studied
exactly in the quantum theory of the mazer. L\"offler
\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Lof97} have argued that the
$\textrm{sech}^2$ mode profile could be used as a good
approximation of the Gaussian one.
To verify this assumption, we have calculated various $P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ curves for
the profile
\begin{equation}
\label{gaussianProfile}
u(x)=e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}}
\end{equation}
The parameter $\sigma$ was fixed to $\sqrt{2/ \pi} L$ in order to
adopt the same normalization factor for the two profiles
(identical area under the modes).
Fig.~{\ref{FigurePem_knLGaussian}} shows our results for
$k/\kappa_n=0.1$ in the range $\kappa_nL=0$ to $\kappa_nL=20$.
Qualitatively both profiles exhibit the same behaviour~: the
resonances in the curves get smeared with increasing values of
$\kappa_nL$. But this phenomenon is not so marked in the case of
the Gaussian profile. Resonances still exist for longer
interaction lengths. This is not a surprising result as the
Gaussian profile is growing more abruptly than the
$\textrm{sech}^2$ one. Thus it is in some sense ``closer'' to the
mesa mode, which exhibits resonances at infinity.
We have also considered the case $k/\kappa_n=0.01$. Our
calculations have shown that 90\% damped oscillations are still
present in the $P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ curve for interaction lengths
approximately 3 times larger in comparison with the
$\textrm{sech}^2$ mode case. For these calculations, the region $[x_a,x_b]$ was limited to 16 times
the cavity length $L$ and the grid point number $J$ was fixed to 300.
As it was pointed out in Ref. \cite{Lof97} the mazer effect is not
restricted to the microwave domain and it might be tested more
efficiently in the optical domain. Note that typical optical
cavities have a Gaussian mode profile and it is possible to
consider large coupling constants, fact that will help for testing
the mazer effect. We want to call attention to the fact that Hood
{\it et al.}, in Ref. \cite{Hoo98}, presented the first
experimental result for which the interaction energy $\hbar g$ is
greater than the atomic kinetic energy ($k/\kappa_n \ll 1$).
\section{Summary}
We have developed a new method for solving one-dimensional
scattering problems that may be applied advantageously instead of
the WKB approach. This has enabled us to
calculate efficiently the induced emission probability $P_{em}$ of
an atom interacting with a high-$Q$ cavity for various mode
profiles. Two sinusoidal modes have been considered. For these
cases, we have been able to assert that the WKB approximation
cannot be used in the computation of $P_{em}$ for ultracold atoms
($k/ \kappa_n = 0.01$) interacting with actual cavities
characterized by $\kappa_nL$ of the order of $10^5$. Significant
and convenient different physical predictions are found, if we
compare our results with previous works \cite{Lof97}.
The Gaussian mode profile has also been considered and we have
shown that, although it exhibits a similar behaviour in comparison
with the $\textrm{sech}^2$ mode profile, the resonances in the
$P_{em}(\kappa_nL)$ curves exist for significantly larger values
of $\kappa_nL$. The Gaussian mode is relevant when considering
open cavities in the microwave or optical domains.
The presented numerical method will be helpful for computing the
induced emission probability in the case of the recently studied
two-photon mazer \cite{Zha99}, when considering field mode
profiles different from the mesa function. This and other
applications of this numerical method will be presented elsewhere.
\acknowledgements This work has been supported by the Belgian
Institut Interuniversitaire des Sciences Nucl\'eaires (IISN) and
the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'{\i}fico
(CNPq). E. S. wants to thank Prof. Nicim Zagury for helpful
comments and suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The mass of a galaxy is a fundamental quantity in understanding its dynamics and structure.
Mass distribution in galaxies has been extensively studied with optical and HI rotation curves.
Several studies revealed that spirals galaxies have flat rotation curves even at the observed outermost points, indicating the existence of extended dark halos (e.g., Sancisi \& van Albada 1987) .
The extent and total mass of dark halos are, however, not understood well and yet to be studied in detail.
For further investigation of extended halos, different approaches are required to trace the mass distribution beyond the HI disk, where rotation curves cannot be measured.
Binary galaxies are useful for the determination of the total mass or mass-to-light ratio ($M/L$) of galaxies, like stellar masses are measured from the motion of binary stars.
Unlike stellar binaries, however, the total mass of individual binary cannot be directly determined because of the long orbital periods.
Instead, statistical treatment is necessary to obtain the average mass or $M/L$ of the sample galaxies.
Many efforts were made to determine the $M/L$ ratio of binary galaxies statistically (e.g., Page 1952; Karachentsev 1974; Turner 1976a, b; Peterson 1979a, b; White 1981; van Moorsel 1987; Schweizer 1987; Chengalur et al.1993; Soares 1996).
In binary galaxy studies, a careful selection of binary galaxies is very important, since the biases in selecting pairs should be corrected for to determine the mass or $M/L$ ratio.
Turner (1976a) proposed well-defined selection criteria based only on the positions and magnitudes of galaxies.
Later investigations (e.g., Peterson 1979a) also made use of similar selection criteria independent of radial velocities, which are so-called {`}velocity-blind{'} pairs.
According to such velocity-blind selection criteria, two galaxies are regarded as a pair if they have no close companion compared to their projected separation.
This {`}velocity-blind{'} selection criterion is simple and convenient for pair selection, but its problem is that the criterion could introduce strong bias toward pairs with small separations; for pairs with wider separations, company galaxies are searched for in a larger region, leading to exclusion of widely-separated pairs with higher probability.
In fact, the average separations of selected pairs in these studies were 50 kpc $\sim$ 100 kpc (see Peterson 1979b).
Since the dark halos could extend beyond this range, it is important to study binary galaxies further based on pairs with wider separations.
The other major problem of the velocity-blind sample is that the sample suffers from the contamination of {`}optical pairs{'}, which consists of two isolated galaxies projected close by chance.
In order to reduce the contamination of optical pairs, it is better to select binary galaxies based not only on the positions but also on the radial velocities.
Fortunately, the number of radial velocity observations is rapidly increasing thanks to recent large-scale redshift surveys.
Moreover, the observational uncertainty has been significantly reduced due to the recent development of observational instruments, which enables us to estimate $M/L$ with better accuracy compared to previous studies.
Therefore, it is interesting to study binary galaxies again by utilizing such huge data.
For these reasons, in this paper we study the mass-to-light ratio of binary galaxies by making use of the database.
The plan of this paper is as follows.
In section 2, we will describe how to select widely-separated pairs effectively, while reducing the contamination of optical pairs.
The selection criteria, and the basic data for selected pairs will be presented in section 2.
In section 3 we will perform maximum-likelihood analysis based on the orbital models of binary galaxies, and determine $M/L$.
We will also consider $M/L$ dependence on galaxies{'} type.
Discussions on the dark halo extent will be given in section 4.
\section{Selection of Pairs}
\subsection{Basic Idea, Selection Criteria, and Sample}
The observable quantities for orbital motion of pairs are the projected separation $r_{\rm p}$, and the radial velocity differences $v_{\rm p}$.
A set of $r_{\rm p}$ and $v_{\rm p}$ can be used to estimate the total mass of a pair through an estimator of mass, for example, $r_{\rm p} v_{\rm p}^2/G$.
However, the mass of galaxies varies by about 3 order of magnitude from dwarf galaxies to giant ellipticals.
A better quantity which represents the mass of galaxies is the mass-to-light ratio, $M/L$.
The mass-to-light ratio of galaxies is expected to vary much less than the mass itself, and hence we focus on the mass-to-light ration of pairs in this paper.
What can be obtained through binary galaxy analysis is the total mass to total light ratio of pairs which is written as $(M_1+M_2)/(L_1+L_2)$, but in the rest of this paper we denote this ratio as $M/L$ for simplicity.
Note that if $M_1/L_1= M_2/L_2$, the total mass-to-light ratio $M/L$ is equal to $M_1/L_1$ and $M_2/L_2$.
For convenience in $M/L$ estimate, we define the luminosity-corrected separation $R_{\rm p}$ and the luminosity-corrected velocity difference $V_{\rm p}$ as
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm p} \equiv r_{\rm p}/L^{1/3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm p} \equiv |v_{\rm p}|/L^{1/3}.
\end{equation}
A combination of $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$ can give an estimator of the mass-to-light ratio of pairs.
This estimator, which we call the projected mass-to-light ratio, is defined as
\begin{equation}
(M/L)_{\rm p} \equiv \frac {r_{\rm p} v_{\rm p}^2}{G L} = \frac{R_{\rm p} V_{\rm p}^2}{G}.
\end{equation}
If a bound pair of galaxies are separated so widely that they can be approximated as two point masses, the law of energy conservation gives that
\begin{equation}
\frac{r v^2}{2G L}\le M/L,
\end{equation}
because the total energy for a bound pair is always negative.
A combination of equation (3) with inequality (4) gives
\begin{equation}
(M/L)_{\rm p} \le 2 (M/L).
\end{equation}
If all pairs are bound and have the same $M/L$, the binary populations in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space lie below the envelope which corresponds to $2(M/L)$.
In practice, the number of pairs is limited and insufficient to see the true envelope corresponding to $2 (M/L)$ in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ space.
Detailed calculations of probability distribution show that pairs are likely to concentrate to small $V_{\rm p}$, and thus smaller $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ due to projection effect(e.g., Noerdlinger 1975).
We will discuss this in later section by calculating the probability distribution based on the Monte-Carlo simulation.
In any case, the pair distribution in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space can be used for testing whether or not bound pairs are efficiently selected: while bound pairs are likely to have small $V_{\rm p}$, optical pairs could have extremely high $V_{\rm p}$ and $(M/L)_{\rm p}$.
Here we describe the selection criteria for pairs.
For convenience, we define the total luminosity of a pair normalized with $10^{10}L_\odot$ in the B band as $L_{10}\equiv (L_1+L_2)/(10^{10}L_\odot)$.
Note that this luminosity roughly corresponds to that of the Milky Way Galaxy.
We re-define $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$ normalizing with luminosity $L_{10}$ as,
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm p} = \frac{r_{\rm p}}{L_{10}^{1/3}} \;{\rm (kpc)},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm p} = \frac{|v_{\rm p}|}{L_{10}^{1/3}} \;{\rm (km\; s^{-1})}.
\end{equation}
As the first step of pair selection, we have to select a pair of galaxies that are relatively close to each other both in the sky plane and in the redshift space so that they are likely to be bound.
Since the average separations in previous studies were around 100 kpc, and since we are interested in widely-separated pairs, we set the maximum projected separation of a pair in the sky plane as
$$
1: R_{\rm p} \le 400 \;{\rm kpc}.
$$
The maximum velocity difference must also be large enough to include pairs orbiting around each other at high velocity.
Since galaxies as luminous as $10^{10}L_\odot$ have rotation velocity of $\sim$ 200 km s$^{-1}$, the velocity difference of a pair could be as high as a few hundred km s$^{-1}$.
Hence, we set the maximum velocity difference of pairs as
$$
2: V_{\rm p} \le 400 \;{\rm km\; s^{-1}}.
$$
Note that the radial velocity difference is usually quite small compared to the true velocity difference due to projection effect (Noerdlinger 1975).
Thus, physical pairs are unlikely to have larger radial velocity differences than the maximum value given above.
The observational data set cannot be complete to faint galaxies, and hence we limit the application of our analysis to sufficiently bright galaxies.
Since nearby galaxies are cataloged almost completely down to 15.5 magnitude (e.g, de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991), we set a criterion for the B band magnitude as
$$
3: m_1, m_2 \le 15.0 \;{\rm mag},
$$
and also set an upper limit for the total magnitude of a pair in the B band, $m_{1+2}$, as
$$
4: m_{1+2} \le 13.5 \;{\rm mag}$$
In order for selected pairs to be likely to be bound, pair galaxies must be isolated well.
We regarded two galaxies as a pair if all of its companion galaxies brighter than $m_{1+2} + 2.0 \;{\rm mag}$ satisfy both
$$
5: \frac{r_i}{L_{10}^{1/3}} \ge a\; 400 \; {\rm kpc},$$
and
$$
6: \frac{|v_i|}{L_{10}^{1/3}} \ge b\; 400 \; {\rm km s^{-1}}.$$
Here $r_i$,and $v_i$ are the projected separation and the radial velocity difference of $i$th companion galaxy with respect to the luminosity center of the pair.
Note that we set the lower limit of the total magnitude $m_{1+2}$ to be 13.5 mag (criterion 4).
The faintest galaxies that should be considered is, hence, at 15.5 mag, to which magnitude galaxies are cataloged almost completely.
Parameters $a$ and $b$ determine the volume for companion search, and so determine the degree of isolation.
Note that the volume depends only on the total luminosity of a pair, $L_{10}$, but independent of the separation $R_{\rm p}$ of a pair.
Therefore, as far as pairs with the same luminosity are concerned, companions are searched for in the same volume, and thus the criterion does not introduce bias toward pairs with small separations.
We set $b=1.5$ throughout this paper, but tested three values of $a$ (1.5, 2.0, and 2.5) to seek a value for effective selection of bound pairs.
We applied criteria described above to the sample of galaxies that we compiled for this study using NED (NASA Extra-galactic Database).
The sample consists of bright nearby galaxies with redshift less than 4,500 $\rm km \; s^{-1}\;$.
The upper limit for redshift is introduced because the number of bight pairs which satisfy the criteria 3 and 4 becomes small at large redshift.
The data for positions, heliocentric velocities, and the B band magnitudes were mainly taken from NED, and supplied with RC3 catalog (de Vaucouleurs et al.1991).
The distances to the pairs are obtained using the redshift of the luminosity center ($H_0=$ 50 $\rm km \; s^{-1}\;$ is assumed).
In order to avoid the error in distance due to the local deviation from Hubble flow, galaxies with redshift smaller than 1,000 $\rm km \; s^{-1}\;$ are excluded from the sample.
Galaxies in clusters and close to clusters may deviate from the Hubble flow even beyond the redshift of 1000 $\rm km \; s^{-1}\;$, but this effect is expected to be small because the pairs selected with criteria 5 and 6 are likely to be field binary galaxies.
Galaxies with $b \le 20^\circ$ are also excluded from the sample since objects at low galactic latitude may be significantly obscured by galactic extinction
The sample we compiled consists of 6475 galaxies with magnitude brighter than 15.5 mag and redshift between 1000 km s$^{-1}$ and 4500 km s$^{-1}$.
The uncertainty in the magnitude is typically 0.2 mag., which leads to the uncertainty in $L$ of 20 \%.
The corrections for intrinsic absorption and galactic extinction were made according to de Vaucouleurs et al.(1991).
The sample is, of course, incomplete in terms of redshift because redshift measurements were not made for all galaxies.
This incompleteness leads to possible mis-identification of pairs, if the criteria described above are applied only to a sample of redshift-know galaxies.
To correct for the effect of redshift incompleteness, primary binary candidates are at first searched in the sample of redshift-known galaxies, and then a redshift-blind search was performed for the primary binary candidates.
If there is any redshift-unknown companion which is brighter than $m_{1+2} + 2.0$ mag and is so close to the pair that the criterion 5 is violated, the pair was rejected from the binary candidates.
About 30 \% of pairs in the primary binary candidates were rejected through this procedure.
The sample of binary galaxies after the correction for the redshift incompleteness still contains some pairs that are not appropriate for this study.
For instance, the basic data for the analysis, such as $v_{\rm p}$, $m_1$, and $m_2$ could be quite uncertain for some pairs.
In particular, the uncertainty in the radial velocity is crucial for $M/L$ determination, as the $M/L$ estimator depends on $V_{\rm p}^2$.
Therefore, if redshift uncertainty is not reported for any of the two galaxies of pair, the pair is excluded.
This process reduced the number of pairs by 7\%.
If the magnitude uncertainty and the absorption-corrected magnitude are not available, the pair is also excluded, and in this process 7\% of primary binary candidates were rejected.
Moreover, a galaxy could appear in the binary sample twice or more with different partner.
This can happen if one of pair galaxies is a bright galaxy like the cD galaxy and it has several companion galaxies around it.
In this case, however, these galaxies should be regarded as cluster or group rather than binary galaxies.
Therefore, we also excluded possible clusters or groups of galaxies that appear in the binary sample twice or more.
We found only two possible groups in the primary binary candidates.
\subsection{Results}
Figures 1 show the distribution of thus selected binary galaxies in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space.
Two cases for the isolation parameter, $a$=1.5 and 2.5, are shown.
The number of selected pairs is 109 and 57, respectively.
In the case of $a$=1.5, the pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ space shows only weak concentration toward small $V_{\rm p}$, and a large number of galaxies have high $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ exceeding a few hundred $M_\odot/L_\odot$.
Even if their true $M/L$ is a few hundred, it is unlikely that so many galaxies appear to have so large $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ in the projected phase space, as $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ is expected to be significantly smaller than the true $M/L$ due to projection effect (Noerdlinger 1975; see also Section 3 of the present paper).
This indicates that they are probably optical pairs, and that the degree of isolation is not strong enough to select bound pairs effectively.
On the other hand, for $a=2.5$, the concentration of pairs to $V_{\rm p}$=0 is much more clear than for $a=1.5$.
Most of 57 pairs are distributed below $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ of 20 in solar unit, and there are only few galaxies that have high $(M/L)_{\rm p}$.
This correlation between $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$ are naturally explained if the separation of pairs are larger than the extent of halos so that the pairs can be approximated as point masses (but note that even in case of extended hale such an envelope would appear in the projected phase-space like point-mass cases; see Soares 1990).
In the rest of this paper, we use the binary galaxies sample selected with $a=1.5$ and 2.5 for $M/L$ determination.
We call the sample selected with $a=2.5$ as sample I, and the one selected with $a=1.5$ as sample II.
Table 1 summarizes the basic data for 57 pairs in sample I.
\section{$M/L$ determination}
In this section, we estimate the $M/L$ ratio of the sample pairs selected above.
We construct the orbital models for physical pairs, and calculate the probability distribution of pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space considering the contamination of optical pairs.
Then, we compare the models with the observational data, and determine the $M/L$ ratio based-on maximum-likelihood analysis.
\subsection{Distribution of Bound Pairs}
First we construct models for orbital populations of binaries.
For simplicity, binary galaxies are treated as point masses in the following analysis.
As can be seen in figure 1b, pairs show strong concentration toward small $V_{\rm p}$ in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ space, which is just expected from the point-mass assumption.
Further tests for validity of the assumption will be made in the next section.
An ensemble of well-mixed binary population satisfy the Jeans equation (Binney and Tremaine 1987),
\begin{equation}
\frac{d (\nu \overline{v_{\rm r}^2})}{d r} + \frac{2\nu \beta \overline{v_{\rm r}^2}}{r}=-\frac{GM}{r^2}\nu.
\end{equation}
Here $\nu$ denotes the separation distribution of pairs, and $\beta$ is the anisotropy parameter defined as
\begin{equation}
\beta = 1 - \frac{\overline{v_\theta^2}}{\overline{v_{\rm r}^2}},
\end{equation}
where $\overline{v_\theta}$ and $\overline{v_{\rm r}}$ denote each component of velocity ellipsoids.
Note that $\beta = -\infty$ for circular orbits, $\beta = 0$ for isotropic orbits, and $\beta = 1$ for radial orbits.
We may rewrite equation (8) by normalizing with luminosity as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d (\nu \overline{V_r^2})}{d R} + \frac{2\nu \beta \overline{V_r^2}}{R}=-\frac{G M}{R^2 L}\nu,
\end{equation}
where $R=r/L^{1/3}$ and $\overline{V_r^2}=\overline{v_r^2}/L^{2/3}$.
Note that they are true separation and velocity, but not projected ones.
For the separation distribution $\nu$, we also assume a power law with an inner cutoff radius $r_{\rm min}$ as,
\begin{equation}
\nu(R) \propto R^{-\gamma} \;\;\;\;\; {\rm for} \;\;\;\; R \ge R_{\rm min}.
\end{equation}
We introduced the cutoff radius because galaxies have finite sizes, and pairs that are too close are not likely to exist.
The model used here is, therefore, not exactly a scale-free model (cf. White 1981).
In order to model the distribution of pairs, one should choose suitable values for parameters $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $R_{\rm min}$.
The parameters related to the separation distribution are obtained directly from observed separation distribution, because the probability distribution for projection effect can be written analytically as
\begin{equation}
p [R_{\rm p} | R] = \frac {2 R_{\rm p}}{\pi R(R^2 - R_{\rm p}^2)^{1/2}} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; ({\rm for\;\;\;} R_{\rm p} \le R).
\end{equation}
We compared the separation distribution of observed and model pairs, and obtained the best-fit values $\gamma = 2.6$ and $R_{\rm min}= 10$ kpc.
In the rest of this paper, we adopt these best-fit values for $\gamma$ and $R_{\rm min}$, but we note the results are not sensitive to changes in the assumed values.
Once the separation distribution is obtained, the distribution of the velocity difference is obtained by solving the Jeans equation [eq.(8)].
Then, one can calculate the probability distribution of pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space, $p_{\rm bin} [R_{\rm p},V_{\rm p}|(M/L)]$, by taking the projection effect into consideration.
\subsection{Selection Bias and Contamination of Optical Pair}
In addition to the orbital models for true pairs, here we consider the selection effect for pairs and the contamination of optical pairs.
As described in the previous section, the isolation criteria are independent of the separation or velocity difference of pairs, and hence, the sample is free from biases both for the separation in the sky plane, and for the separation along the line of sight.
The isolation criteria, however, may cause possible exclusion of true pairs due to chance projection of another companion galaxy that are not physically related to the pair.
According to the isolation criteria, the maximum velocity difference of a pair is $\sim 400$ $\rm km \; s^{-1}\;$ for galaxies with $L\sim 10^{10} L_\odot$.
Therefore, a system of a true pair plus any foreground or background galaxy at distant within 8 Mpc from the pair cannot be regarded as a true pair because the criterion 6 is violated ($H_0 =50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ assumed).
Unfortunately, there is no way to determine whether the observed velocity difference of two galaxies is due to Hubble flow or due to binary orbital motion, and so this kind of exclusion of true pairs is unavoidable.
Furthermore, two galaxies which are separated well along the line of sight and are not physically associated could be regarded as a pair because of misidentification of the redshift as binary orbital motion.
For these reasons, the sample selected in the present paper is far from perfect but likely to contain unphysical pairs which would lead to wrong estimates of $M/L$.
Therefore, the exclusion of true pairs and the contamination of optical pairs must be taken into consideration for $M/L$ determination.
Fortunately, the possibility of true-pair exclusion is independent of $R_{\rm p}$ or $V_{\rm p}$, as the selection criteria do not depend on them.
Hence, the probability distribution of pairs in $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ space, which is to be compared with the observed pairs, can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
p[R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p}|M/L,f] = f p_{\rm bin}[R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p}|(M/L)] + (1-f) p_{\rm opt}[R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p}],
\end{equation}
where $f$ is a constant corresponding to the fraction of true pairs out of observed pairs.
Clearly the first term on the right side expresses the contribution of true binaries, and the second term describes the contamination from optical pairs.
Probabilities $p$, $p_{\rm bin}$, and $p_{\rm opt}$ are normalized so that
\begin{equation}
\int \int p\; dR_{\rm p}dV_{\rm p} = \int \int p_{\rm bin}\; dR_{\rm p}dV_{\rm p} = \int \int p_{\rm opt}\; dR_{\rm p}dV_{\rm p} = 1,
\end{equation}
where the integrations are performed from 0 to 400 kpc for $R_{\rm p}$, and from 0 to 400 $\rm km \; s^{-1}\;$ for $V_{\rm p}$.
The possibility of mis-identification of optical pairs is proportional to the number density of galaxies.
It is generally known that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not uniform but shows strong clustering, which is usually described in terms of the two-point correlation function (e.g. Peebles 1993).
With this function the probability distribution of optical pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space can be written as
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm opt}[R_{\rm p},V_{\rm p}] \;dR_{\rm p} dV_{\rm p}\propto \left[1+\xi(r)\right] R_{\rm p} \;dR_{\rm p} dV_{\rm p},
\end{equation}
where $\xi(r)$ is the two-point correlation function, and this is usually written in the form of
\begin{equation}
\xi(r) = \left( \frac{r_0}{r} \right)^{q}.
\end{equation}
The two-point correlation function is determined well in the scale of 10 Mpc but less certain in the scale of 1 Mpc.
Hence in the following analysis we consider two cases, no clustering case with $q=0$ and clustering case with $q=1.8$ and $r_0=10$ Mpc (Peebles 1993), and see how the $M/L$ estimates depend on the clustering effect.
The separation $r$ can be calculated from the projected separation and the velocity difference by assuming the Hubble constant of 50 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
Note that in any case the probability distribution of optical pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ space is independent of the $M/L$ ratio of galaxies.
\subsection{$M/L$ Determination}
To evaluate the mass-to-light ratio and the fraction of true pairs we make use of the maximum-likelihood method for $M/L$ and $f$.
The probability for finding a pair at $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$ in the projected phase space is proportional to $p[R_{\rm p},V_{\rm p}|M/L,f]$, and hence the logarithmic likelihood for finding all observed pairs at their observed positions in the projected phase space is expressed as the summation of the probability for finding each pair at its position.
Therefore, the logarithmic likelihood of $M/L$ for observed pairs can be written as
\begin{equation}
\log {\cal L} (M/L,f) = \sum n(R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p}) \; \log p\,[R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p}|M/L,f],
\end{equation}
where $n(R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p})$ denotes the observed number of pairs having $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$, and the summation is done over the whole projected phase space ($R_{\rm p}$ less than 400 kpc and $V_{\rm p}$ less than 400 km/s).
Evidently $n(R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p})$ is integral as long as the values of $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$ are determined with sufficient accuracy.
However, for the pairs we consider here $R_{\rm p}$ and $V_{\rm p}$ have uncertainties, and the uncertainty in $V_{\rm p}$ is particularly crucial for $M/L$ determination because the $M/L$ estimator depends on $V_{\rm p}^2$.
Therefore, we treated each observed pair as a Gaussian distribution spread in the direction of $V_{\rm p}$, and then $n(R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p})$ is given as
\begin{equation}
n(R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p})\; dR_{\rm p} dV_{\rm p} \propto \sum_i g_i \; dR_{\rm p} dV_{\rm p},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g_i = (2\pi \sigma_i)^{-1/2} \exp \left(\frac{-(V_{\rm p}-V_i)^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right).
\end{equation}
Here $V_i$ and $\sigma_i$ denote the observed $V_{\rm p}$, and the uncertainty for $V_{\rm p}$ for $i$th pair, respectively.
Note that $n$ is normalized so that $\int \int n \; dR_{\rm p} dV_{\rm p}= N_{\rm tot}$, where $N_{\rm tot}$ is the total number of pairs.
Since the probability distribution of physical pair in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space, $p_{\rm bin}[R_{\rm p}, V_{\rm p} | (M/L)]$, cannot be expressed analytically due to the projection effect, we performed Monte-Carlo simulations to evaluate $p_{\rm bin}$.
The distribution of one million pairs in the projected phase space were simulated assuming random orientation of orbital planes with respect to the line of sight, and then the logarithmic likelihood (equation [16]) was calculated in the parameter space of $f$ and $M/L$.
Figure 2 shows the likelihood contours for sample I (57 pairs) for the case of $q=0$ (no clustering for optical pairs).
The thick lines are for $\beta =0$ (isotropic orbit) and dotted lines are for $\beta = -\infty$ (circular orbit).
The figures show that the M/L estimates are not affected strongly by the assumed orbital parameters.
The best estimates of $M/L$ are $35_{-5}^{+7}$ for $\beta = 0$ and $28_{-3}^{+5}$ for $\beta = -\infty$, with true binary fraction $f$ of $0.88_{-0.1}^{+0.07}$ for both cases (the error bars denote the 68 \% confidence level).
The results for the true binary fraction $f$ indicates that most of pairs in sample I are likely to be bound.
The expected number of optical pair is about 7 out of 57 pairs, which is comparable to the number of pairs which appear in Figure 1b above the envelope corresponding to $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ of 20.
On the other hand, figure 3 shows the likelihood contours for sample I like figure 2, but for $q=1.8$ (clustering for optical pairs).
The contours for two orbital models are shown, and again one can see that the weak dependence of $M/L$ on the orbital parameter.
However, the true pair fractions $f$ are quite different from those for no clustering cases, as we obtained $f=0.71_{-0.15}^{+0.14}$ ($\beta = 0$) and $f=0.73_{-0.15}^{+0.14}$ ($\beta = -\infty$) for clustering case.
This is because the expected number of optical pairs with small $V_{\rm p}$ is much larger than that for no clustering case, and hence more number of galaxies with small $V_{\rm p}$ are regarded as optical pairs.
However, the best estimates of $M/L$ are $36_{-4}^{+8}$ for $\beta = 0$ and $30_{-3}^{+6}$ for $\beta = -\infty$, which are fairly close to those for no clustering cases.
In figure 2 and 3 the best estimates of $M/L$ change little depending on $f$.
This is because the $M/L$ is essentially determined by the pairs which lie below the envelope in figure 1b: in the most range of $f$ (e.g. $f$ less than 0.95) the pairs far above the envelope are likely to be optical pairs, and have little effect on the $M/L$ determination.
On the other hand, if $f$ is set to be almost unity, the most likely $M/L$ could become as high as 100 to explain the pairs with high $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ without optical pairs.
However, the likelihood for finding $f$ of almost unity is very small compared to that for $f$ between 0.6 to 0.9, for in that case the concentration of pairs to small $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ seen figure 1 cannot be explained at all.
In order to test whether $M/L$ and $f$ obtained above can reproduce the distribution of observed pairs, we simulated distribution of model pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space using the best-fit parameters.
Figure 4 shows the simulated distribution of 57 modeled pairs with $f=0.88$ and $M/L=35$ assuming isotropic orbits for true pairs and no clustering for optical pairs.
The figure resembles well the observed distribution in figure 1b in many aspects; small fraction of pairs with extremely high $(M/L)_{\rm p}$, concentration of pairs to small $V_{\rm p}$, and the envelope corresponding to $(M/L)_{\rm p}\sim 20$.
This simulation confirms the validity of the results.
In order to see if these results depend strongly on the sample we used, we also performed the same analysis for sample II (109 pairs), which are selected with weaker isolation criterion ($a=1.5$).
As seen in Figure 1a, this sample is likely to contain more number of optical pairs than sample I due to the weak selection criterion.
In fact, the resultant value of $f$ is 0.80$_{-0.08}^{+0.07}$ for no clustering case ($q=0$) and $0.62_{-0.11}^{+0.10}$ for clustering case ($q=1.8$), with $\beta=0$ for both cases.
However, the best estimates $M/L$ are $35_{-3}^{+5}$ ($\beta=0$) and $28_{-2}^{+5}$ ($\beta=-\infty$) for no clustering cases, and $36_{-3}^{+12}$ ($\beta=0$) and $30_{-3}^{+8}$ ($\beta=-\infty$) for clustering cases.
These results remarkably agree with those for sample I, indicating that the results does not depend strongly on the samples.
The results for sample II as well as those for sample I are listed in Table 2.
However, we would like to note that the results might be changed if we take the other limit of $\beta$; $\beta=1$ corresponding to radial orbits.
In this case the best $M/L$ for sample I was found to be $42_{-7}^{+34}$ ($q=0$), and so the $M/L$ would exceed 50 within 68 \% confidence level.
Yet the assumption of $\beta=1$ seems too radical, because in this case the pairs suffer from direct encounters that will probably lead them to mergers.
In order for bound pairs to survive for many orbital periods, their orbits must be elliptical at least to some degree, and so $\beta$ cannot be too close to unity.
On the other hand, perfectly circular orbits ($\beta =-\infty$), are also unlikely because this requires fine tuning of orbital parameters.
Therefore, the results with $\beta=0$ presumably represent best the mass-to-light ratio of true pairs.
\subsection{$M/L$ for pure spiral pairs}
In the $M/L$ determination above, we did not consider the variation of $M/L$ among the sample galaxies.
The $M/L$ of galaxies are, however, usually considered to vary depending on the type of galaxies.
Indeed, previous binary galaxy studies claimed larger $M/L$ for ellipticals than that of spirals (e.g., Schweizer 1987).
Therefore, it is interesting to study the $M/L$ ratio of galaxies for a specific type.
The 57 pairs in sample I consist of spirals, S0s, ellipticals and some others such as peculiars.
The dominant type among them is spirals, which occupies a fraction of 70\% in sample I, and hence we try to estimate $M/L$ for spiral galaxies.
In particular we concentrate on {`}pure{'} spiral pairs which consists of two spiral galaxies later than Sa, because a pair of a spiral and an S0 or elliptical do not necessarily reflect the $M/L$ of spiral galaxies.
We selected 30 pure spiral pairs out of 57 pairs in sample I (hereafter sample III), and performed the same analysis described above.
The likelihood contours for no clustering case ($q=0$) and for clustering case ($q=1.8$) are plotted in figure 5 and 6, respectively.
Most likely value for no clustering case is found to be $15_{-3}^{+5}$ for $\beta = 0$, and $12_{-3}^{+4}$ for $\beta=-\infty$, which are compared to the results for the 57 pairs with mixed types, 35 for $\beta=0$ or 28 for $\beta=-\infty$.
The best estimates of $M/L$ for clustering case are similar to those for no clustering case whereas the true pair fraction $f$ is relatively smaller (see table 2).
In both cases the difference in $M/L$ between sample I and III is significant, being above the 3$\sigma$ level.
Therefore, we conclude the difference is real, and that $M/L$ for spirals are smaller to ellipticals or S0s.
This is consistent with previous studies of binary galaxies, although the $M/L$ obtained here are somewhat smaller than those from previous studies.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{$M/L$ Dependence on Separation}
In the previous sections, pairs are approximated as two point masses.
However, real galaxies have finite size, and it could be as much as 100 kpc if dark halos extend well beyond the optical disks.
In this case, the approximation of point masses is not valid, and $M/L$ obtained above could be underestimation, particularly for pairs with small separations.
Here we investigate the dependency of $M/L$ on the separation of pairs, and test if the assumption of point masses is reasonable for the present samples.
We divided 57 pairs in sample I into 3 subgroups depending on the separation.
The three subgroups consist of 27 pairs with $0 <R_{\rm p}< 100$ kpc, 12 with $100 <R_{\rm p}< 200$ kpc, and 18 with $200 <R_{\rm p}$ kpc, respectively.
The $M/L$ ratios for three subsample were obtained in the same manner described in the previous section.
Assuming $\beta = 0$ and $q=0$, we obtained the best estimates of $M/L$ with $1\sigma$ errors to be $36_{-5}^{+10}$, $37_{-17}^{+31}$, and $25_{-13}^{+29}$, respectively.
The error bars are increased compared to the results in Section 3 because the number of galaxies in a sample is reduced.
figure 7 shows the $M/L$ dependence on the mean separations of pairs.
The figure demonstrates that the $M/L$ ratio is almost constant, and that the variations are within the $1\sigma$ error bars.
If the density distribution of dark halo is proportional to $r^{-2}$ at a large radius, the $M/L$ increases linearly with radius, and if it is proportional to $r^{-3}$ as suggested by recent simulations (Navarro et al.1996), $M/L$ increases with radius logarithmically.
However, figure 7 shows no tendency of increasing $M/L$ at large radii.
Therefore, the halos of galaxies as luminous as the Milky Way Galaxies may be truncated within 100 kpc.
The indication of constant $M/L$ beyond 100 kpc is consistent with previous studies of binary galaxies.
According to Peterson (1979b), the $M/L$ ratio is gradually increasing with radius at $R<100$ kpc, but remains constant beyond it.
Schweizer (1987) also showed that $M/L$ does not increase beyond 100 kpc.
The $M/L$ estimate for spiral galaxies is also consistent with previous studies.
Schweizer (1987) obtained $M/L$ of $21\pm 5$ (V band, absorption corrected) with the sample whose mean separation is about 90 kpc.
Peterson (1979b) obtained spiral galaxies{'} $M/L$ of $35\pm 13$ ($H_0 = 50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$) based on 39 pairs with their mean separation of 110 kpc, and Turner (1976b) also obtained $M/L$ for spiral galaxies of $\sim$ 35.
Note that in the 70's the correction for the galactic and internal absorption were not usually made, and this partly explains smaller $M/L$ in the present paper.
The mean of absorption correction in our sample galaxies is about 0.4 mag, which reduces $M/L$ by $\sim$ 30 \%.
Therefore, if similar amount of absorption correction were made, the studies by Peterson (1979b) or Turner (1976b) would give $M/L$ of 23$\sim$27, which are close to our results of $M/L$.
Although the $M/L$ obtained in the present paper is not significantly different from previous studies, we would like to emphasize that the mean of absolute separations (not the luminosity corrected separation $R_{\rm p}$) of sample III in this paper is $\sim$ 206 kpc, which is almost twice of those in previous studies.
Nevertheless, the $M/L$ ratio does not show any tendency of increase with increasing the separation when compared with previous studies.
\subsection{Dark Halo Extent of Spiral Galaxies}
Since the mass of spiral galaxies{'} optical disk can be estimated from rotation curves, we can compare the total $M/L$ with optical disk $M/L$, and discuss the extent of dark halos of spiral galaxies.
We define $(M/L)_{R25}$ as the ratio of the enclosed mass within $R_{25}$ to the total luminosity, where $R_{25}$ is a radius at which the surface brightness becomes 25 mag per arcsec$^2$.
The enclosed mass can be estimated from the HI velocity line width $W_{\rm HI}$.
Assuming that $W_{\rm HI}$ corresponds to twice of the rotation velocity, we obtain
\begin{equation}
(M/L)_{R25} = \frac{R_{25} W_{\rm HI}^2}{4 G L}.
\end{equation}
The central surface luminosity of spiral galaxies is constant, about 22 mag per arcsec$^2$ (Freeman 1970).
If this applies to the spiral galaxies in the binary sample, $R_{25}$ corresponds to about 3 times disk scale length $d$, and $(M/L)_{R25}$ roughly approximates the mass-to-right ratio of the disk.
We calculated $(M/L)_{R25}$ of spiral galaxies in sample I for which $R_{25}$ and $W_{\rm HI}$ are available.
$R_{25}$ and $W_{\rm HI}$ were taken from de Vaucouleurs et al.(1991), and Huchtmeier and Richter (1989), respectively.
The values of $(M/L)_{R25}$ range from 2 to 18 with the average of 7.
Note that this $M/L$ is consistent with the previous studies for disk $M/L$; for example, Faber \& Gallagher (1979) obtained the $M/L$ of about 5 ($H_0=50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$).
This $M/L$ is compared to the total $M/L$ obtained in the section 3, $M/L$ of 12 $\sim$ 16.
The total $M/L$ is somewhat larger than the disk $M/L$, and the difference is almost $3\sigma$ level (see figures 5 and 6).
This difference is of course due to the dark halo, and this indicates that under the maximum disk assumption the contributions of dark halo and the optical disk to the total mass of galaxies are comparable.
However, the assumption of maximum disk is still controversy.
If the disk mass is smaller than that indicated by the maximum rotation velocity within the optical disk, the dark halo could dominantly contribute to the total mass.
We can also estimate the extent of dark halos by comparing the total $M/L$ with disk $M/L$.
If a flat rotation curve is assumed, the value of $M/L$ increases linearly with radius.
In this case, the resultant $M/L$ of 15 implies that the typical halo extends $15/7 \approx 2$ times $R_{25}$.
If we adopt disk $M/L$ of 5 according to Faber \& Gallagher (1979), the halo extent is $15/5 \approx 3$ times $R_{25}$.
Therefore, the typical dark halo size maybe about 6 to 9 times disk scale length, if $R_{25}$ is $\sim 3$ times disk scale length $d$.
This is to be compared with the size of optical disk, which is about $4\sim 5$ times disk scale length (van der Kruit \& Searle 1981).
Hence, if the rotation curve is perfectly flat out to the radius at which the halo mass distribution is truncated, the halo size may be about 2 times larger than optical disks.
This is, of course, not exactly true when the rotation curve is not completely flat, which is preferred by the recent simulations.
In this case, the halo size may be somewhat lager, but it cannot exceed a few hundred kpc as indicated by the $M/L$ constancy.
The halo size indicated here is somewhat smaller than those in previous studies, but quite consistent with recent investigations.
For instance, a number of declining rotation curves, which may be fitted even with a Keplerian, are found recently (e.g., J\"ors\"ater \& van Moorsel 1995; Olling 1996; Honma \& Sofue 1996).
Honma \& Sofue (1997) showed that such declining rotation curves are not uncommon by considering the observational uncertainty.
These rotation curves studies are generally based on the observation of HI, which are usually observed out to $5\sim 10$ times disk-scale length.
Therefore, the fact that the declining part of rotation curves were found is consistent with the present results.
\acknowledgments
We are grateful to Y. Sofue for his supervision, and to Y. Tutui and J. Koda for fruitful discussion.
This work was financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
\clearpage
\section*{figure captions}
\def\hangindent=1pc \noindent{\hangindent=1pc \noindent}
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 1. Distribution of selected pairs in the $R_{\rm p}$-$V_{\rm p}$ phase space.
Figure 1a is for the pairs selected with $a=1.5$, and 1b is for the pairs selected with $a=2.5$.
The dotted curve in figure 1b corresponds to the constant $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ of 20.
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 2. Likelihood contours in the parameter space of $M/L$ and $f$ for sample I.
As for the optical pair distribution no clustering is assumed ($q=0$).
Solid lines are for $\beta=0$ (isotropic orbits), and dotted lines are for $\beta=-\infty$ (circular orbits).
Three contours for each case correspond to 68, 95 and 99\% level, and the crosses denote the peak of the likelihood.
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 3. Likelihood contours same to figure 2, but for $q=1.8$ (clustering case for optical pairs).
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 4. Simulated distribution of 57 pairs which are to be compared with figure 1b.
The distribution is calculated with the best fit parameters obtained in the Section 3.
The dotted curve corresponds to $(M/L)_{\rm p}$ of 20.
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 5. Likelihood contours same to figure 2 (no clustering case), but for sample III (30 pure spiral pairs).
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 6. Likelihood contours same to figure 3 (clustering case), but for sample III (30 pure spiral pairs).
\hangindent=1pc \noindent Figure 7. $M/L$ for three subgroups against the mean separation (see text for the sample).
The error bar for $R$ denotes the $1\sigma$ deviation of pairs in the sample.
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Recently, the possible formation of diquark condensates in QCD at finite
density has been reinvestigated in a series of papers following Refs.
(\cite{arw98}; \cite{r+98}).
It has been shown that in chiral quark models with a nonperturbative
4-point interaction motivated from instantons (\cite{cd98}) or nonperturbative
gluon propagators (\cite{br98}, \cite{brs99}) the anomalous quark pair
amplitudes in the color antitriplet channel can be very large: of the order
$\approx 100~ {\rm MeV}$.
Therefore, in two-flavor QCD, one expects this diquark condensate to dominate
the physics at densities beyond
the deconfinement/chiral restoration transition and below the critical
temperature ($\approx 50~ {\rm MeV} $) for the occurence of this
``color superconductivity'' (2SC) phase.
In a three-flavor theory it has been found (\cite{arw99}, \cite{sw99}) that
there can exist a color-flavor locked (CFL) phase
for not too large strange quark masses (\cite{abr99})
where color superconductivity is
complete in the sense that diquark condensation produces a gap for quarks of
all three colors and flavors, which is of the same order of magnitude as that
in the two-flavor case.
The high-density phases of QCD at low temperatures are most relevant for
the explanation of phenomena in rotating compact stars - pulsars.
Conversely, the physical properties of these objects (as far as they
are measured) could constrain our hypotheses about the state of matter at the
extremes of densities.
In contrast to the situation for the cooling behaviour of
compact stars (\cite{bkv99}) where the CFL phase is dramatically different
from the 2SC phase, we don't expect qualitative changes of the magnetic
field structure between these two phases. Consequently, we will restrict
ourselves here to the discussion of the simpler two-flavor theory first.
According to Bailin and Love (1984) the magnetic field of pulsars should be
expelled from the superconducting interior of the star due to the Meissner
effect and decay subsequently within $\approx 10^4$ years.
If their arguments would hold in general, the observation of lifetimes for
the magnetic field as large as $10^7$ years (\cite{pines}; \cite{bpp69}) would
exclude the occurence of an extended superconducting quark matter phase in
pulsars.
For their estimate, they used a perturbative gluon propagator which yielded a
very small pairing gap and they made the assumption of a homogeneous magnetic
field.
Since both assumptions seem not to be valid in general, we perform a
reinvestigation of the question whether presently available knowledge about
the lifetime of magnetic fields of pulsars might contradict the occurence
of a color superconducting phase of QCD at high densities.
The free energy density in the superconducting quark matter phase with
$ud$ diquark pairing ($J^P=0^+$ and color antitriplet index $p$) is given by
(\cite{bl84})
\begin{eqnarray}
f&=&f_n + \alpha d_{p}^*d_{p} + \frac{1}{2}{\beta}(d_{p}^*d_{p})^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \gamma(\nabla d_{p}^* +iq\vec{A}d_{p}^*)(\nabla d_{p} -iq\vec{A}d_{p})
+\frac{B^2}{8 \pi}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{B}={\rm rot}\vec{A}$ is the magnetic induction, $q$ the charge of
the
$ud$ pair and the coefficients of the free energy are given by the following
expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha&=&\frac{d n}{d E} t~~,\nonumber\\
{\beta}&=& \frac{d n}{d E} \frac{7 \zeta (3)}{8 (\pi k_{\rm B} T_{\rm c})^2}~~,
\nonumber\\
\gamma &=& \frac{d n}{d E} \frac{7 \zeta (3)}{48 (\pi k_{\rm B} T_{\rm c})^2}
\frac{p_{\rm F}^2}{\mu^2}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{p_{\rm F}^2}{\mu^2}{\beta}~~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $t=(T-T_{\rm c})/T_{\rm c}$.
Here $T_{\rm c}$ is the critical temperature,
$p_{\rm F}$ the quark Fermi momentum,
$\mu=\sqrt{p_{\rm F}^2+m^2}$
is the chemical potential (in zeroth order with respect
to the coupling constant), $d n/d E=\mu p_{\rm F}/\pi^2$.
The Ginzburg-Landau equations for relativistic superconducting quarks are
obtained in the usual way
\begin{eqnarray}
0&=&\alpha d_{p}+\beta(d_{p}^*d_{p})d_{p}+\gamma(-i\nabla-q\vec{A})^2 d_{p}~,
\nonumber\\
\vec{j}&=&
iq\gamma(d_{p}\nabla d_{p}^*-d_{p}^*\nabla d_{p})-
2q^2\gamma d_{p}d_{p}^*\vec{A}~.
\label{gl}
\end{eqnarray}
In deriving the expression for the current $\vec{j}$ we have also used the
Maxwell equation
\begin{equation}
{\rm rot} \vec{B}= 4\pi \vec{j}~.
\end{equation}
The first of the Ginzburg-Landau equations (\ref{gl}) has a solution which
corresponds to the Meissner effect ($\nabla d_{p}=0,~\vec{A}=0$ inside of the
superconductor):
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2=
|d_{p}|^2=-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}
= - \frac{8 t (\pi k_{\rm B} T_{\rm c})^2}{7 \zeta(3)}~.
\end{equation}
For the case of weak fields ($H<H_{c2}$) one obtains the London equation:
\begin{equation}
\vec{B} +\lambda_{\rm q}^2 {\rm rot~ rot} \vec{B} = 0~~,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\rm q}$
is the penetration depth of the magnetic field into the
superconducting quark condensate.
The region of the change of the order parameter $d_{p}$ can also be determined
from (\ref{gl}) via
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\rm q}^2=-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}
=-\frac{7 \zeta(3)}{48 t (\pi k_{\rm B} T_{\rm c})^2}
\left(\frac{p_{\rm F}}{\mu}\right)^2~.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\psfig{figure=kapnjl.eps,width=8.5cm,height=7.5cm,angle=0}
\caption{The dependence of diquark energy gap $\Delta$ and Ginzburg-Landau
parameter $\kappa$ on chemical potential $\mu$ and density n for a NJL-type
quark interaction (\protect\cite{br99});
n$_0=0.16$ fm$^{-3}$ is the nuclear saturation density.
The left dashed line denotes the critical chemical potential of the onset of
quark superconductivity (the corresponding baryon number densities are given
on the upper scale), the right dashed line - the maximal values of chemical
potential and density for stable stellar configurations.\label{kappa}}
\end{figure}
In the diquark condensate phase with a nonperturbative interaction
the energy gap is
$\Delta
\approx 100$ MeV at $\mu \approx 400$ MeV \footnote{within a dynamical
confining quark model the diquark gaps can be even larger than this estimate
(\cite{br98}).}, see Fig. \ref{kappa}.
We obtain for the coherence length
$\xi_{\rm q} = 0.8 \times 10^{-13}$ cm.
For the penetration depth of the magnetic field we have
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\rm q}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi\gamma} q d_0}
=\sqrt{\frac{-3\pi\mu}{4 q^2 t p_{\rm F}^3}}
\approx 3.6\times 10^{-12} {\rm cm}~.
\end{equation}
The thermodynamical critical field $H_{\rm cm}$
that fully destroys the superconducting state in the case of a superconductor
of the first kind is given (\cite{bl84})
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm cm}^2=\frac{32 \pi \mu p_{\rm F} (k_{\rm B}T_{\rm c}t)^2}{7 \zeta(3)}~.
\end{equation}
For the parameter values given above the critical field is
$H_{\rm cm}\approx 8.7 \times 10^{17}$ G, i.e. by two
orders of magnitude larger than in Ref. (\cite{bl84}).
The Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa$ which determines the behaviour of the
superconductor in an external magnetic field is given by (\cite{bl84})
\begin{equation}
\kappa=\frac{\lambda_{\rm q}}{\xi_{\rm q}}
=\sqrt{\frac{{\beta}}{8\pi \gamma^2 q^2}}
=132 \frac{\Delta}{\mu}\left(\frac{\mu}{p_{\rm F}}\right)^{5/2}~.
\end{equation}
For values of $\mu\sim p_{\rm F}\sim 400$ MeV/c and $\Delta=100$ MeV we obtain
$\kappa = 34$, see also Fig. 1.
Therefore the superconducting quark condensate appears as a
superconductor of the second kind into which the external magnetic field can
penetrate by forming quantized vortex lines in the interval $H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}$.
The upper critical field $H_{c2}$ is determined by
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm q}_{c2}=-\frac{\alpha}{q \gamma}
=\frac{6 \Delta^2}{q}\left(\frac{\mu}{p_{\rm F}}\right)^2
\approx 3 \times 10^{19} {\rm G}~.
\end{equation}
The magnetic flux of the quark vortex lines $\Phi_{\rm q}$ amounts to
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\rm q}=\frac{2 \pi \hbar c}{q}= \frac{2 \pi \hbar c}{e/3}
= 6\frac{\pi \hbar c}{e} = 6 \Phi_0~~,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_0=2\times 10^{-7}$ G cm$^2$ is the quantum of the proton magnetic
flux.
The lower critical field for the occurence of quark vortex lines is then
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{c1}^{\rm q}=
\frac{\Phi_{\rm q}}{6\pi\lambda_{\rm q}^2}
\ln\frac{\lambda_{\rm q}}{\xi_{\rm q}}
= 1.8 \times 10^{16} {\rm G}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have taken into account the spherical shape of the quark core in a
neutron star (\cite{ssm84}).
Now we can describe the magnetic structure of a superconducting quark
condensate in a pulsar and its time evolution.
When during the cooling of the protoneutron star with a quark matter core
the critical temperature for the transition to the
superconducting state is reached in the presence of a magnetic field, then
this field remains in the quark phase in the form of quantized vortex lines.
At some point in the further rapid cooling of the star due to neutrino emission
the neutrons in the hadronic phase (``npe''-phase) of the star
become superfluid.
Since the basic interaction between isolated protons resembles that of the
neutrons, the protons in the hadronic phase become superfluid too.
Since the density of protons in "npe"-phase is only few per cent of
the neutron density, the protons will pair in $^1$S$_0$ pairing state
(\cite{ccy72}; \cite{ao85}; \cite{bcll92}).
The neutrons take part in the rotation, forming a lattice of quantized vortex
lines. Because of the strong interaction of the neutrons with the protons a
part of the superconducting protons will be entrained by the neutrons
(\cite{ss80}; \cite{als84}) and create in the region of the neutron
vortex a magnetic field of strength $H(r)$ given by (\cite{ss80}; \cite{ssm83})
\begin{equation}
{H}(r)=\hat{\nu}_{\rm n}\frac{k \Phi_0}{2\pi\lambda_{\rm p}^2}\ln\frac{b}{r}~,
\end{equation}
where $b=\sqrt{\pi \hbar/\sqrt{3}m_{\rm n} \Omega}$
is the lattice spacing of the
neutron vortex lattice, $k=(m_{\rm p}^*-m_{\rm p})/m_{\rm p}$
is the entrainment coefficient
with the effective mass $m_{\rm p}^*$ and the bare mass $m_{\rm p}$
of the protons;
$\hat{\nu}_{\rm n}$ is the unit vector in the direction of the vortex axis,
$r$ is the distance from the center of the vortex and $\Omega$ is the angular
velocity of the rotation of the star.
This field, whose magnitude is determined by the rotation of the star,
acts as an external field for the non-entrained protons and creates a cluster
of proton vortices with the fluxes $\Phi_0$
in the region around the axis of the neutron vortex where
$H(r)>H_{c1}^{\rm p}$.
The radius of this region, $\delta_{\rm n}$, equals (\cite{ssm84})
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\rm n}=b ({\xi_{\rm p}}/{\lambda_{\rm p}})^{\frac{1}{3|k|}}~.
\end{equation}
For the pulsar Vela PSR 0833-45 with $\Omega=70$ rad~s$^{-1}$ and
$b=10^{-3}$ cm, we have $\delta_{\rm n}=10^{-5}$ cm.
While the mean magnetic induction in the star due to proton vortex clusters
is of the order $10^{12}$ G, the mean magnetic induction within the cluster
reaches values of $4 \times 10^{14}$ G (\cite{ss91}; \cite{ss95}).
The magnetic field strength $H(r)$ which occurs in the ``npe''-phase is the
strength of the external field relative to the superconducting quark
condensate.
It reaches the maximum value $H(0)$ close to the center of the neutron vortex,
i.e.
\begin{equation}
H(0)=\frac{k \Phi_0}{2 \pi \lambda_{\rm p}^2} \ln \frac{b}{\xi_{\rm n}}
\approx 4.7 \times 10^{16} {\rm G}~,
\end{equation}
for $\lambda_{\rm p}=30$ fm, $k=0.7$
and a coherence length $\xi_{\rm n}= 30$ fm of the neutron.
This external field generates quark vortex lines when the
condition $H(r)\ge H_{c1}^{\rm q}$ is fulfilled.
The radius of this region is
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\rm q}=b({\xi_{\rm q}}/{\lambda_{\rm q}})^{\frac{2}{k}
(\lambda_{\rm p}/\lambda_{\rm q})^2}=4.3 \times 10^{-7} {~\rm cm}~~.
\end{equation}
This way, the entrainment current generates a strongly
inhomogeneous magnetic structure in the quark condensate:
the clusters of quark vortex lines with the fluxes $\Phi_{\rm q}$
and radii $\delta_{\rm q}$, the axes of
which are the continuation into the quark phase of the axes of the neutron
vortex lines. Since $\delta_{\rm q}$ is by two orders of magnitude smaller
than $\delta_{\rm n}$, the mean magnetic induction in the clusters of quark
vortex lines increases to a value of the order of $ 10^{18}$ G.
When the condition for the applicability of the London approximation
$H(0)\ll H_{c2}^{\rm q}$ is fulfilled, then one can apply the modified London
equation
\begin{equation}
\vec{B}+ \lambda_{\rm q}^2 {\rm rot ~rot} \vec{B}
= \Phi_{\rm q} \hat{\nu}_{\rm q} \sum
\delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{\rm q})
\end{equation}
for the description of the magnetic structure of the quark condensate.
The density of clusters is equal to the density of neutron vortex lines
$n_V=2~\Omega/\kappa_{\rm n}$, where $\kappa_{\rm n}=\pi\hbar/m_{\rm n}$
is the quantum of neutron circulation.
We note that between the hadronic phase and quark core there is a mixed
phase, in which hadrons coexist with a charged lattice of quark droplets
(\cite{ng92}).
Since the number densities of neutrons and protons in the mixed state are
lower than in the hadronic phase, these particles remain superfluid.
So neutron vortices and clusters of proton vortex lines continue through
the mixed phase.
Therefore the magnetic field will pass through it and enter the quark core,
see Fig. \ref{vortex}.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{figure=vortex1.eps,width=8.5cm,height=8cm,angle=0}
\caption{Magnetic field structure in the interior of a hybrid star with
$M=1.4 M_{\odot}$; $b$ is the radius of the neutron vortex
$\delta_{\rm n}= 10^{-5}$ cm is the radius of the proton vortex cluster, and
$\delta_{\rm q} = 4.3 \times 10^{-7}$ cm is that of the quark vortex cluster.
For details, see text.
\label{vortex}}
\end{figure}
In the case of small diquark gaps of the order of 1 MeV (\cite{bl84}), when the
diquark condensate is a superconductor of the first kind, the magnetic field
generated in the ``npe''-phase penetrates into the quark matter core in the
form of ordinary cylindrical regions (\cite{ssz97}).
The radii of these regions will be of the order of $\delta_{\rm q}$ since the
thermodynamical critical field $H_{\rm cm}$ is of the same order as the mean
magnetic field in the quark cluster.
The clusters of quark vortex lines which appear due to the entrainment effect
in the ``npe''-phase will interact with those which are formed by the initial
magnetic field (fossil field).
This interaction obviously implies that quark vortex
lines will not be expelled from the quark core of the star within a time scale
of $\tau=10^4$ years as suggested in (\cite{bl84}).
We note that the evolution of the magnetic field is intimately related
to the rotational history of the star. In particular, the magnetic field of
the quark core will decay because of the outward motion of neutron vortices
when the star spins down.
This behavior results from the fact that the magnetic clusters inside the
quark core are the continuation of neutron vortices.
Therefore the characteristic decay time of the magnetic field for
the whole star (and also for quark core) is comparable to the pulsar's
slowing down time, which corresponds to the life time of the pulsar.
In conclusion, we find that the occurence of a superconducting quark matter
core in pulsars does not contradict the observational data which indicate that
magnetic fields of pulsars have life times larger than $10^7$ years
(\cite{pines}).
This holds true for small diquark gaps of the order of $1$ MeV (\cite{bl84}) as
well as for larger ones as obtained recently (\cite{arw98}; \cite{r+98};
\cite{cd98}; \cite{br98}) using effective
models for the nonperturbative quark-quark interaction.
\begin{acknowledgements}
K.M.S. and D.M.S. acknowledge the hospitality of the Department of
Physics at the University of Rostock where this
research has been started.
We thank H. Grigorian, K. Rajagopal, G. R\"opke, A.D. Sedrakian and
D.N. Voskresensky for their discussions and comments.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
The evolution of a star is made of a succession of ``controlled"
thermonuclear burning stages interspersed with phases of gravitational
contraction. The latter stages are responsible for a temperature
increase, the former ones producing nuclear energy and composition
changes.
As is well known, hydrogen and helium burning in the central regions
or in peripheral layers of a star are key nuclear episodes, and leave
clear observables, especially in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, or
in the stellar surface composition. These photospheric abundance
signatures may result from so-called ``dredge-up'' phases, which are
expected to transport the H- or He-burning ashes from the deep
production zones to the more external layers. This type of surface
contamination is encountered especially in low- and intermediate-mass
stars on their first or asymptotic branches, where two to three
dredge-up episodes have been identified by stellar evolution
calculations. Nuclear burning ashes may also find their way to the
surface of non-exploding stars by rotationally-induced mixing, which
has been started to be investigated in some detail (Heger 1998), or by
steady stellar winds, which have their most spectacular effects in
massive stars of the Wolf-Rayet type.
The confrontation between the wealth of observed elemental or isotopic
compositions and calculated abundances can provide essential clues on
the stellar structure from the main sequence to the red giant phase,
and much has indeed been written on this subject. Of course, the
information one can extract from such a confrontation is most
astrophysically useful if the discussion is freed from nuclear physics
uncertainties to the largest possible extent.
Thanks to the impressive skill and dedication of some nuclear
physicists, remarkable progress has been made over the years in our
knowledge of reaction rates at energies which are as close as possible
to those of astrophysical relevance (e.g. Rolfs \& Rodney 1988).
Despite these efforts, important uncertainties remain. This relates
directly to the enormous problems the experiments have to face in this
field, especially because the energies of astrophysical interest for
charged-particle-induced reactions are much lower than the Coulomb
barrier energies. As a consequence, the corresponding cross sections
can dive into the nanobarn to picobarn abyss. In general, it has not
been possible yet to measure directly such small cross
sections. Theoreticians are thus requested to supply reliable
extrapolations from the lowest energies attained experimentally to
those of most direct astrophysical relevance.
Recently, a new major challenge has been taken up by a consortium of
European laboratories with the build-up of well documented and
evaluated sets of experimental data or theoretical predictions for a
large number of astrophysically interesting nuclear reactions (Angulo
et al. 1999). This compilation of reaction rates, referred to as NACRE
(Nuclear Astrophysics Compilation of REaction rates; see Sect.~2 for
some details), comprises in particular the rates for all the
charged-particle-induced nuclear reactions involved in the ``cold''
pp-, CNO, NeNa and MgAl chains, the first two burning modes being
essential energy producers, all four being important nucleosynthesis
agents. It also includes the main reactions involved in non-explosive
helium burning.
The aim of this paper is to calculate with the help of the NACRE data
the abundances of the different isotopes of the elements from C to Al
involved in the non-explosive H (Sects.~3 - 5) and He (Sect.~6)
burnings, special emphasis being put on the impact of the reported
remaining rate uncertainties on the derived abundances. The yields
from the considered burning modes are calculated by combining in all
possible ways the lower and upper limits of all the relevant reaction
rates. One ``reference'' abundance calculation is also performed with
all the recommended NACRE rates. Note that the pp-chains are not
considered here. A solar neutrino analysis based on preliminary NACRE
data for the pp reactions can be found in Castellani et al. (1997).
Our extensive abundance uncertainty analysis is performed in the
framework of a parametric model assuming that H burning takes place at
a constant density $\rho = 100$~g~cm$^{-3}$ and at constant
temperatures between $T_6=10$ and 80 ($T_n$ is the temperature in
units of $10^n~{\rm K}$). The corresponding typical values adopted for
He burning are $\rho = 10^4$~g~cm$^{-3}$ and $T_8=1.5$ and 3.5. These
ranges encompass typical burning conditions in a large variety of
realistic stellar models. For the study of H-burning, initial
abundances are assumed to be solar (Anders \& Grevesse 1989). For
He-burning, we adopt the abundances resulting from H burning at
$T_6=60$ and $\rho = 100$~g~cm$^{-3}$ calculated with the use of the
NACRE recommended rates. The H- and He-burning nucleosynthesis is
followed until the H and He mass fractions drop to $10^{-5}$.
In spite of its highly simplistic aspect, this analysis provides
results that are of reasonable qualitative value, as testified by
their confrontation with detailed stellar model predictions. Most
significant, these parametric calculations have the virtue of
identifying the rate uncertainties whose impact may be of significance
on abundance predictions at temperatures of stellar relevance. They
thus serve as a guide in the selection of the nuclear uncertainties
that have to be duly analyzed in detailed model stars, particularly in
order to perform meaningful confrontations between abundance
observations and predictions. They are also hoped to help nuclear
astrophysicists pinpointing the rate uncertainties that have to be
reduced most urgently.
\section{The NACRE compilation in a nutshell}
A detailed information about the procedure adopted to evaluate each of
the NACRE reaction rates and about the derived values can be found in
Angulo et al. (1999), or in electronic form at {\it
http://astro.ulb.ac.be}, which also offers the possibility of
generating interactively tables of reaction rates for networks and
temperature grids selected by the user\footnote{This electronic
address also provides many other nuclear data of nuclear astrophysics
interest}. It is clearly impossible to go here into the details of the
NACRE procedure. Let us just emphasize some of its specificities:
\noindent (1) For
each reaction, the non-resonant and broad-reso\-nan\-ce contributions
to its rate are evaluated numerically in order to avoid the
approximations which are classically made (see Fowler et al. 1975 for
details) in order to allow analytical rate evaluations;
\noindent (2) Narrow or
subthreshold resonances are in general approximated by Breit-Wigner
shapes, and their contributions to the reaction rates are approximated
in the usual analytical way (e.g. Fowler et al. 1975). However, in
some cases, the resonance data are abundant enough to allow a
numerical calculation avoiding these approximations;
\noindent (3) For each reaction, NACRE provides a
recommended ``adopted'' rate, along with realistic lower and upper
limits. The adopted values of, and the limits on the resonance
contributions are derived from weighted averages duly taking into
account the uncertainties on individual measurements, as well as the
different measurements that are sometimes available for a given
resonance [see Eq.~(15) of Angulo et al. 1999]. For non-resonant
contributions, $\chi^2$-fits to available data provide the recommended
values along with the lower and upper limits, as the experimental
uncertainties on one set of data and the differences between various
sets, if available, are taken into account in the
$\chi^2$-procedure. It is worth stressing at this point that enough
information is provided by NACRE for helping the user to tailor his
own preferred rates if he wants.
The procedure just sketched in (1) - (3) is the selected standard
methodology, and has the advantage of being easily reproducible and of
avoiding any subjective renormalization of different experimental data
sets.Quite clearly, however, the large variety of different situations
makes unavoidable some slight modifications of the standard procedure
in some cases. These specific adjustments are clearly identified and
discussed in Angulo et al. (1999);
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{H1352.f1}}
\caption{Reactions of the CNO cycles.
The dashed line represents the possible leakage out of the
cycles }
\label{fig01}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f2}} \hfill
\vspace{-5cm}
\caption{
{\it Left and right panels:} Time variations of the mass
fractions of the stable C and N isotopes versus the amount
of hydrogen burned at constant density $\rho=100\;{\rm
g/cm^3}$ and constant temperatures $T_6=25$ and 55. The H
mass fraction is noted $X$(H), the subscript 0 corresponding
to its initial value; {\it Middle panel:} Mass fractions of
the same nuclides at H exhaustion [X(H)=$10^{-5}$] as a
function of $T_6$. The shaded areas delineate the
uncertainties resulting from the reaction rates }
\label{Fig:CNOyields}
\end{figure*}
\noindent (4) A theoretical (Hauser-Feshbach) evaluation of the contribution to each rate of
the thermally populated excited states of the target is also
provided. It has to be noted that the widely used compilation of
Caughlan \& Fowler (1988, hereafter referred to as CF88) provides
uncertainties for some rates only, while the contribution of excited
target states is derived in most cases from a rough (referred to as
``equal strength'') approximation;
\noindent (5) It has to be emphasized that the major goal of the NACRE compilation is to
provide numerical reaction rates in tabular form (see {\it
http://astro.ulb.ac.be}). This philosophy differs markedly from the
one promoted by the previous widely used compilations (CF88, and
references there\-in), and is expected to lead to more accurate rate
data. However, for completeness, NACRE also provides analytical
approximations (Angulo et al. 1999) that differ in several respects
from the classically used expressions (CF88, and references therein).
\section{The CNO Cycles}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f3}} \hfill
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{Fig:CNOyields}, but for the O and F nuclides}
\label{Fig:OFyields}
\end{figure*}
The reactions of the CNO cycles are displayed in Fig.~1. As is well
known, their net result is the production of \chem{He}{4} from H, and
the transformation of the C, N and O isotopes mostly into \chem{N}{14}
as a result of the relative slowness of \reac{N}{14}{p}{\gamma}{O}{15}
with respect to the other involved reactions. This \chem{N}{14}
build-up is clearly seen in Fig.~2.
As shown in Fig.~1, three nuclides are important branching points for
the CNO cycles. The first one is \chem{N}{15}. At $T_6=25$,
\reac{N}{15}{p}{\alpha}{C}{12} is 1000 times faster than
\reac{N}{15}{p}{\gamma}{O}{16}, and the CN cycle reaches equilibrium
already before $10^{-3}$ of the initial protons have been burned. The
second branching is at \chem{O}{17}. The competing reactions
\reac{O}{17}{p}{\alpha}{N}{14} and \reac{O}{17}{p}{\gamma}{F}{18}
determine the relative importance of cycle II over cycle III
(Fig.~\ref{fig01}). The uncertainties on these rates have been
strongly reduced in the last years. The rate of
\reac{O}{17}{p}{\alpha}{N}{14} recommended by NACRE is larger than the
CF88 one by factors of 13 and 90 at $T_6=20$ and 80, respectively.
Smaller deviations, though reaching a factor of 9 at $T_6=50$, are
found for the \reac{O}{17}{p}{\gamma}{F}{18} rate.
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[scale=0.30,angle=-90]{H1352.f4}}
\caption{
Bottom panels: Temperature dependence of Maxwellian-averaged
reaction rates (expressed in cm$^3$ mol$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$) from
NACRE for proton capture by \chem{O}{17} (left panel) and by
\chem{O}{18} and \chem{F}{19} (right panel). The rate
uncertainties given by NACRE are represented by the shaded
area. Top panels: Ratio between the NACRE and CF88
Maxwellian-averaged reaction rates}
\label{Fig:O17pag}
\end{figure*}
The oxygen isotopic composition is shown in Fig.~3. As it is well
known, it depends drastically on the burning temperature. In
particular, \chem{O}{17} is produced at $T_6 \lsimeq 25$, but is
destroyed at higher temperatures. This has the important consequence
that the amount of \chem{O}{17} emerging from the CNO cycles and
eventually transported to the stellar surface is a steep function of
the stellar mass. This conclusion could get some support from the
observation of a large spread in the oxygen isotopic ratios at the
surface of red giant stars of somewhat different masses (Dearborn
1992, and references therein). Fig.~3 also demonstrates that the
oxygen isotopic composition cannot be fully reliably predicted yet at
a given temperature as a result of the cumulative uncertainties
associated with the different production and destruction rates.
Finally, the leakage from cycle III is determined by the ratio of the
\reac{O}{18}{p}{\gamma}{F}{19} and \reac{O}{18}{p}{\alpha}{N}{15}
rates (Fig.~\ref{fig01}). At the temperatures of relevance,
\reac{O}{18}{p}{\gamma}{F}{19} is roughly 1000 times slower than
\reac{O}{18}{p}{\alpha}{N}{15}, in relatively good agreement with CF88
(Fig.~\ref{Fig:O17pag}), undermining the path leading to the
production of \chem{F}{19}. However, at low temperatures, large
uncertainties still affect the \reac{O}{18}{p}{\gamma}{F}{19} rate. In
fact, its upper bound could be comparable to the
\reac{O}{18}{p}{\alpha}{N}{15} rate, and at the same time larger than
the \reac{F}{19}{p}{\alpha}{O}{16} rate at $T_6 \lsimeq 20$. As a
result, some \chem{F}{19} might be produced, in contradiction with the
conclusion drawn from the adoption of the CF88 rates. Fig.~3 indeed
confirms that fluorine could be overproduced (with respect to solar)
by up to a factor of 100 at H exhaustion when $T_6 \approx 15$.
However, Fig. 3 also reveals that the maximum \chem{F}{19} yields that
can be attained remain very poorly predictable as a result of the rate
uncertainties. In fact, some hint of a non-negligible production of
fluorine by the CNO cycles might come from the observation of fluorine
abundances slightly larger than solar at the surface of red giant
stars considered to be in their post-first dredge-up phase (Jorissen
et al. 1992; Mowlavi et al. 1996).
As far as \reac{O}{18}{p}{\alpha}{N}{15} is concerned, let us also
mention that Huss et al. (1997) have speculated that its rate could be
about 1000 times larger than the one adopted by CF88 and NACRE at
temperatures of about $15\times 10^6$ K. This proposal has been made
in order to explain the N isotopic composition measured in some
presolar grains. It is clearly fully incompatible with the NACRE
analysis.
Finally, let us note that \reac{F}{19}{p}{\alpha}{O}{16} is always
much faster than \reac{F}{19}{p}{\gamma}{Ne}{20}. Any important
leakage out of the CNO cycles to \chem{Ne}{20} is thus prevented, this
conclusion being independent of the remaining rate uncertainties.
\section{The NeNa Chain}
\begin{figure}[h]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{H1352.f5}}
\caption[]{
\label{Fig:NeNa}
Same as Fig.~1, but for the NeNa and MgAl chains}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[scale=0.30,angle=-90]{H1352.f6}}
\caption{\label{Fig:Ne21Ne22pg}
Same as Fig.~\ref{Fig:O17pag}, but for
\reac{Ne}{20}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{21},
\reac{Ne}{21}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{22},
\reac{Ne}{22}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{23} (left panel) and
\reac{Na}{23}{p}{\gamma}{Mg}{24},
\reac{Na}{23}{p}{\alpha}{Ne}{20} (right panel) }
\end{figure*}
The NeNa chain is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:NeNa}, while
Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ne21Ne22pg} displays some relevant NACRE reaction rates,
and their, sometimes quite large, uncertainties. These affect in
particular the proton captures by \chem{Ne}{21}, \chem{Ne}{22} and
\chem{Na}{23}. In contrast, the \reac{Ne}{20}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{21} rate
may be considered as relatively well determined. Some of these rates
may also deviate strongly from the CF88 proposed values.
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f7}} \hfill
\caption[~NeNa yields]
{Same as Fig.~\ref{Fig:CNOyields}, but for the nuclides
involved in the NeNa chain}
\label{Fig:NeNayields}
\end{figure*}
The NACRE rates are used to compute the abundances shown in
Fig.~\ref{Fig:NeNayields}. A slight alteration of the initial
\chem{Ne}{20} abundance is visible only for $T_6 \gsimeq$ 50. However,
an unnoticeable \chem{Ne}{20} destruction is sufficient to lead to a
significant increase of the abundance of the rare \chem{Ne}{21}
isotope through \reacbp{Ne}{20}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{21}{Ne}{21} at $T_6
\lsimeq 40$. At higher temperatures,
\reacbp{Ne}{21}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{22}{Ne}{22} destroys \chem{Ne}{21}. As
a result, the \chem{Ne}{21} abundance at H exhaustion is maximum when
H burns in the approximate $30 \lsimeq T_6 \lsimeq 35$ range. This
conclusion may, however, be altered if the upper limit of the
\reac{Ne}{21}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{22} rate is adopted instead.
The \chem{Na}{23} yield has raised much interest recently, following
the discovery at the surface of globular cluster red giant stars of
moderate sodium overabundances which correlate or anti-correlate with
the amount of other elements (like C, N, O, Mg and Al) also involved
in cold H burning (Denissenkov et al. 1998; Kraft et al. 1998, and
references therein). This situation may be the signature of the
dredge-up to the stellar surface of the ashes of the NeNa chain. The
\chem{Na}{23} production results from
\reac{Ne}{22}{p}{\gamma}{Na}{23}, while
\reac{Na}{23}{p}{\gamma}{Mg}{24} and \reac{Na}{23}{p}{\alpha}{Ne}{20}
are responsible for its destruction, which can be substantial at $T_6
\gsimeq 60$. Unfortunately, our knowledge of these three reaction
rates remains very poor, with uncertainties that can amount to factors
of about 100 to $10^4$ in certain temperature ranges (see
Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ne21Ne22pg}). As indicated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:NeNayields},
this situation prevents an accurate prediction of the \chem{Na}{23}
yields when $T_6 \gsimeq 50$. More precisely, the spread in the
\chem{Na}{23} abundance at H exhaustion reaches a factor of 100 at
these temperatures.
The possible cycling character of the NeNa chain is determined by the
ratio of the rates of \reac{Na}{23}{p}{\alpha}{Ne}{20} and of
\reac{Na}{23}{p}{\gamma}{Mg}{24}. Fig.~\ref{Fig:Ne21Ne22pg} indicates
that the former reaction is predicted to be faster than the latter one
at $T_6 \lsimeq 50$ only. In this case, the NeNa chain is indeed a
cycle. However, at higher temperatures, an important leakage to the
MgAl chain can be expected, unless future experiments confirm the
lower bound of the uncertain \reac{Na}{23}{p}{\gamma}{Mg}{24} rate.
\section{The MgAl Chain}
The MgAl chain is depicted in Fig.~5. It involves in particular
\chem{Al}{26}. Its long-lived ($t_{1/2} =$ \ten{7.05}{5} y)
\chem{Al^g}{26} ground state and its short-lived ($t_{1/2} = 6.35$ s)
\chem{Al^m}{26} isomeric state are out of thermal equilibrium at the
temperatures of relevance for the non-explosive burning of hydrogen
(Coc \& Porquet 1998). They have thus to be considered as separate
species in abundance calculations.
The status of our present knowledge of some important reactions of the
MgAl chain is depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Alg26pg}, while the yield
predictions for the species involved in this chain are presented in
Fig.~\ref{Fig:MgAlyields}. Let us first discuss the situation
resulting from the use of the NACRE adopted rates. The most abundant
nuclide is \chem{Mg}{24}, the concentration of which remains
unaffected, at least for $T_6 \lsimeq 60$. In contrast, \chem{Mg}{25}
is significantly transformed by proton captures into \chem{Al^g}{26}
at $T_6 \gsimeq 30$. At $T_6 \gsimeq 50$, the leakage from the NeNa
cycle starts affecting the MgAl nucleosynthesis through a slight
increase of the \chem{Mg}{24} abundance, followed by a modest
enhancement of the \chem{Mg}{25}, \chem{Al^g}{26} and \chem{Al}{27}
concentrations (Fig.~\ref{Fig:MgAlyields}). At temperatures $T_6
\gsimeq 70$, the \chem{Mg}{24} accumulation starts turning into a
depletion by proton captures, which contributes to a further increase
in the \chem{Mg}{25}, \chem{Al^g}{26} and \chem{Al}{27}
abundances. This build-up cannot be significantly hampered by the
destruction of these species by proton captures, as a result of their
relative slowness. Among these reactions,
\reac{Al}{27}{p}{\alpha}{Mg}{24} and \reac{Al}{27}{p}{\gamma}{Si}{28}
are of special interest, as the ratio of their rates determines in
particular the leakage out of the MgAl chain. The adopted NACRE rate
of the former reaction is 20 to 100 times slower than the CF88 one in
the considered temperature range, and turns out to be slower than the
(p,$\gamma$) channel for $T_6 \gsimeq 60$ (Fig.~\ref{Fig:Alg26pg}), so
that no cycling back is possible in these conditions.
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[scale=0.30,angle=-90]{H1352.f8}}
\caption{ \label{Fig:Alg26pg}
Same as Fig.~\ref{Fig:O17pag}, but for
\reac{Mg}{26}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{27},
\reac{Al^g}{26}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{27} (left panel) and
\reac{Al}{27}{p}{\gamma}{Si}{28},
\reac{Al}{27}{p}{\alpha}{Mg}{24} (right panel) }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f9}} \hfill
\caption
{Same as Fig. \ref{Fig:CNOyields}, but for the nuclides
involved in the MgAl chain}
\label{Fig:MgAlyields}
\end{figure*}
It is noticeable that the \chem{Mg}{26} abundance at H exhaustion is
almost temperature independent. This trend differs from the behaviour
of the concentrations of the other Mg and Al isotopes, and results
from two factors. First, the adopted \chem{Mg}{26} proton capture is
slow enough (about ten times slower than prescribed by CF88) for
preventing \chem{Mg}{26} to be destroyed at the considered
temperatures. Second, \chem{Mg}{26} is bypassed by the nuclear flow
associated with the leakage from the NeNa chain at $T_6 \gsimeq
50$. The reaction \reac{Al^g}{26}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{27} is indeed
predicted to be faster than the \chem{Al^g}{26} $\beta$-decay in this
temperature domain.
Various aspects of the above analysis may be affected by remaining
rate uncertainties. In fact, the only proton captures whose rates are
now put on safe grounds are \reac{Mg}{24}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{25} (for
which NACRE and CF88 are in good agreement) and
\reac{Mg}{25}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{26} (for which the NACRE adopted rate is
about 5 times slower than the CF88 one at $T_6 < 80$). In spite of
much recent effort, the other proton capture rates of the MgAl chain
still show more or less large uncertainties in the considered
temperature range, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Alg26pg}.
Due consideration of these uncertainties indicates in particular (see
Fig.~\ref{Fig:MgAlyields}) that, for $T_6 \gsimeq 50$, \chem{Mg}{24}
could be more strongly destroyed than stated above, while
\chem{Mg}{26} could be substantially transformed into \chem{Al}{27} if
the NACRE upper limits on the \reac{Mg}{24}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{25} and
\reac{Mg}{26}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{27} rates were selected. It is also
important to note that the abundances at H exhaustion of
\chem{Al^g}{26} and \chem{Al}{27} are not drastically affected by the
uncertainties left in their proton capture rates, even if these
uncertainties can be quite large (for example, the
\reac{Al^g}{26}{p}{\gamma}{Si}{27} rate is uncertain by more than a
factor of $10^3$ at $T_6 \gsimeq 50$). This situation results from the
fact that even the highest NACRE proton capture rates are not fast
enough for leading to a substantial destruction of the two Al isotopes
by the time H is consumed\footnote{Arnould et al. (1995) have reached
a different conclusion due to a trivial mistake in the
\reac{Al^g}{26}{p}{\gamma}{Si}{27} rate used in their
calculations}. In contrast, the exact conditions under which the MgAl
chain is cycling cannot be reliably specified yet in view of the large
uncertainties still affecting the \reac{Al}{27}{p}{\alpha}{Mg}{24} and
\reac{Al}{27}{p}{\gamma}{Si}{28} rates.
The possibility for the MgAl chain to produce substantial amounts of
\chem{Al^g}{26} is of high interest in view of the prime importance of
this radionuclide in cosmochemistry and $\gamma$-ray line
astronomy. There is now ample observational evidence that
\chem{Al}{26} has been injected live in the forming solar system
before its in situ decay in various meteoritic inclusions (MacPherson
et al. 1995). Its presence in extinct form is also demonstrated in
various types of presolar grains of supposedly circumstellar origin
identified in primitive meteorites (e.g. Zinner 1995). The present-day
galactic plane also contains \chem{Al^g}{26}, as shown by the
observation of a 1.8 MeV $\gamma$-ray line associated with its
$\beta$-decay (e.g. Prantzos \& Diehl 1996).
The MgAl chain has also a direct bearing on the puzzling Mg-Al
anticorrelation observed in globular cluster red giants. Denissenkov
et al. (1998) have speculated that a strong low-energy resonance could
dominate the rate of \reac{Mg}{24}{p}{\gamma}{Al}{25} at typical cold
H-burning temperatures, and could help explaining these
observations. There is at present no support of any sort to such a
resonant enhancement of this rate.
\section{Helium burning}
The NACRE compilation also provides recommended rates and their lower
and upper limits for most of the $\alpha$-captures involved in the
non-explosive burning of helium. The impact of the remaining rate
uncertainties on the abundances of the elements up to Al affected by
He burning is evaluated in our parametric model for two sets of
conditions: {\it (i)} $\rho = 10^4$~g~cm$^{-3}$ and $T_8=1.5$, adopted
to characterize the central or shell He-burning phases of
intermediate-mass stars ($M\simeq 6$~M$_{\odot}$), and {\it (ii)}
$\rho = 10^4$~g~cm$^{-3}$ and $T_8=3.5$, which can be encountered at
the end of the He burning phase in the core of massive stars or in AGB
thermal pulses. The initial abundances used in these calculations are
adopted as described in Sect.~1.
In contrast to the H-burning case, the abundances during He burning
exhibit some sensitivity to density, as it enters differently the
$3\alpha$ reaction rate and the other $\alpha$-capture
rates. Consequently, the results presented here should not be used to
infer abundances resulting from He burning in specific stellar models,
where the time evolution of the temperature and the density may play
an important role on the final He-burning composition. It has also to
be noted that the neutrons produced by \reac{C}{13}{\alpha}{n}{O}{16}
or \reac{Ne}{22}{\alpha}{n}{Mg}{25} during He burning lead us to
extend the nuclear network to all (about 500) the s-process nuclides
up to Bi.
Figs.~\ref{fig_he1} and \ref{fig_he2} illustrate the evolution during
He burning in the two situations mentioned above of the abundances of
all the stable nuclides between $^{12}{\rm C}$ and $^{27}{\rm Al}$
(plus $^{26}{\rm Al}$). At low temperature ($T_8 \approx 1.5$;
Figs.~\ref{fig_he1}a and \ref{fig_he2}a), the main reaction flows are
\noindent a) $2\alpha(\alpha,\gamma)^{12}{\rm C}$, followed by
\reac{C}{12}{\alpha}{\gamma}{O}{16} at the very end of He burning. The
factor of 2 uncertainty in the rate of
\reac{C}{12}{\alpha}{\gamma}{O}{16} (Fig.~\ref{Fig:rateHe}) is
responsible for the error bars on the $^{16}{\rm O}$ abundance;
\noindent b) $^{14}{\rm N}(\alpha,\gamma)^{18}{\rm F}(\beta^+)^{18}{\rm O}$,
followed by
$^{18}{\rm O}(\alpha,\gamma)^{22}{\rm Ne}$ at the end of He
burning. The resulting $^{22}{\rm Ne}$ does not burn at the considered
low temperature\footnote{In detailed stellar models, the temperature
increases to values in excess of $T_8=3$ towards the end of core (or
shell) He-burning. This may lead to the destruction of $^{22}{\rm Ne}$
by $(\alpha,n)$ (with a concomitant production of neutrons) or
$(\alpha,\gamma)$ reactions, as illustrated on Fig.~\ref{fig_he2}b}.
The uncertainties of a factor of 1.5 and 5 at $T_8=1.5$ in the NACRE
rates of $^{14}{\rm N}(\alpha,\gamma)^{18}{\rm F}$ and $^{18}{\rm
O}(\alpha,\gamma)^{22}{\rm Ne}$, respectively (Fig.~\ref{Fig:rateHe}),
are responsible for the wide range of predicted $^{18}{\rm O}$ and
$^{22}{\rm Ne}$ abundances. A much larger $^{18}{\rm O}$ abundance at
the end of He burning would result if use were made of the CF88 rate,
which is about 220 times smaller than the NACRE one
(Fig.~\ref{Fig:rateHe}).
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f10}}
\hfill
\caption{
Mass fractions of the stable C to F isotopes versus the
amount of $^4$He burned at constant density
$\rho=10^4\;{\rm g/cm^3}$ and constant temperature
$T_8=1.5$ (a: left panel) or $T_8=3.5$ (b: right
panel). The $^4$He mass fraction is denoted $X$(He), the
subscript 0 corresponding to its initial value}
\label{fig_he1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f11}} \hfill
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig_he1} for the nuclides from Ne
to Al}
\label{fig_he2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\hspace*{3cm}
\resizebox{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{H1352.f12}} \hfill
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{Fig:O17pag} for some $\alpha$-capture reactions
}
\label{Fig:rateHe}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{H1352.f13}}
\caption{
Neutron density versus the amount of helium burned at
$\rho=10^4\;{\rm g\ cm}^{-3}$ and $T_8=1.5$ (solid line) or
$T_8=3.5$ (dashed line). The initial \chem{C}{13} mass
fraction is adopted equal to $10^{-4}$, which is obtained at
the end of the CNO cycle operating at $T_6 = 60$ and $\rho =
100$ g cm$^{-3}$ (Sect.~3)}
\label{fig_he3}
\end{figure}
The neutron density resulting from \reac{C}{13}{\alpha}{n}{O}{16} is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_he3}, along with its associated uncertainty.
Albeit small, this neutron irradiation is responsible for the
$^{15}{\rm N}$ and $^{19}{\rm F}$ abundance peaks seen in
Fig.~\ref{fig_he1}a. They result from $^{14}{\rm
N}(\alpha,\gamma)^{18}{\rm F}(\beta^+)^{18}{\rm O}({\rm
p},\alpha)^{15}{\rm N}(\alpha,\gamma)^{19}{\rm F}$, the protons
originating from $^{14}{\rm N}({\rm n,p})^{14}{\rm C}$. Towards the
end of He burning, $^{19}{\rm F}$ is destroyed by $^{19}{\rm
F}(\alpha,{\rm p})^{22}{\rm Ne}$. Shell He burning in AGB stars or
central He burning in Wolf-Rayet stars have been proposed as a major
site for the galactic production of $^{19}{\rm F}$ (Goriely et
al. 1989; Meynet \& Arnould 1996, 1999; Mowlavi et al. 1998). For AGB
stars, these predictions have been confirmed by the observation of
$^{19}{\rm F}$ overabundances in some of these objects (Jorissen et
al. 1992). Incomplete He-burning (e.g. in Wolf-Rayet stars) may also
contribute to the galactic enrichment in primary $^{15}{\rm N}$, as
required by the observations of this nuclide in the interstellar
medium (G\"usten \& Ungerechts 1985).
The large \chem{Al}{26} abundance seen on Fig.~\ref{fig_he2}a results
from the particular choice of initial conditions (see Sect.~1), since
\chem{Al}{26} is not produced in the conditions prevailing during
He-burning. Its rapid drop close to the end of He burning results from
the combined effect of $\beta$-decay and $^{26}{\rm Al}({\rm
n,p})^{26}{\rm Mg}$ making use of the few neutrons liberated by
$^{22}{\rm Ne}(\alpha, {\rm n})^{25}{\rm Mg}$.
At higher temperatures (Figs.~\ref{fig_he1}b and \ref{fig_he2}b), the
He-burning nucleosynthesis of the elements up to about Al is
essentially the same as in the low temperature case. The major
differences are observed for \chem{O}{18}, \chem{F}{19},
\chem{Ne}{21}, \chem{Ne}{22}, \chem{Mg}{25}, \chem{Mg}{26} and
\chem{Al}{26}, and are mainly due to a larger neutron production by
\reac{C}{13}{\alpha}{n}{O}{16}, \reac{O}{18}{\alpha}{n}{Ne}{21} and
\reac{Ne}{22}{\alpha}{n}{Mg}{25}. Note that
\reac{O}{18}{\alpha}{n}{Ne}{21} is about 150 times slower than
$^{18}{\rm O}(\alpha,\gamma) ^{22}{\rm Ne}$ in these conditions, but
is fast enough to keep the neutron density above $N_{\rm n}=10^9\;
{\rm cm}^{-3}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig_he3}). These neutrons allow protons to
be produced by the reactions $^{14}{\rm N(n,p)}^{14}{\rm C}$ and
$^{18}{\rm F}({\rm n,p})^{18}{\rm O}$. Additional protons come from
$^{18}{\rm F}(\alpha,{\rm p})^{21}{\rm Ne}$. As a result, $^{15}{\rm
N}$ is produced via $^{18}{\rm F}({\rm n},\alpha)^{15}{\rm N}$,
$^{18}{\rm O}({\rm p},\alpha)^{15}{\rm N}$,\\ $^{14}{\rm N}({\rm
p},\gamma)^{15}{\rm O}(\beta^+)^{15}{\rm N}$ and $^{18}{\rm F}({\rm
p},\alpha)^{15}{\rm O}(\beta^+)^{15}{\rm N}$. The production of
$^{19}{\rm F}$ follows from $^{15}{\rm N}(\alpha,\gamma)^{19}{\rm
F}$. Since most of the involved reactions have better known rates at
$T_8=3.5$ than at $T_8=1.5$, the corresponding error bars on the
abundances are smaller at higher temperature. Neutrons are also
responsible for the destruction of any \chem{Al}{26} that may survive
the former H-burning episode.
The operation of $^{22}{\rm Ne}(\alpha,{\rm n})^{25}$Mg at the end of
He burning leads to a non-negligible neutron irradiation which
triggers a weak s-process leading to the overproduction of the $70
\lsimeq A \lsimeq 90$ s-nuclei. Unfortunately, the rate of $^{22}{\rm
Ne}(\alpha,{\rm n})^{25}$Mg remains quite uncertain
(Fig.~\ref{Fig:rateHe}), even at temperatures as high as $T_8=3.5$ (in
this case by a factor of 25). The resulting uncertainty on the neutron
density amounts to a factor of 10 (Fig.~\ref{fig_he3}), while the
total neutron exposure spans the range 0.1 -- 0.3 mbarn$^{-1}$.
Finally, the $\alpha$-captures by the Ne isotopes are fast enough at
temperatures $T_8 > 3$ to alter the Mg isotopic composition. This may
provide a direct observational signature of the operation of the
$^{22}{\rm Ne}(\alpha,{\rm n})^{25}$Mg neutron source in stars
(e.g. Malaney \& Lambert 1988). Large uncertainties remain, however,
in these reaction rates at He-burning temperatures, except for the
relatively well-determined \reac{Ne}{20}{\alpha}{\gamma}{Mg}{24} rate.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Sect:Conclusions}
As an aid to the confrontation between spectroscopic observations and
theoretical expectations, the nucleosynthesis associated with the cold
CNO, NeNa and MgAl modes of H burning, as well as with He burning, is
studied with the help of the recent NACRE compilation of nuclear
reaction rates. Special attention is paid to the impact on the derived
abundances of the carefully evaluated uncertainties that still affect
the rates of many reactions. In order to isolate this nuclear effect
in an unambiguous way, a very simple constant temperature and density
model is adopted.
It is shown that large spreads in the abundance predictions for
several nuclides may result not only from a change in temperature, but
also from nuclear physics uncertainties. This additional intricacy has
to be kept in mind when trying to interpret the observations and when
attempting to derive constraints on stellar models from these data.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work has been supported in part by the European Commission under
the Human Capital and Mobility network contract ERBCHRXCT930339 and
the PECO-NIS contract ERBCIPDCT940629.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{s1}
For scalar field theories in flat space-time, the Osterwalder-Schrader
framework provides a valuable link between Euclidean and Minkowskian
descriptions of the quantum field. In this paper we will focus only on
one aspect of that framework, namely the so-called `reconstruction
theorem' \cite{0} which enables one to recover the Hilbert space of
quantum states and the Hamiltonian operator, starting from an
appropriate measure on the space of Euclidean paths. At least in
simple cases, this procedure provides a precise correspondence between
the path integral and canonical approaches to quantization. However,
since even the basic axioms of the framework are deeply rooted in
(Euclidean and) Poincar\'e invariance, a priori it is not obvious that
the construction would go through in diffeomorphism invariant
theories, such as general relativity. In particular, the idea of a
`Wick rotation', implicit in the original framework, has no obvious
meaning in this context. The purpose of this paper is to show that,
in spite of these difficulties, the construction can be generalized to
such theories.
While diffeomorphism invariance is our primary concern, we will also
address another issue that arises already in Minkowskian field
theories. It stems from the fact that the standard
Osterwalder-Schrader framework \cite{1} is geared to `kinematically
linear' systems ---such as interacting scalar field theories--- where
the space of Euclidean paths has a natural vector space
structure. More precisely, paths are assumed to belong to the space of
Schwartz distributions and this assumption then permeates the entire
framework. Although the assumption seems natural at first, in fact it
imposes a rather severe limitation on physical theories that one can
consider. In particular, in non-Abelian gauge theories, the space of
gauge equivalent connections does {\it not} have a natural vector
space structure. Therefore, if one wishes to adopt a manifestly gauge
invariant approach, the space of histories can not be taken to be one
of the standard spaces of distributions \cite{almmt2,almmt1}. Even if
one were to use a gauge fixing procedure, because of Gribov
ambiguities, one can not arrive at a genuine vector space if the
space-time dimensions greater than two. Our extension of the
Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem will incorporate such
`kinematically non-linear' theories.
Let us now return to our primary motivation. As noted above, since the
standard formulation of the reconstruction theorem makes a crucial use
of a flat, background metric, it excludes diffeomorphism invariant
theories. The most notable examples are gravitational theories
such as general relativity and topological ones such as Chern-Simons
and BF theories, in which there is no background metric {\it at
all}. To incorporate these cases, one has to generalize the very
setting that underlies the Osterwalder-Schrader framework. A natural
strategy would be to substitute the Poincar\'e group used in the
original treatment by the diffeomorphism group. However, one
immediately encounters some technical subtleties. In certain cases,
such as general relativity on spatially compact manifolds, all
diffeomorphisms are analogous to gauge transformations. Hence, while
they have a non-trivial action on the space of paths, they have to act
trivially on the Hilbert space of physical states. In other cases,
such as general relativity in the asymptotically flat context,
diffeomorphisms which are asymptotically the identity correspond to
gauge while those that preserve the asymptotic structure but act
non-trivially on it define genuine symmetries. These symmetries should
therefore lead to non-trivial Hamiltonians on the Hilbert space of
physical states. The desired extension of the Osterwalder-Schrader
framework has to cater to these different situations appropriately.
Thus, from a conceptual viewpoint, the extensions contemplated here
are very significant. However, it turns out that, \textit{once an
appropriate setting is introduced}, the technical steps are actually
rather straightforward. With natural substitutions suggested by this
generalized setting, one can essentially follow the same steps as in
the original reconstruction \cite{1} with minor technical
modifications. In particular, it is possible to cater to the various
subtleties mentioned above.
The plan of this paper is as follows. Section \ref{s2} introduces the
new setting and section \ref{s3} contains the main result, the
generalized reconstruction theorem. Section \ref{s4} (and the
Appendix) discuss examples which illustrate the reconstruction
procedure. These examples will in particular suggest a manifestly
gauge invariant approach in the non-Abelian context and also bring out
different roles that the diffeomorphism group can play and subtleties
associated with them. Section \ref{s5} summarizes the main results and
briefly discusses their ramifications as well as limitations.
\section{The general setting}
\label{s2}
This section is divided into three parts. In the first, we introduce
the basic framework, in the second we discuss some subtleties
associated with diffeomorphism invariance and in the third we present
the the modified axioms.
\subsection{Basic framework}
\label{s2.1}
Heuristically, our task is to relate the path integral and canonical
approaches for a system which may not have a background metric
structure. Let us therefore begin with a differential manifold $M$ of
dimension D+1 and topology $\Rl\times\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is a
D-dimensional smooth manifold of arbitrary but fixed topology. $M$
will serve as the non-dynamical arena for theories of interest. The
product topology of $M$ will play an important role in what follows.
In particular, it will enable us to generalize the notion of
`time-translations' and `time-reflections' which play an important
role in the construction. Since our goal is to obtain a Hamiltonian
quantum theory, it is not surprising that we have to restrict
ourselves to a product topology.
Our generalized Osterwalder-Schrader axioms will require the use of
several structures associated with $M$. The fact that $M$ is
diffeomorphic to $\Rl\times\sigma$ in particular means that it can be
foliated by leaves diffeomorphic to $\sigma$. To be precise, consider
the set ${\rm Emb}(\sigma,M)$ of all embeddings of $\sigma$ into $M$.
A {\it foliation} $E=\{E_t\}_{t\in\Rl}$ is a one-parameter family of
elements of ${\rm Emb}(\sigma, M)$, $E_t\in {\rm Emb}(\sigma,M)$,
which varies smoothly with $t$ and provides a diffeomorphism between
$\Rl \times \sigma$ and $M$. The set of foliations ${\rm
Fol}(\sigma,M)$, given by all diffeomorphisms from $\Rl \times \sigma$
to $M$, will be of special interest to us. Notice that the embedded
hyper-surfaces $\Sigma_t=E_t(\sigma)$ have not been required to be
`space-like, time-like or null.' Indeed, there is no background
metric to give meaning to these labels.
Each foliation $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,M)$ enables one to generalize
the standard notions of time translation and time reflection. To see
this, first note that since $E$ is of the form $E: \Rl \times \sigma
\rightarrow M; \ (t,x) \mapsto X = E_t(x)$, the inverse map $E^{-1}$
defines functions $t_E(X)$ and $x_E(X)$ from $M$ to $\Rl$ and
$\sigma$ respectively. The time translation $\varphi^\Delta$, with
$\Delta \in \Rl$, is the diffeomorphism on $M$, $(t_E (X), x_E(X))
\mapsto (t_E(X) + \Delta, x_E(X))$, which is simply a shift of the
time coordinate $t_E$ by $t$, holding $x_E(X)$ fixed. Similarly, the
time reflection $\theta_E$ is the diffeomorphism of $M$ defined by
$(t_E(X),x_E(X))\mapsto (-t_E(X),x_E(X))$. We also consider the
positive and negative half spaces $S_E^\pm$, defined by $X \in
S^\pm_E$ if and only if $\pm t_E(X) \ge 0$. Although these notions are
tied to a specific foliation, our final constructions and results will
\textit{not} refer to a preferred foliation.
We now turn to the structures associated with the particular quantum
field theory under consideration. Let us assume that our theory is
associated with a classical Lagrangian density which depends on a
collection of basic (bosonic) fields $\phi$ on $M$ and their various
partial derivatives. We will not explicitly display discrete indices
such as tensorial or representation space indices, so that the symbol
$\phi$ may include, in addition to scalar fields, higher spin fields
which may possibly take values in a representation of the Lie-algebra
of a structure group. The fields $\phi$ belong to a space ${\cal C}$ of
{\it classical histories} which is typically a space of smooth
(possibly Lie algebra-valued) tensor fields equipped with an
appropriate Sobolev norm. In the case of a gauge theory, there will
be an appropriate gauge bundle over $M$. We assume that the action of
${\rm Diff}(M)$, the diffeomorphism group of $M$, has a lift to this
bundle, from which an action on ${\cal C}$ follows naturally. For
notational simplicity, we will denote this action of ${\rm Diff}(M)$
on ${\cal C}$ simply by $\phi\mapsto \varphi \phi$ for any $\varphi \in {\rm
Diff}(M)$.
Of greater interest than ${\cal C}$ will be the set ${\o{\C}}$ of {\it quantum
histories} which is generally an extension of ${\cal C}$. In a kinematically
linear field theory, $\o{\C}$ is typically the space of Schwartz
distributions \cite{1}. The extension from ${\cal C}$ to $\o{\C}$ is essential
because, while ${\cal C}$ is densely embedded in $\o{\C}$ in the natural
topology, in physically interesting cases, ${\cal C}$ is generally of
measure zero, whence the genuinely distributional paths in $\o{\C}$ are
crucial to path integrals. In the more general case now under
consideration, we leave the details of the extension unspecified, as
they depend on the particulars of the theory being considered, and
refer to elements of ${\o{\C}}$ simply as {\it generalized fields}. For
example, in a gauge theory these might include generalized connections
discussed briefly in Section \ref{s4} (and in detail in
\cite{almmt2}). For notational simplicity, the symbol $\phi$ will be
used to denote generalized fields (elements of ${\o{\C}}$) as
well as smooth fields in ${{\cal C}}$; the context will remove the ambiguity.
Consider then a suitable collection of subsets of $\o{\C}$ and denote by
${\cal B}$ the $\sigma$-algebra it generates. This equips $\o{\C}$ with
the structure of a measurable space. Let us further consider the set
${\cal F}(\o{\C})$ of measurable functions on this space (that is,
functions for which the pre-image of any Lebesgue measurable set is
a measurable set).
With this background material at hand, we can now introduce a key
technical notion, that of a {\it label set} ${{\rm L}}$, which in turn will
enable us to define the basic random variables and stochastic process.
${{\rm L}}$ is to be regarded as being `dual' to the space ${\o{\C}}$ of
generalized fields. That is, it must be chosen to match the structure
of $\overline{{\cal C}}$ so that there is a well-defined `pairing' $P$:
\begin{equation} \label{1}
P\; :\; {\cal L}\to
{\cal F}(\overline{{\cal C}});\; f \mapsto P_f\;.
\end{equation}
For example, in kinematically linear field theories on $\Rl^{D+1}$,
typically $\overline{\cal C}$ is taken to be the space of Schwartz
distributions with appropriate tensor and internal indices. Then,
${{\rm L}}$ consists of smooth, rapidly decreasing (test) functions $f$ on
$\Rl^{D+1}$, with the pairing $P$ defined by
$P_f(\phi)=\exp(i\phi(f))$, where $\phi(f) :=\int d^{D+1}X\,\,
\phi(X)f(X)$. In $SU(2)$ gauge theories, a natural candidate for
${{\rm L}}$ is the space of loops on $M$ and the pairing is then defined by
$P_f(\phi)= {\rm Tr}\, h_f(\phi)$, the trace of the holonomy
$h_f(\phi)$ of the generalized connection $\phi$ around the loop $f$
in a suitable representation of the structure group
\cite{almmt1,almmt2}. In general, we will assume that each $f \in
{{\rm L}}$ is `associated with' a set supp$(f) \subset M$, which we call
the support of $f$. The pairing defines a {\it stochastic process}
$f\to P_f(\phi)$, and we refer to $P_f$ as a {\it random variable}.
\medskip
In the general framework, we will not be concerned with the details
of the pairing $P$, but merely ask that it satisfies the following three
properties:\\
{\it (A1) The pairing is diffeomorphism covariant, in the sense that
there exists a left action of ${\rm Diff}(M)$ on ${\rm L}$, which we
denote $f\mapsto (\varphi^{-1}) f$, such that $P_f(\varphi \phi)=
P_{(\varphi^{-1}) f}(\phi)$ for any $\phi\in {{\cal C}}$.
Furthermore, we require that {\rm supp}$((\varphi^{-1}) f)
= \varphi(${\rm supp}$(f))$.}\\
\\
We also introduce a left action of $\varphi$ on random variables:
$\varphi(P_f) = P_{\varphi^{-1} f}$.
Note that in the familiar case of scalar field theories where the
label set is taken to be the set of Schwarz space functions ($f \in {\cal
S}$),
the action of $\varphi$ on ${\cal L}$ is $(\varphi^{-1}) f
= f \circ \varphi^{-1}$.
\medskip
Let us denote by ${\cal A}$ the set of finite linear combinations
($N<\infty$) of random variables $P_f:$
\begin{equation} \label{2}
\psi(\phi):=\sum_{I=1}^N z_I P_{f_I}(\phi)
\end{equation}
with $z_I\in\Co$ and $f_I\in {{\rm L}}$. The
second assumption about the pairing $P$ is :\\
\\
{\it (A2) The vector space $\cal A$ is in fact a $\star$-algebra with unit,
whose $\star$ operation is complex conjugation of functions on $\overline
{{\cal C}}$. The
algebraic operations of ${\cal A}$ must
commute with the action of diffeomorphisms in the sense that:
}\\
\begin{equation}
{\it For} \ a, b \in {\cal A}, \ \varphi(ab)
=[\varphi(a)] [\varphi(b)], \ \ {\it and} \ \
[\varphi(a^\star)]= [\varphi(a)]^\star.
\end{equation}
The first part of this property will allow us to calculate scalar
products between elements of ${\cal A}$ with respect to suitable
measures on $\overline{{{\cal C}}}$ purely in terms of expectation values of
the random variables $P_f$. Note that, in the kinematically linear
theories as well as the gauge theories referred to above, this
assumption is automatically satisfied.
Next, let us consider a $\sigma$-additive probability measure $\mu$ on
the measurable space $(\overline{{{\cal C}}},{\cal B})$, thus equipping it
with the structure of a measure space $({\o{\C}},{\cal B},\mu)$. This
structure naturally gives rise to the so called `history Hilbert
space'
\begin{equation} \label{3}
{\cal H}_{D+1}:=L_2(\overline{{{\cal C}}}, d\mu)
\end{equation}
of square integrable functions. We denote the inner product between
$\psi,\psi'\in {\cal A}$ by
\begin{equation} \label{3a}
\langle \psi,\psi' \rangle:=\int_{\o{\C}}d\mu \
\overline{\psi(\phi)}\psi'(\phi).
\end{equation}
Our third requirement on $P$ is that :\\
\\
{\it (A3) The space $\cal A$ is dense in ${\cal H}_{D+1}$ for some
measure $\mu$ on $\overline{\cal C}$.}\\
\\
As mentioned above, we are primarily interested in diffeomorphism
invariant theories. The pairing allows us to define a representation
$\hat{U}(\varphi)$ of ${\rm Diff}(M)$ on the dense subspace ${\cal A}$
of ${\cal H}_{D+1}$:
\begin{equation} \label{4}
[\hat{U}(\varphi)P_f](\phi):=P_{(\varphi^{-1})f}(\phi)=(\varphi P_f)(\phi).
\end{equation}
At this point, $\hat{U}(\varphi)$ is a densely defined operator on
${\cal H}_{D+1}$. When the measure $d\mu$ is invariant under
diffeomorphisms, we will see that this operator is in fact unitary and
extends to all of ${\cal H}_{D+1}$.
Finally, in the formulation of the key, `reflection positivity'
axiom and in the proof of the reconstruction theorem, we will need
certain subsets ${\cal A}_E^\pm$ of $\cal A$. These are defined by
restricting the supports of the $f_I$ in (\ref{2}) to be contained in
half spaces $S_E^\pm$ on which $\pm t_E \ge 0$.
\medskip
\subsection{Subtleties}
\label{s2.2}
We are nearly ready to formulate our extension of the
Osterwalder-Schrader axioms. However, our emphasis on diffeomorphism
invariant systems will cause a certain change of perspective from the
familiar case, e.g. of a kinematically linear field theory in flat
space-time. In these simpler theories, the Hamiltonian is an object
of primary concern, and its construction is central to the
Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem. Now, we no longer have a
background metric and therefore no a priori notion of time
translations which Hamiltonians normally generate. An obvious strategy
is to treat {\it all} diffeomorphisms as symmetries and seek the
corresponding Hamiltonians on the Hilbert space of physical
states. However, this turns out not to be the correct procedure
because of two subtleties.
First, in many diffeomorphism invariant systems, the structure of the
classical theory tells us that all diffeomorphisms should be regarded
as gauge transformations. This can follow from one of the following
three related considerations: i) The initial value formulation could
show that the initial data can determine a classical solution {\it
only} up to diffeomorphisms; or, ii) For fixed boundary values of
fields, the variational principle may provide infinitely many
solutions, all related to one another by diffeomorphisms which are
identity on the boundary; or, iii) In the Hamiltonian formulation,
there may be first class constraints whose Hamiltonian flows
correspond to the induced action of ${\rm Diff}(M)$ on the phase
space. (Typically, one of these implies the other two.) An example
where this is the case is general relativity on a spatially compact
manifold. In these cases, one expects quantum states to be
diffeomorphism invariant, i.e., the corresponding Hamiltonian
operators to vanish identically on the physical Hilbert space. In
these theories, then, the reconstruction problem should reduce only to
the construction of the Hilbert space of physical states starting from
a suitable measure on $\o{\C}$.
The second subtlety is that many interesting theories use a background
structure. They are therefore {\it not} invariant under the full
diffeomorphism group but only under the sub-group which preserves the
background structure. An interesting example is provided by the
Yang-Mills theory in two dimensional space-times which requires an
area form, but not a full metric, for its formulation. The theory is
therefore invariant under the group of all area preserving
diffeomorphisms, a group which is significantly larger than, say, the
Poincar\'e group but smaller than the group of {\it all}
diffeomorphisms. (Since the area form is a symplectic form in two
dimensions, the group of area preserving diffeomorphisms coincides
with the group of symplectomorphisms.) A more common situation is
illustrated by general relativity in any space-time dimension, subject
to asymptotically flat (or anti-de Sitter) boundary conditions. Here,
the background structure consists of a flat (or anti-de Sitter)
geometry at infinity. One must therefore restrict oneself to those
diffeomorphisms which preserve the specified asymptotic structure. In
the general case, we will denote the background structure by $s$ and
the sub-group of ${\rm Diff}(M)$ preserving this structure by%
\footnote{If there is no background structure, as for example in
general relativity or topological field theories on a spatially
compact manifold, by ${\rm Diff}(M,s)$ we will mean simply ${\rm
Diff}(M)$.}
${\rm Diff}(M, s)$.
In the presence of a background structure $s$, our foliations will
also be restricted to be compatible with $s$ in the sense that the
associated generalized time translations $\varphi_E^t$ and time
reflections $\theta_E$ constructed above preserve $s$. Now, given any
two foliations $E,\tilde{E}$, there is a unique diffeomorphism
$\varphi_{E\tilde{E}}$ on $M$ which maps $E$ to $\tilde{E}$. Note
however that even if $E$ and $\tilde{E}$ are compatible with $s$,
$\varphi_{E,\tilde{E}}$ need not preserve $s$. This leads us to the
following important definitions:
\begin{Definition} \label{def1}
(a) Two foliations $E$ and $\tilde{E}$ are {\it strongly
equivalent} if $\tilde{E}= \varphi_{E \tilde{E}}\circ E$ for some
$\varphi_{E \tilde{E}} \in {\rm Diff}(M,s)$.\\
(b) Two foliations $E, \tilde{E}$ will be said to
be {\it weakly} equivalent if there exists foliations $E', \tilde{E}'$
which are strongly equivalent to $E, \tilde{E}$ respectively such that
the time-reflection maps of $E'$ and $\tilde{E}'$ coincide, i.e.
$\theta_{E'}= \theta_{\tilde{E}'}$.
\end{Definition}
Note that strong equivalence trivially implies weak equivalence but
the converse is not true. A simple example which illustrates the
difference between these two notions of equivalence is provided by
setting $M=\Rl^4$ and choosing the background structure $s$ to be a
Minkowskian metric $\eta$. Define $E, \tilde{E}$ as follows: $E:
\Rl\times \Rl^3 \rightarrow M; \,(t, x) \mapsto E_t(x) = (t, x)$ and
$\tilde{E}: \Rl\times \Rl^3 \rightarrow M; \,(t, x) \mapsto
\tilde{E}_t(x) = (bt, x)$, where $b$ is a positive constant. Both of
these foliations are compatible with the background
structure. However, since the diffeomorphism $\varphi_{E \tilde{E}}$
is not an isometry of $\eta$, the two foliations are {\it not}
strongly equivalent. However, they define the same time-reflection map
and are therefore weakly equivalent.
Strong equivalence of $E$ and $\tilde E$ means that the foliations are
in fact related by a symmetry $\varphi_{E \tilde E}$ of the theory and
we will see that this symmetry defines a unitary mapping of the
physical Hilbert space associated with $E$ to that associated with
$\tilde E$ which takes the Hamiltonian generator of $\varphi_E^t$ to
that of $\varphi_{\tilde E}^t$. In the case of weak equivalence, the
foliations are not related by a symmetry and we should expect no
correspondence between the Hamiltonians. The point of this
definition, however, is that the construction of the physical Hilbert
space itself will depend only on the time inversion map $\theta_E$
induced by the foliation $E$. Thus, when $E$ and $\tilde E$ are
weakly equivalent, we will still be able to show that the physical
Hilbert spaces are naturally unitarily equivalent, though this
equivalence will not of course map the generator of $\varphi^t_E$ to
that of $\varphi^t_{\tilde E}$.
Finally, it is typical in such theories that certain diffeomorphisms
play the role of genuine symmetries while others play the role of
gauge. Generally, there is a normal subgroup ${\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$ of
${\rm Diff}(M,s)$ which acts as gauge while the quotient, ${\rm
Diff}(M,s)/{\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$, acts as a symmetry group. (In
asymptotically flat general relativity, for example, ${\rm
Diff}_G(M,s)$ consists of asymptotically trivial diffeomorphisms and
the quotient is isomorphic to the Poincar\'e group.) In these
contexts, we have a mixed situation: ${\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$ should have a
trivial action on the physical Hilbert space, while the action of a
symmetry diffeomorphism should be generated by a genuine Hamiltonian
as in the original reconstruction theorem.
\subsection{Generalized Osterwalder-Schrader Axioms}
\label{s2.3}
With these subtleties in mind, we can now state our generalization of
the Osterwalder-Schrader axioms. Our numbering of the axioms below is
chosen to match that of \cite{1}. For flexibility, we wish to allow
the possibility that a quantum theory may satisfy only a subset of the
following axioms. We will be careful in what follows to explicitly
state which axioms are required in order that the various conclusions
hold.
As in the original construction, the key mathematical object will be a
measure $\mu$ on the space of quantum histories. In Minkowskian field
theories, $\mu$ can be thought of as a rigorous version of the
heuristic measure $\exp -S(\phi)\, {\cal D}\phi$ constructed from the
Euclidean action. In the standard Osterwalder-Schrader framework,
there are two axioms which are central to the construction of the
Hilbert space of states and both are restrictions on the measure
$\mu$. The first asks that $\mu$ be Euclidean invariant and the
second asks that it satisfy a technical condition called `reflection
positivity' formulated in terms of the `time-reflection' operator
$\theta$ in the Euclidean space. Given a measure $\mu$ with these
properties, one can quotient the space $L^2(\o{\C}, d\mu)$ of
square-integrable functions on quantum histories by a certain
sub-space, defined by $\theta$, to obtain the Hilbert space of quantum
states. Heuristically, the restrictions of quantum histories to the
D-dimensional, $t=0$ slice in the Euclidean space define the `quantum
configuration space' ${\o{\C}}_{t=0}$ and the quotient enables one to
pass from $L^2(\o{\C}, d\mu)$ to the space of square-integrable functions
on ${\o{\C}}_{t=0}$. The remaining axioms ensure the existence of a
Hamiltonian operator and existence and uniqueness of the vacuum state.
In the present context, the time reflection operator $\theta$ is
replaced by its generalization $\theta_E$ associated with a foliation
and the Poincar\'e group is replaced by ${\rm Diff}(M,s)$. Thus, given
any foliation $E$, one can essentially repeat the original
construction to obtain a Hilbert space ${\cal H}_D^E$ of physical
quantum states. The diffeomorphism invariance of $\mu$ then provides
unitary maps relating physical Hilbert spaces constructed from equivalent
foliations.
\begin{Definition} \label{d1}
A quantum theory of fields $\phi\in\o{\C}$ on a space-time $M$
diffeomorphic to $\Rl \times\sigma$ is defined by a probability
measure $\mu$ on $\o{\C}$ and a pairing $P$ satisfying (A1), (A2)
and (A3) above. The generating functional $\chi$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{5}
\chi(f):=<P_f>:=\int_{\o{\C}} d\mu(\phi) P_f(\phi).
\end{equation}
should satisfy at least the first two of the following axioms:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(II)] DIFFEOMORPHISM INVARIANCE\\
The measure is diffeomorphism invarian
\footnote{ In the case when there are symmetries in the quantum field
theory other than diffeomorphism invariance, it would be natural to
ask that the measure be invariant under these symmetries as well.}
in the sense that, for any $\varphi\in {\rm Diff}(M,s)$, $\chi$
satisfies:
\begin{equation} \chi(f)=\chi(\varphi^{-1} f). \end{equation}
\item[(III)] REFLECTION POSITIVITY\\
Consider the sesquilinear form on ${\cal A}_E^+$ defined for any
$E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$ by
\begin{equation} \label{6}
(\psi,\psi')_E:=\langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,\psi'\rangle \;.
\end{equation}
We require $(\psi,\psi)_E\ge 0$ for any $\psi\in {\cal A}_{E}^+$.
\item[(GI)]GAUGE INVARIANCE\\
For all $\varphi\in {\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$ and all $\psi\in
{\cal A}_{E}^+$ we require
\footnote{Again, if there exist gauge symmetries in addition to gauge
diffeomorphisms, we ask that these be represented trivially
on the physical Hilbert space as well.}
\begin{equation} ||\left( \hat{U}(\varphi) - \hat{1}\right) \psi||_E =0,\end{equation}
where $|| \ ||_E$ denotes the norm associated with the inner product
introduced in axiom III.
\item[(I)] CONTINUITY\\
For any $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$ for which the one-parameter
group of diffeomorphisms $\varphi_E^t$ does not belong to ${\rm
Diff}_G(M,s)$, it acts strongly continuously by operators
$\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)$ on ${\cal H}_{D+1}$.
\item[(IV)] CLUSTERING\\
For any $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$ for which $\varphi_E^t$ does not
belong to ${\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$, we have that
\begin{equation} \label{7}
\lim_{t\to\infty} \langle \psi,\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\psi'\rangle
=\langle \psi,1 \rangle \langle 1,\psi' \rangle
\end{equation}
for any two $\psi,\psi'\in {\cal A}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Definition}
Note that if axiom (III), (GI), (I) or (IV) holds for some foliation
$E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma, (M,s))$ then, because of the diffeomorphism
invariance (II) of the measure, the axiom also holds for any $\tilde
E$ which is strongly equivalent to $E$. Furthermore, if axiom (III)
or (GI) holds for some foliation $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma, (M,s))$ then
it in fact holds for any $\tilde E$ which is {\it weakly} equivalent
to $E$.
We will conclude this sub-section by comparing these axioms with the
standard ones of Osterwalder-Schrader \cite{1}. In axiom (II), we
have replaced the Euclidean group in the standard formulation by ${\rm
Diff}(M,s)$, and in (I), the time translation group by $\varphi^t_E$.
Axiom (I) is usually referred to as the `regularity' axiom and
typically phrased as a more technical condition specific to scalar
field theories on a flat background \cite{1}. However, as its
essential role in that case is to ensure strong continuity of time
translations, and as this condition is straightforward to state in the
diffeomorphism invariant context, we have chosen to promote this
condition itself to the axiom. Finally, note that we have discarded
the zeroth `analyticity axiom' of \cite{1} which, roughly speaking,
requires the generating functional $\chi$ to be analytic in $f\in
{\cal L}$. However, it is not clear that a label space $\cal L$
appropriate to a diffeomorphism invariant or kinematically non-linear
field theory should carry an analytic structure. In the standard
formulation this axiom allows one to define Schwinger n-point
functions in terms of $\chi(f)$. Fortunately, Schwinger functions are
not essential to our limited goal of defining the Hilbert space
theory.
\section{Recovery of the Hilbert Space Theory}
\label{s3}
The central subject of this section is the following straightforward
extension of the classical Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem
\cite{1}.
\begin{Theorem} \label{th1}
i) For each $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$, axioms (II) and (III)
imply the existence of a Hilbert space ${\cal H}^E_D$ of physical
states. There is a natural class of unitary equivalences between
${\cal H}^E_D$ and ${\cal H}^{\tilde{E}}_D$ for all $E$ and
$\tilde{E}$ in the (weak) equivalence class of $E$.
ii) Axioms (I), (II) and (III) imply the existence of self-adjoint
operators $[\hat{H}^E]$ on ${\cal H}^E_D$ which generate time
translations and which have $[1]_E$ as a vacuum stat
\footnote{{\rm That is, a state annihilated by $[\hat{H}^E]$.
The brackets on $[\hat{H}^E]$ denote an operator on ${\cal H}^E_D$ as
opposed to $L^2({\o{\C}}, d\mu)$ and $[1]_E \in {\cal H}^E_D$ is the
equivalence class of elements of ${\cal H}^E_{D+1}$ to which the unit
function belongs. See the observation below Eq. (\ref{15}).}}.
If the foliations $E$ and $\tilde{E}$ are strongly equivalent, then
the operators $[\hat{H}^E]$ and $[\hat{H}^{\tilde{E}}]$ are mapped to
each other by a unitary equivalence of the Hilbert spaces ${\cal
H}^E_D$ and ${\cal H}^{\tilde{E}}_D$
iii) Axioms (I), (II), (III) and (IV) imply that the vacuum
vacuum $[1]_E$ is unique in each ${\cal H}^E_D$. These states are
mapped to each other by the unitary equivalence of ii) above.
\end{Theorem}
We break the proof of this theorem into several lemmas. As noted in
the Introduction, the essence of the proof is the same as that in
the original Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction but we present it
here for completeness. In the following, $E$ is an arbitrary but
fixed foliation compatible with the background structure (if any).
\begin{Lemma} \label{la1}
By axiom (II), the family of operators, densely defined on
${\cal H}_{D+1}$ for any $\varphi\in {\rm Diff}(M,s)$ by
\begin{equation} \label{8}
\hat{U}(\varphi)P_f:=P_{(\varphi^{-1}) f}
\end{equation}
can be extended to a unitary representation of ${\rm Diff}(M,s)$.
\end{Lemma}
Proof of lemma \ref{la1} :\\
By (A3), $\cal A$ is in fact dense in ${\cal H}_{D+1}$.
Since $\hat{U}(\varphi)$ has the inverse $\hat{U}(\varphi^{-1})$
on $\cal A$, it will be
sufficient to show that $\hat{U}(\varphi)$ is norm-preserving on $\cal A$
for any $\varphi\in {\rm Diff}(M,s)$ and then to use continuity to
uniquely extend it to ${\cal H}_{D+1}$. Recalling condition (A2),
for states $a, b \in {\cal A}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{U}(\varphi) a , \hat{U}(\varphi) b \rangle =
\int_{\o{\C}}\, d\mu\, \varphi(a^\star b) \, .
\end{equation}
But, since the measure is diffeomorphism invariant, this is just
the expectation value of $a^\star b$, which is the inner product
$\langle a, b \rangle$.
$\Box$\\
\begin{Lemma} \label{la2}
By axioms (II), (III) the sesquilinear form (\ref{6}) defines a
non-negative hermitian form on ${\cal A}^+$.
\end{Lemma}
Proof of lemma \ref{la2} :\\
The hermiticity follows easily from the fact that
$\theta_E\circ\theta_E=\mbox{id}_M$ (so that
$[\hat{U}(\theta_E)]^\dagger = \hat{U}(\theta_E)$), unitarity of the
$\hat{U}(\varphi)$ as established in lemma \ref{la1}, and the
hermiticity of $\langle.,.\rangle$. We have \begin{eqnarray} \label{11}
\overline{(\psi,\psi')_E} &=& \overline{\langle
\hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,\psi' \rangle} \ = \ \langle
\psi',\hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi \rangle \nonumber\\ &=& \langle
\hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi',\psi \rangle \ = \ (\psi',\psi)_E \end{eqnarray}
Non-negativity is the content of axiom (III).\\ $\Box$\\
\begin{Lemma} \label{la3}
\label{la4}
The null space ${\cal N}_E:=\{\psi\in {\cal A}_E^+;\;
(\psi,\psi)_E=0\}$ is in fact a linear subspace of ${\cal A}_E^+$
owing to axioms (II), (III). As a result,
the form $(.,.)_E$ is well-defined and positive definite on
\begin{equation} \label{12}
{\cal H}^E_D:=\overline{{\cal A}_E^+/{\cal N}_E},
\end{equation}
where the over-line denotes completion with respect to $(.,.)_E$.
\end{Lemma}
Proof of lemma \ref{la3} :\\
This is a consequence of the Schwarz inequality for positive
semi-definite, hermitian, sesquilinear forms.\\
$\Box$\\
\begin{Lemma} \label{la5}
The map $[.]_E:\; {\cal A}_E^+ \to {\cal A}_E^+/{\cal N}_E$ is a
contraction,
that is, $||[\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}\le ||\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}$
owing to axioms (II), (III).
\end{Lemma}
Proof of lemma \ref{la5} :\\
By the Schwarz-inequality for $\langle.,.\rangle$ and the unitarity of
$\hat{U}(\theta_E)$, we have \begin{eqnarray} \label{15} (||[\psi]||_{{\cal
H}^E_D})^2 &=& |\langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,\psi \rangle|^2
\nonumber\\ &\le& ||\hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}
||\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}} = ||\psi||^2_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}. \end{eqnarray}
$\Box$
We will also need the following observation:
consider an operator $\hat{A}$ on ${\cal H}_{D+1}$ with dense domain
${\cal D}(\hat{A})$ satisfying the following properties. :\\
Pi) ${\cal D}_E(\hat{A}):=({\cal D}(\hat{A})\cap{\cal A}_E^+)/{\cal N}_E$
is dense in ${\cal H}^E_D$,\\
Pii) $\hat{A}$ maps ${\cal D}(\hat{A})\cap{\cal A}_E^+$ into
${\cal A}_E^+$ and\\
Piii) $\hat{A}$ maps ${\cal D}(\hat{A})\cap{\cal N}_E$ into
${\cal N}_E$.\\
Then the operator $[\hat{A}]:\;{\cal D}_E(\hat{A})\to {\cal H}_D^E$
defined by $[\hat{A}][\psi]:=[\hat{A}\psi]$ is well-defined since
$[\hat{A}\psi]=[0]$ for any $\psi\in {\cal N}_E$.
We have now prepared all the tools necessary to complete the proof of
the theorem. Notice that lemmas \ref{la1} through \ref{la5} have so
far used only the axioms (II) and (III).
\\ \\
Proof of theorem \ref{th1} :\\
i) For every $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma, (M,s))$ we have already
constructed ${\cal H}_D^E$. Now, let us suppose two foliations $E$ and
$\tilde{E}$ are weakly equivalent. Then, there exist $\varphi_{EE'},
\varphi_{\tilde{E} \tilde{E}'} \in {\rm Diff}(M,s)$ such that $E' =
\varphi_{EE'}\circ E$ and
$\tilde{E}' = \varphi_{\tilde{E}\tilde{E}'}\circ \tilde{E}$ define the same
time-reflection map. Therefore, ${\cal
H}_D^{E'} = {\cal H}_D^{\tilde{E}'}$. On the other hand, because of
the diffeomorphism $\varphi_{EE'}$, any vector $\psi'\in {\cal
A}^+_{E'}$ is of the form $\hat{U}(\varphi_{EE'})\psi$ for some vector
$\psi\in {\cal A}_E^+$. Since $\hat{U}(\varphi_{EE'})$ maps ${\cal
N}_E$ to ${\cal N}_{E'}$, $\hat{U}(\varphi_{EE'})$ respects the
quotient construction and we can define a norm-preserving operator
$[\hat{U}_{EE'}]:\;{\cal H}^E_D\to {\cal H}^{E'}_D$ by
\begin{equation} \label{16}
[\hat{U}_{EE'}][\psi]_E:=[\hat{U}(\varphi_{EE'})\psi]_{E'}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the Hilbert spaces ${\cal H}^E_D$, ${\cal H}^{E'}_D$ are
unitarily equivalent in a natural way. Similarly, there exists
a unitary map $[\hat{U}_{\tilde{E} \tilde{E}'}]: {\cal H}_D^{\tilde{E}}
\rightarrow {\cal H}_D^{\tilde{E}'}$. Hence,
\begin{equation} [\hat{U}_{E \tilde{E}}]:= [\hat{U}_{\tilde{E}\tilde{E}'}]^{-1}\,
[\hat{U}_{EE'}] \end{equation}
is a natural isomorphism between ${\cal H}_D^E$ and ${\cal
H}_D^{\tilde{E}}$.
\medskip
ii)
We will first show the following :
\begin{Lemma} \label{la6}
For any $E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$ and any $t\ge 0$ the operator
$\hat{U}(\varphi_E^t)$ satisfies the properties Pi), Pii) and Piii)
above and gives rise to a self-adjoint,
one-parameter contraction semi-group $[\hat{C}^t_E]$ on ${\cal
H}^E_D$. If $\varphi_E^t\not\in\mbox{Diff}_G(M,s)$ then the contraction
semi-group is also strongly continuous and its generator $[\hat{H}^E]$ is a
self-adjoint, positive
semi-definite operator on ${\cal H}^E_D$ with $[1]_E$ a vacuum state
for $[\hat{H}^E]$.
\end{Lemma}
Proof of lemma \ref{la6} :\\
First we show that $\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)$ has the required properties
Pi), Pii), Piii). Consider $f\in {\cal L}$ with supp$(f)\subset S_E^+$.
Then supp$((\varphi^t_E)^{-1} f)=\varphi^t_E(\mbox{supp}(f))
\subset \varphi^t_E(S_E^+)=S_E^+$ since for positive $t$ we have a time
translation into $S_E^+$ (`the future of $E_0(\sigma)$').
Thus, $\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)$ maps ${\cal A}_E^+$ into itself. From
the Schwarz inequality we infer that it also maps ${\cal N}_E$ into itself
and, finally, since ${\cal A}_E^+\subset{\cal A}
={\cal D}(\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E))$ we have
${\cal D}_E(\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E))={\cal A}_E^+/{\cal N}_E$ which is
dense in ${\cal H}^E_D$. Thus, the operator
\begin{equation} \label{17}
[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E:=[\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\psi]_E
\end{equation}
is well defined on a dense domain ${\cal D}_E([\hat{C}^t_E]):={\cal
A}_E^+/{\cal N}_E$ of ${\cal H}^E_D$ independent of $t$.
That it defines a semi-group follows from the definition (\ref{17}),
the fact that the $\varphi^t_E$ form a group under composition and the
fact that $\hat{U}$ defines a unitary representation of ${\rm
Diff}(M,s)$ on ${\cal H}_{D+1}$. We have
\begin{equation} \label{18}
[\hat{C}^t_E][\hat{C}^s_E][\psi]_E=
[\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\hat{U}(\varphi^s_E)\psi]_E
=[\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E\circ\varphi^s_E)\psi]_E
=[\hat{U}(\varphi^{t+s}_E)\psi]_E
=[\hat{C}^{t+s}_E][\psi]_E\;.
\end{equation}
Next we show that the $[\hat{C}^t_E]$ are Hermitian on ${\cal H}_D^E$.
For any $\psi,\psi'\in {\cal D}_E([\hat{C}^t_E])$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{19}
& & ([\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E,[\psi']_E)_E =
([\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\psi]_E,[\psi']_E)_E=
\langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\psi,\psi' \rangle
\nonumber\\
& = & \langle \hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)^\dagger\hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,\psi'
\rangle =\langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\psi'
\rangle =([\psi]_E,[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi']_E)_E \end{eqnarray}
where we have used
$\theta_E\circ\varphi^t_E=\varphi^{-t}_E\circ\theta_E$ and the
unitarity of the representation of the diffeomorphism group on ${\cal
H}_{D+1}$. In particular, we see that ${\cal D}_E([\hat{C}^t_E])$ is
contained in ${\cal D}_E([\hat{C}^t_E]^\dagger)$.
The contraction property now follows from hermiticity:
For $\psi\in {\cal A}_E^+$, we use reflection positivity and find that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{20}
0 &\le& ||[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}=
([\psi]_E,[\hat{C}^{2t}_E]
[\psi]_E)_E^{1/2}
\nonumber\\
&
\le& ||[\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}^{1/2}
||[\hat{C}^{2t}_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}^{1/2}
\end{eqnarray}
from the Schwarz inequality. We see, in particular from the first line
of (\ref{20}) that $[\hat{C}^t_E]$ is a positive semi-definite
operator. Iterating $n$-times we arrive at
\begin{equation} \label{21}
||[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}
\le
||[\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}^{\sum_{k=1}^n(1/2)^k}
||[\hat{C}^{2^nt}_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}^{(1/2)^n}\;.
\end{equation}
Now, using lemma \ref{la5} and again the unitarity of the representation
of the diffeomorphism group on ${\cal H}_{D+1}$ we have
$||[\hat{C}^{2^nt}_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}\le
||\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}$
and finally since $\sum_{k=1}^n(1/2)^k=1-(1/2)^n$, we find
\begin{equation} \label{22}
||[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}
\le
||[\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}^{1-(1/2)^n}
||\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}^{(1/2)^n}\;.
\end{equation}
Taking the limit $n\to\infty$ of (\ref{22}) we find the desired result
\begin{equation} \label{22a}
||[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}
\le ||[\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}\;.
\end{equation}
The hermiticity of $\hat{C}^t_E$ together with its boundedness implies
that it can be extended to all of ${\cal H}^E_D$ as a self-adjoint,
positive semi-definite operator.
So far we have made no use of axiom (I). However, it is this axiom
that guarantees the existence of a generator for $[\hat C^t_E]$. Note
that, for any $\psi\in {\cal H}^E_D$, using the hermiticity of
$[\hat{C}^t_E]$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{23}
0&\le& ||[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E-[\psi]_E||_{{\cal H}^E_D}^2
\nonumber\\
&=&([\psi]_E,[\hat{C}^{2t}_E][\psi]_E)_E
+([\psi]_E,[\psi]_E)_E
-2([\psi]_E,[\hat{C}^t_E][\psi]_E)_E
\nonumber\\
&=&|\langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,(\hat{U}(\varphi^{2t}_E)+1-
2\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E))\psi \rangle|
\nonumber\\
&\le&| \langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,(\hat{U}(\varphi^{2t}_E)-1)\psi \rangle|
+2| \langle \hat{U}(\theta_E)\psi,(\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)-1)\psi \rangle|
\nonumber\\
&\le& ||\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}
[||(\hat{U}(\varphi^{2t}_E)-1)\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}
+2||\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)-1)\psi||_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Using axiom (I), strong continuity of the one parameter group of
unitary operators $\hat{U}(\varphi_E^t)$, we find that the limit of
(\ref{23}) vanishes as $t\to 0$, establishing strong continuity of the
one-parameter self-adjoint contraction semi-group on ${\cal H}^E_D$.
Therefore, using the Hille-Yosida theorem \cite{6} we infer that
$[\hat{C}^t_E]=\exp(-t[\hat{H}^E])$ where the generator $[\hat H^E]$
is a positive semi-definite operator
on ${\cal H}^E_D$. It must annihilate the
state $[1]_E$ as $[\hat{C}^t_E][1]_E=[\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)1]_E=[1]_E$
for any $t\ge 0$.\\ $\Box$\\
\\
Clearly, if foliations $E,\tilde{E}\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$
are strongly equivalent, their generators are related by
\begin{equation} \label{24}
[\hat{H}^{\tilde{E}}]=[\hat{U}(\varphi_{E\tilde{E}})][\hat{H}^E]
[\hat{U}(\varphi_{E\tilde{E}}^{-1})].
\end{equation}
\\
iii)\\
So far, axiom (IV) has not been invoked. Axiom (IV) tells us that the
limit \,\, $\lim_{t\to\infty}\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)$ becomes the
projector $|1 \rangle \langle 1|$ in the weak operator topology. Suppose that
there exists a state $\Omega_E$ which is orthogonal to $|1\rangle$ and
satisfies $\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\Omega_E=\Omega_E$ for any
$t\ge 0, E\in {\rm Fol}(\sigma,(M,s))$. We then have
\begin{equation} \label{25}
||\Omega_E||^2_{{\cal H}_{D+1}}\, = \,
\lim_{t\to\infty} \langle \Omega_E,\hat{U}(\varphi^t_E)\Omega_E \rangle
=| \langle 1,\Omega_E \rangle|^2=0.
\end{equation}
This demonstrates the uniqueness of the vacuum and
concludes the proof of the theorem.\\
$\Box$
\\
We will conclude this section with a few remarks.
a) The uniqueness result in part ii) of the theorem can be slightly
extended. Let $E$ and $\tilde{E}$ be weakly equivalent (rather than
strongly, as required in part ii)). Then, there exist $\varphi_{EE'},
\varphi_{\tilde{E}\tilde{E}'} \in {\rm Diff}(M,s)$ such that
$\theta_{E'} = \theta_{\tilde{E}'}$. Although, in general the
diffeomorphism $\varphi_{EE'}\circ \varphi^{-1}_{\tilde{E}\tilde{E'}}$
will not map the foliation $E$ to $\tilde{E}$, it may map the time
translation $\varphi_E^t$ to the time translation
$\varphi_{\tilde{E}}^t$. In this case, the unitary map
$U_{E,\tilde{E}}$ of part i) of the Theorem will map $[\hat{H}^E]$ to
$[\hat{H}^{\tilde{E}}]$ as in (\ref{24}).
b) At first it may seem surprising that the uniqueness result for the
Hamiltonian is not as strong as in the standard Osterwalder-Schrader
construction. However, this is to be expected on general grounds. In
the standard construction, the notion of time translation is rigid. In
the present context, there is much more freedom. As shown by the
example at the end of section \ref{s2.2}, from the viewpoint of the
general framework, already in Minkowski space we are led to allow both
$\partial / \partial t$ and $b\, \partial/\partial t$ as time
evolution vector fields for any positive constant $b$. Clearly, the
Hamiltonian operators must also differ by a multiplicative constant in
this case. More generally, agreement between Hamiltonians can be
expected only if the two generate the same (or equivalent)
`translations' in space-time. This is precisely what our uniqueness
result guarantees.
c) If two foliations $E,\tilde{E}$ are not even weakly equivalent,
there may be no natural isomorphism between the physical Hilbert
spaces ${\cal H}_D^E$ and ${\cal H}_D^{\tilde{E}}$. In the specific
examples we will consider in the next section, all foliations will in
fact be weakly equivalent. However, due to the so-called
`super-translation freedom' \cite{st}, the situation may well be
different in asymptotically flat general relativity in four space-time
dimensions. It would be interesting to find explicit examples in
which this inequivalence occurs and to understand its physical
significance.
d) Note that, as in the original Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction
theorem, the Hilbert space theory obtained here is not as complete as
one would ideally like it be. In particular, no prescription has been
given to construct quantum operators corresponding to the classical
(Dirac) observables.
\section{Examples}
\label{s4}
In this section we discuss three examples of measures on spaces of
quantum histories. The first example is natural from a mathematical
viewpoint but does not obviously come from the path integral
formulation of a theory of direct physical interest. (However, we
show in the Appendix that, if $D=1$, this measure is naturally
associated with a universality class of generally covariant quantum
gauge field theories. See \cite{12} for further details.) This
measure satisfies some of our axioms. The other two measures satisfy
all of our axioms and come from the following systems: Yang-Mills
theory in two space-time dimensions and general relativity in three
space-time dimensions (or, B-F theory in any space-time dimension). In
all three cases, the space $\o{\C}$ of quantum histories is kinematically
non-linear and there is no background metric. These examples serve to
bring out different aspects of the generalization of the
reconstruction theorem.
\subsection{The Uniform Measure for Gauge Theories}
\label{s4.1}
The space of `generalized connections' admits a natural
diffeomorphism invariant measure in any space-time dimension, which we
will refer to as the {\it uniform measure} and denote by $\mu_{0}$
\cite{7}. It plays a crucial role in the kinematical part of a
non-perturbative approach to the quantization of diffeomorphism
invariant theories of connections.%
\footnote{See \cite{almmt3} for a summary and a discussion of the
mathematical details. This approach was motivated in large measure by
ideas introduced in \cite{GT} and \cite{CL}.}
It has also led to a rich quantum theory of geometry
\cite{qg}.
As remarked above, if $D\not=1$, it is unlikely that $\mu_0$ would
arise as the measure on the space of quantum histories in a theory of
direct physical interest. Nonetheless, we discuss it here as a
simple example of a measure which satisfies axioms II,III and IV above
and to illustrate the construction of the Hilbert space ${\cal
H}_D^E$. (For a more complete discussion of this measure, see
\cite{almmt3,7}.)
Suppose we are interested in a theory of connections based on a
compact structure group $K$ on a D+1 dimensional space-time manifold.
For simplicity, in this brief account we will set $K=SU(2)$, assume
that the principal $K$-bundle over $M$ is trivial, and work with a
fixed trivialization. There is no background structure and so ${\rm
Diff}(M,s)$ is just ${\rm Diff}(M)$ and any two foliations are
strongly equivalent. The gauge subgroup ${\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$ of
${\rm Diff}(M,s)$ depends on the specific theory under consideration.
The space $\o{\C}$ of quantum histories is now the moduli space of
`generalized connections' defined as follows \cite{8}. Let
${{\cal A}}_{\rm W}$ denote the $C^\star$ algebra generated by Wilson loop
functions (i.e. traces of holonomies of smooth connections around
closed loops in $M$). $\o{\C}$ is the Gel'fand spectrum of ${{\cal A}}_{\rm W}$.
Therefore, it is naturally endowed with the structure of a compact,
Hausdorff space and one can show that the moduli space of smooth
connections ${\cal C}$ is naturally and densely embedded in $\o{\C}$.
The label space $\cal L$ consists of triples
$f=(\gamma,\vec{j},\vec{I})$ where $\gamma$ is a graph in $M$,
$\vec{j}$ a labeling of its edges with non-trivial irreducible
equivalence classes of representations of $K$, and $\vec{I}$ a
labeling of its vertices with intertwiners. The stochastic process is
defined by $f\mapsto P_f(\phi):=T_{\gamma,\vec{j},\vec{I}}(\phi)$
where the latter is a spin-network function on $\o{\C}$ \cite{5,jb}.
(Roughly, each $\phi\in\o{\C}$ assigns to every edge of $\gamma$ a group
element, the representations $\vec{j}$ convert these elements into
matrices and the function $T_{\gamma, \vec{j}, \vec{I}}$ arises from
contractions of indices of these matrices and intertwiners $\vec{I}$.
For details, see \cite{5,jb}.) Thanks to this judicious choice of
${\cal L}$, the measure $\mu_0$ can be defined quite simply:
\begin{equation}
<P_f>=0\,\, {\rm for\,\, all}\,\, f \,\,\,
{\rm except}\, f_0=(\emptyset,\vec{0},
\vec{0}),\quad {\rm and} \quad <P_{f_0}>=1. \end{equation}
It is easy to see that this measure satisfies axioms (II) and (III) :
The only property that one needs to use is that spin-network functions
form an orthogonal basis for ${\cal H}_{D+1}$. Given a foliation $E$,
the equivalence classes under the quotient by the null vectors are in
one to one correspondence with finite linear combinations of
spin-network states whose graph lies entirely in the surface
$E_0(\sigma)$. This then defines the Hilbert space ${\cal H}^E_D$
which is easily seen to be isomorphic to the Hilbert space defined by
the quantum configuration space \cite{8} over $\sigma$ and the
corresponding uniform measure $d\mu_{0,\sigma}$.
While the uniform measure is associated with certain mathematical
models introduced by Husain and Kucha\v{r} \cite{hk}, it does not
capture the dynamics of a physical system. Therefore, we have some
freedom in the choice of ${\rm Diff}_G(M,s)$. However, if we want to
satisfy both the remaining axioms, (GI) and (I), no choice is
entirely satisfactory. For example, every diffeomorphism in ${\rm
Diff}(M,s)$ has a non-trivial (unitary) action on ${\cal H}_D^E$ so
that axiom (GI) is satisfied only if we take the group of gauge
diffeomorphisms to be trivial. For this choice of ${\rm
Diff}_G(M,s)$, and thus for any other, the measure $d\mu_0$ also
satisfies axiom (IV) \cite{9}. However, while ${\rm Diff}(M,s)$ has
an unitary action on ${\cal H}_{D+1}$, there is no one-parameter group
of diffeomorphisms that acts {\it strongly continuously} on the
Hilbert space $L^2(d\mu_0)$ \cite{almmt3}. Thus, axiom (I) is
satisfied only for the complementary trivial choice ${\rm Diff}_G(M,s)
={\rm Diff}(M,s)$. Nonetheless, it is true that $P_{f_0}=1$ is the
only state invariant under all time translations.
\subsection{Two-dimensional Yang-Mills Theory}
\label{s4.2}
As mentioned in Section \ref{s2.2}, in two space-time dimensions,
Yang-Mills action requires only an area 2-form rather than a full
space-time metric. Therefore, the theory is invariant under all area
preserving diffeomorphisms and thus provides an interesting example
for our general framework.
Since connected, one-dimensional manifolds without boundary are
diffeomorphic either to the circle $S^1$ or to $\Rl$, let us consider
Yang-Mills theory with structure group $K = SU(N)$ on space-time
manifolds $M = \Rl \times \sigma$ where $\sigma = S^1$ or $\sigma
= \Rl$. The background structure $s$ is an area two-form $\omega$ on
$M$ and the action reads
\begin{equation}
\label{B1}
S(A) = - \frac{1}{g^2} \int_M {\rm Tr}(F \wedge \star F) =
- \frac{1}{g^2} \int_M {dx^0dx^1 \over \omega_{01}} tr(F_{01}^2) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $F$ denotes the curvature two-form of the connection $A$ and
$(x^0,x^1) = (t,x)$ are the standard coordinates on $\Rl \times
\sigma$. In this case, the group ${\rm Diff}(M,s)$ is the group ${\rm Diff}(M,\omega)$ of area
preserving diffeomorphisms. The classical Hamiltonian formulation
shows that the gauge transformations of the theory correspond only to
local $SU(N)$-rotations. Thus, ${\rm Diff}_{G}(M,\omega)$ contains
only the identity diffeomorphism. Finally, the example given in
section IIB can be trivially adapted to the case under consideration
(simply by replacing $\Rl^3$ by $S^1$ and $\eta$ by $\omega$) to show
that there exist compatible foliations which fail to be strongly
equivalent. However, it is not difficult to show that all compatible
foliations are in fact weakly equivalent. We will now construct a
quantum field theory for this system, satisfying all our axioms.
For the standard area form, the reconstruction of the Hamiltonian
formalism from the Euclidean measure was obtained in \cite{almmt2}.
The particular Euclidean measure utilized was the limit as the lattice
spacing $a$ goes to zero of the Wilson lattice action for Yang-Mills
theory. Let us recall some of the results adapted to the case of a
general area form. As label space ${\rm L}$ we use $N$-1-tuples of loops
in $M$, $f = (\alpha_1, \cdots , \alpha_{N-1})$. Let $\o{\C}$ be the moduli
space of generalized connections as in the previous example and the
random process be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{B2}
{\rm L} \ & \rightarrow & \ {\cal F}(\o{\C}) \nonumber \\
f = (\alpha_1, \cdots , \alpha_{N-1}) \ & \mapsto & \
P_{(\alpha_1, \cdots , \alpha_{N-1})}(\phi) := T_{\alpha_1}(\phi)
\cdots T_{\alpha_{N-1}}(\phi)
\ . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here $T_{\alpha}$ denotes the Wilson function,
$$
T_{\alpha}(\phi) = {1 \over N} {\rm Tr} (h_\alpha(\phi)) \ ,
$$
where $h_\alpha$ is the holonomy corresponding to the loop $\alpha$
and the (generalized) connection $\phi$.
To begin with, let us consider any compatible foliation $E$. In
order to adapt the calculations of \cite{almmt2} we consider a
ultraviolet regulator $a$ by taking a (possibly) curved lattice in
$M$ made of plaquets diffeomorphic (as manifolds with boundary) to
rectangles, with area $a^2$ and such that the time-zero slice
$\gamma_E = E_0(\sigma)$ is a union of edges of plaquets. Notice that
if $\sigma = S^1$, $\gamma_E$ is a (homotopically non-trivial) loop in
$M$.
It is easy to verify that the calculations and results of \cite{almmt2} remain
essentially the same and that we can take the ultraviolet limit $a
\rightarrow 0$ in the expression for the generating functional
$\chi(\alpha_1, \cdots , \alpha_{N-1}) = <T_{\alpha_1}(\phi) \cdots
T_{\alpha_{N-1}}(\phi)>$. Axioms II and III hold and so we can construct
the physical Hilbert spaces. Irrespective of the choice of the
compatible foliation $E$, the physical Hilbert space is
one-dimensional if $\sigma = \Rl$ and is $L^2(SU(N)/Ad_{SU(N)},
d\tilde \mu_H)$ if $\sigma = S^1$, where $\tilde \mu_H$ is the measure
induced on $SU(N)/Ad_{SU(N)}$ by the Haar measure on $SU(N)$.
Let us concentrate on the more interesting case of $\sigma = S^1$. From
\cite{almmt2} we obtain that the time evolution operator $\hat C_E^t$
is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{B3}
[\hat C_E^t] = e^{{1 \over 2} g^2 {\rm Area}(E,t) \Delta} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta $ denotes the invariant Laplacian on $SU(N)$ (functions
on \break $SU(N)/Ad_{SU(N)}$ can be thought as $Ad_{SU(N)}$-invariant
functions on $SU(N)$) and ${\rm Area}(E,t)$ denotes the area inclosed
between the loops $\gamma_E = E_0(S^1)$ and $E_t(S^1)$. Thus:
\begin{equation}
\label{B4}
{\rm Area}(E,t) = \int_0^t dt' \int_0^1 dx (E^* \omega)_{01}(x,t') \ .
\end{equation}
Since $\varphi^u_E = E \circ \varphi^u \circ E^{-1} \in {\rm Diff}(M,\omega) \ , \forall u
\in \Rl$ (where $\varphi^u$ denotes the standard time translation on
$\Rl \times S^1$) or, equivalently, $\varphi^u \in {\rm Diff}(\Rl \times S^1 , E^*
\omega) \ , \ \forall u \in \Rl$, the component $(E^* \omega)_{01}$
does not depend on $t$. Therefore the area in (\ref{B4}) is linear
in $t$. Now, we showed in Lemma 5 that $[\hat C_E^t] = exp(- t [\hat
H^E])$. Hence, the Hamiltonian can now be read-off as:
\begin{equation}
\label{B5}
[\hat H^E] = - {1 \over 2} g^2 L_E \Delta \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{B6}
L_E = \int_0^1 dx (E^* \omega)_{01}(x) \ .
\end{equation}
Notice that if $\tilde E$ is strongly equivalent to $E$,
$L_{\tilde E} = L_{E}$ and the two Hamiltonians
agree as expected from Theorem 1.
What would happen if we use a foliation $\tilde{E}$ which is {\it not} strongly
equivalent to $E$? Then, the value of $L_{E}$ (and therefore also
the Hamiltonian $[\hat H^{E}]$) will in general change. For
example, if we choose, as in section IIB, $\tilde{E}: \Rl\times S^1
\rightarrow M, \, (t,x) \mapsto \tilde{E}_t(x) = (bt,x)$ with $b>0$,
then $L_{\tilde E} = b L_{E}$ and therefore $[\hat H^{\tilde E}] = b
[\hat H^{E}]$. This is, however, exactly what one would expect since
the vector field generating the time translation on $M$ defined by $E$
is $b$ times that defined by $E$. This is a concrete illustration of
remark b) at the end of sec \ref{s3}.
Finally, in this model, the axiom (GI) holds trivially since ${\rm
Diff}_{G}(M, \omega)$ contains only the identity
diffeomorphism. Furthermore, all physical states are manifestly
$SU(N)$-gauge invariant. The existence of a Hamiltonian operator
$[\hat{H}^E]$ implies that axiom (I) holds. Axiom (IV) also holds and
the vacuum state is unique.
\subsection{2+1 gravity and BF-Theories}
\label{s4.3}
Fix a 3-manifold $M$ with topology $\Rl \times \sigma$, where $\sigma$
is a compact 2-manifold. In the first order form, the basic fields for
general relativity can be taken to be a connection $A$ and a
Lie-algebra-valued 1-form $e$. The action is given by
\begin{equation} \label{2+1}
S(A,e) = \int_{M}\, {\rm Tr}\,\, e\wedge F
\end{equation}
where the trace is taken in the fundamental representation. If the
structure group $K$ is $SO(3)$, we obtain general relativity with
signature +,+,+ while if the structure group is $SO(2,1)$, we obtain
general relativity with signature -,+,+. The field $e$ can be thought
of as a triad, and when $e$ satisfies the equation of motion, the
field $A$ is the spin-connection compatible with the triad. The
equations of motion on $A$ say that $F$ vanishes. In this case, there
is no background structure $s$, ${\rm Diff}_G(M)$ is the connected component
of the identity of ${\rm Diff}(M)$, and all foliations are strongly
equivalent.
The heuristic measure on the space of paths $(A,e)$ is given by
`${\cal D}\!A\, {\cal D}\!e\, \exp iS(A,e)$' and if we integrate out the
$e$ fields we obtain the measure `$\delta(F)\, {\cal D}\!A$' on the
space of connections. This suggests that the rigorous measure should
be concentrated on flat connections. It turns out that the moduli
space of flat connections is a finite dimensional symplectic manifold%
\footnote{There are certain technical subtleties in the $SO(2,1)$
case \cite{10}. In what follows we will assume that a Hausdorff
manifold has been obtained by deleting suitable points. The resulting
moduli space has disconnected components. By moduli space we will
refer either to the `time-like' or `space-like' components.}
and therefore has a natural Liouville measure.
With this intuitive picture in mind, we will now construct a quantum
field theory for this system, satisfying all our axioms. Choose for
$\o{\C}$ the moduli space of smooth connections (or a suitable completion
thereof. For example, in the $SO(3)$ theory one can use the completion
used in example 1.) For ${\cal L}$ we use the space of closed loops
$f$ on $M$. The stochastic process is defined by $f\mapsto P_f(\phi) =
{\rm Tr}\, h_f(\phi)$ where $h_f(\phi)$ is the holonomy of $\phi \in
\o{\C}$ around the closed loop $f$ in $M$ and trace is taken in the
fundamental representation. The measure is defined by
\begin{equation} <\chi_f>\, =\, <P_f(\phi)> \, =\, \int_{{\cal M}_o}
d\mu_L P_f(\phi),
\end{equation}
where ${\cal M}_o$ is the moduli space of flat connections and $\mu_L$
is the Liouville measure thereon. Note incidentally that, in the
resulting history Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{D+1}$, $P_f$ and $P_{f'}$
define the same element if $f$ and $f'$ are homotopic to each other.
Hence ${\rm Diff}_G(M)$ is represented by the identity operator on ${\cal
H}_{D+1}$.
It is straightforward to check that the axioms (II), (III), (GI), (I)
and (IV) are all satisfied. (In fact (I) and (IV) hold trivially
because ${\rm Diff}_{G}(M,s)$ is so large.) The Hilbert space
${\cal H}_D^E$ is isomorphic to $L^2({\cal M}_o, d\mu_L)$. The
Hamiltonian theory can be constructed independently through canonical
quantization \cite{11} and yields precisely the same Hilbert space of
physical states. Note that the correct correspondence between the path
integral and canonical quantization holds for both signatures,\, -,+,+
and +,+,+. However, one has to use measures whose heuristic analogs
involve $\exp iS$ in {\it both} cases, so that the signature of the
associated metric is not fundamental to determining the heuristic form
of the measure. In particular, the Wick rotation has no obvious role
in the diffeomorphism invariant context. (For further discussion, see
\cite{2}.)
This viewpoint is also supported by the fact that 2+1 dimensional
general relativity is a special case of B-F theories which can be
defined in any dimension and in which there is no natural metric at
all; the presence of a metric can thus be regarded as an `accident'
of 2+1 dimensions. In these theories, the basic fields are a
connection $A$ and a D-1 form $B$ with values in the dual of the Lie
algebra. The action has the same form as (\ref{2+1}) with $e$ replaced
by $B$. One can repeat essentially the same construction for all of
these theories.
\section{Discussion}
\label{s5}
In this paper, we introduced an extension of the Osterwalder-Schrader
framework to diffeomorphism invariant theories. The key idea was to
generalize the standard setting by dropping all references to the
space-time metric. We considered $D+1$ dimensional space-times $M$
with topology $\Rl\times \sigma$, where $\sigma$ is allowed to be an
arbitrary, $D$-dimensional manifold. Heuristically, $\Rl$ serves as a
generalized `time direction'. More precisely, using foliations $E$ of
$M$, with leaves transverse to the $\Rl$-direction, we were able to
extend the standard notions of time translation and time reflection
without any mention of a space-time metric. This in turn enabled us to
generalize the Osterwalder-Schrader axioms and construct a Hamiltonian
quantum theory starting from a path integral. While $M$ is required
to have a product topology, given our goal of constructing a
Hamiltonian framework, this restriction is unavoidable.
As in the original Osterwalder-Schrader framework, the key
mathematical object in the path integral formulation is the measure
$\mu$ on the space $\o{\C}$ of quantum histories and the axioms are
restrictions on permissible $\mu$. In the construction of a bridge
from the path integral to the Hilbert space theory, two of these axioms
play a central role: reflection positivity (axiom III, unchanged from
the original Osterwalder-Schrader treatment) and diffeomorphism
invariance (axiom II, which replaces the Euclidean invariance of the
standard treatment). Given a foliation $E$ of $M$ and a measure $\mu$
satisfying reflection positivity, one can construct the Hilbert space
${\cal H}^E_D$ of quantum states. The diffeomorphism invariance of
$\mu$ then ensures that the Hilbert space is essentially insensitive
to the choice of the foliation $E$. The remaining axioms ensure the
existence of the Hamiltonian operators generating (generalized)
time-translations which are true (i.e. non-gauge) symmetries of the
theory and the existence and uniqueness of a vacuum state.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the present framework is its
generality. We did not have to restrict ourselves to specific
space-time manifolds and the Lagrangian --- indeed even the matter
content--- of the theory was left arbitrary. In particular, our
generalized setting allows theories of interacting gauge and tensor
fields with arbitrary index structure, general relativity, higher
derivative gravity theories, etc. However, this generality comes at a
price. As with the original Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction
theorem, the results of this paper only tell us how to obtain a
Hilbert space theory from a given measure satisfying certain axioms.
It does \textit{not} tell us how to construct this measure from a
given classical theory. For familiar field theories (without
diffeomorphism invariance), $\exp -\,S_E$, with $S_E$, the Euclidean
action, generally provides a heuristic guide in the construction of
this measure. We saw in Sections \ref{s4.2} and \ref{s4.3} that, in
the absence of a space-time metric, the distinction between the usual
Euclidean and Lorentzian prescriptions become blurred. In some cases,
the heuristic guide is again provided by $\exp -S$ while in other
cases it is provided by $\exp iS$. Thus, the construction of the
measure now acquires a new subtle dimension. Furthermore, because our
setting is much more general than the original one, even the
`kinematical structure' ---the spaces $\o{\C}$ of quantum histories,
the label set ${\cal L}$ and pairings $P$ of Section \ref{s2}--- can
vary from one theory to another and have to be constructed case by
case. However, for diffeomorphism theories of connections, including
general relativity in three space-time dimensions, we were able to
provide natural candidates for these structures and find the
appropriate measures. In \cite{2}, we will extend these considerations
to more general contexts, albeit at a more heuristic level. In
particular, starting from the classical Hamiltonian framework, we will
discuss how one can construct heuristic measures. We will find some
subtle but important differences from the familiar cases.
\bigskip\bigskip {\bf Acknowledgments:} We thank Jerzy Lewandowski for
stimulating discussions, Olaf Dreyer for comments on an early draft
and Jorge Pullin for numerous suggestions which significantly improved
the final presentation. This research project was supported in part
by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY95-14240 to Penn
State, PHY97-22362 to Syracuse University and PHY94-07194 to ITP,
Santa Barbara, by the Eberly research funds of Penn State, by research
funds from Syracuse University, by CENTRA/IST, by projects
PRAXIS/2/2.1/FIS/286/94 and CERN/P/FIS/1203/98.
\begin{appendix}
\section{A Universality Class of Generally Covariant Quantum Gauge Field
Theories in Two Spacetime Dimensions}
\label{sa}
The purpose of this appendix is to show that, if $D=2$, the uniform
measure $\mu_0$ on the space $\overline{\cal C}$ of generalized
connections considered in section \ref{s4.1} naturally arises in the
path integral formulation of a class of diffeomorphism invariant gauge
theories. For generalizations and further discussion, see \cite{12}.
Let $M$ be a two-dimensional manifold with topology $\Rl^2$ or
$S^1\times \Rl$, and let $G$ be a compact, connected, semi-simple
gauge group. We will denote by $A$ the pull-back by local sections
of a connection on a principal $G$-bundle over $M$ and by $F$ its
curvature. We will use $a,b,c,..=1,2$ as the tensorial indices and
$i,j,k,..=1,..,\dim(G)$ as the Lie algebra indices. Choose a basis
$\tau_i$ of the Lie algebra $Lie(G)$ of $G$ normalized such that
tr$(\tau_i\tau_j)=-N\delta_{ij}$ and structure constants are defined
by $[\tau_i,\tau_j]=2f_{ij}\;^k \tau_k$. Finally, let
$\epsilon^{ab}$ be the metric independent totally skew tensor density
of weight one and use it to represent the curvature as a Lie-algebra
valued scalar density $F^i:=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ab} F_{ab}^i$.
Let us consider the following action
\begin{equation} \label{a.1} S=
\int_M \,d^2x \,\left[F^i F^i\right]^{1\over 2}
\equiv \int_M \, d^2x \left[P_2(F)\right]^{1\over 2}
\end{equation}
where $F^iF^i=k_{ij}F^iF^j$ is the norm of $F^i$ with respect to the
Cartan-Killing metric. Since the quantity under the square-root is a
scalar density of weight two, the action (\ref{a.1}) is diffeomorphism
invariant. This is perhaps the simplest of such actions for
$G$-connections. Other, more general diffeomorphism invariant actions
can be constructed by taking n-th roots of suitable n-nomials in $F^i$
and their covariant derivatives.
Assuming appropriate boundary conditions, the equations of motion
that follow from (\ref{a.1}) are
\begin{equation} \label{a.2}
D_a\frac{F^i}{\sqrt{F^j F^j}}=0
\end{equation}
These equations are consistent since the integrability condition
$\epsilon^{ab} D_a D_b (F^i/\sqrt{F^j F^j})= f^i\;_{jk} F^j
F^k/\sqrt{F^l F^l}=0$ is identically satisfied. The general solution
is $F^i=s b^i$ where $s$ is an arbitrary, nowhere negative, scalar
density of weight one and $b^i$ a covariantly constant vector of unit
norm. In the special case $G=U(1)$, we have: $b^i(x)=b^1(x)=\pm 1$ must be
constant, say $b^1(x)=1$ and thus $F(x)=\epsilon^{ab} (\partial_a
A_b)(x) \ge 0$ is the general solution. The case $G=U(1)$ also
gives a simple class of solutions for general $G$ : Suppose we
choose the connection to be of the form $A_a^i=a_a t^i$ where $t^i$ is
a constant unit norm vector. Then $F^i=F t^i$ where $F=\epsilon^{ab}
\partial_a a_b$ and $D_a F^i/{\sqrt{F^j F^j}}=t^i \partial_a F/|F|$
and this reduces the problem to $G=U(1)$. Thus, the space of
solutions to the field equations is infinite dimensional.
We now wish to derive a path integral for this theory, i.e., construct
a continuum measure along the constructive approach of \cite{almmt2},
using the action (\ref{a.1}) as the classical input. Let us focus on
the non-trivial case when $M$ is topologically $\Rl\times S^1$. Let
us introduce a system of coordinates $(x,t)$ where $x\in[-a,a]$
denotes the compact direction and $a$ is an arbitrary parameter of
dimension of length. Next we introduce a foliation of the cylinder by
circles of constant `time' $t$ coordinate. We introduce a
dimensionless UV cut-off $\epsilon$ and an IR cut-off $T$ of dimension
of length. Consider $1+2N,N=T/(\epsilon a)$ circles at values of $t$
given by $t/a=l\epsilon,\;l=-N,-N+1,..,N$ and similarly
$2N'+1,N'=1/\epsilon$ coordinate lines at constant values of $x$ given
by $x/a=k\epsilon,\;k=-N',-N'+1,.., N'$ with $x/a=\pm 1$
identified. Thus we have covered a portion $M_T$ of the cylinder $M$,
corresponding to $(x,t)\in [-a,a]\times [-T,T]$ by a lattice
$\gamma_{\epsilon,T}$ of cubic topology and can consider the usual
plaquette loops $\Box$ of that lattice based at the point $p$ with
coordinates $x=t=0$, say. We can label plaquettes by two integers
$(k,l)$ in the obvious way and have \begin{equation} \label{a.3}
\Box_{k,l}=\rho_{k,l}\circ e_{k,l}\circ f_{k+1,l}\circ e_{k,l+1}^{-1}
\circ f_{k,l}^{-1}\circ\rho_{k,l}^{-1} \end{equation} where $e_{k,l},\;f_{k,l}$
are respectively edges of the lattice at constant values of $t$ and
$x$ respectively and $\rho_{k,l}$ is an arbitrary but fixed lattice
path between the base point and the corner of the box corresponding to
lowest values of $x,t$ respectively (modulo the identification of
$x/a=\pm 1$). If we now parameterize edges as the image of the
interval $[0, a]$ then it is not difficult to see that for a
classical connection $A$ the holonomy for a plaquette is to leading
order in $\epsilon$ given by
\begin{equation} \label{a.4}
h_{\Box_{k,l}}=1+a^2\epsilon^2 \epsilon_{ab}\dot{e}_{k,l}^a(0)
\dot{f}_{k,l}^b(0) F^j(x=k\epsilon a,t=l\epsilon a)\tau_j/2 \end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation} \label{a.5} S_{\epsilon,T}:= \sum_{k,l} \left[ P_2(-\frac{2}{N}
\mbox{tr}(\tau_i(h_{\Box_{k,l}}-1)))\right]^{1\over 2}=: \sum_{k,l}
s(h_{\Box_{k,l}}) \end{equation}
can be taken to be a Wilson-like action that approximates (\ref{a.1})
in the sense that
\begin{equation} \label{a.6} \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
S_{T,\epsilon}= \int_{M_T}\, d^2x\, \left[{P_2}(F)\right]^{1\over 2}
\end{equation}
The elementary but important observation is that function $s(h)$
defined in (\ref{a.5}) is the same for all plaquette loops.
Let us choose as our random variables the `loop network functions'
$T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}$ \cite{13}. These are similar to the
$T_{\gamma, \vec{j}. \vec{I}}$ considered in section \ref{s4.1}),
except that: i)now the graphs $\alpha$ are replaced by a finite
collection, say $L$, of mutually non-overlapping loops $\vec{\alpha}$
based at $p$ (possibly including the homotopically non-trivial one
that wraps once around the cylinder at $t=0$); ii) $\vec{\pi}$ now
denotes a collection of $L$ equivalence classes of non-trivial
irreducible representations of $G$ subject to the constraint that if
loops $\alpha_{I_1},..,\alpha_{I_r},r\le L,I_1<..<I_r$ share a
segment, then the tensor product $\pi_{I_1}\otimes...\otimes \pi_{I_r}$
does not contain a trivial representation; and, iii) $c$ is an
intertwiner between the trivial representation and
$\pi_1\otimes..\otimes\pi_L$. The function
$T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}(A)$ depends on $A$ through the
holonomies $h_{\alpha_I}(A),\;I=1,..,L$ only. Given any measure on the
moduli space $\overline{\cal C}$ of generalized connections, one can
compute the the expectation values of these loop-network
functions. These provide us with the characteristic function of the
underlying measure \cite{7,almmt2}.
Using this machinery, we can write down the regularized measure on
$\overline{\cal C}$ by specifying its characteristic function:
\begin{equation} \label{a.7}
<T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}>_{T,\epsilon}
:=\frac{1}{Z_{\epsilon,T}}
\prod_{k,l} ([\int_G d\mu_H(h_{e_{k,l}})]\;[\int_G d\mu_H(h_{e_{k,l}})])
e^{-S_{\epsilon,T}} T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}\, , \end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation} Z_{\epsilon,T}:= \prod_{k,l} ([\int_G
d\mu_H(h_{e_{k,l}})]\;[\int_G d\mu_H(h_{e_{k,l}})])
e^{-S_{\epsilon,T}}\, . \end{equation}
Here, of course, all the loops in question live on our lattice.
In order to explicitly compute the expectation value (\ref{a.7}) in
the limit $\epsilon\to 0$ and $T\to\infty$ we can essentially follow
\cite{almmt2}. This is due to a peculiarity of $D=1$ and the planar or
cylindrical topology of $M$ namely, that the plaquette loops are
holonomically independent. Let then, at fixed $\epsilon,T$, $|\alpha|$
be the number of plaquettes contained in the surface bounded by
$\alpha$. Then, repeating literally all the calculations performed in
\cite{almmt2} we find
\begin{eqnarray} \label{a.8}
<T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}>_{T,\epsilon} &=&
\,\,T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}(A=0) \prod_{I=1}^L
(\frac{J_{\pi_I}}{J_{\pi_0}})^{|\alpha_I|}\nonumber\\ J_\pi &=&
\frac{1}{\dim(\pi)}\int_G d\mu_H(h) \chi_\pi(h) e^{-s(h)} \end{eqnarray}
Here $\chi_\pi$ denotes the character of $\pi$,
$\chi_\pi(1)=\dim(\pi)$ and $\pi_0$ denotes the equivalence class of
the trivial representation. If one of the loops, say $\alpha_I$, is
homotopically non-trivial then
$(\frac{J_{\pi_I}}{J_{\pi_0}})^{|\alpha_I|}$ has to be replaced by
$\delta_{\pi_I,\pi_0}$.
The UV and IR cut-off can now be trivially removed from (\ref{a.8}) :
Due to the holonomic independence of the plaquette loops the quantity
(\ref{a.8}) is already independent of $T$. Due to the diffeomorphism
invariance of the original action, the quantity (\ref{a.8}) depends on
$\epsilon$ only through the numbers $|\alpha_I|$ which just counts the
number of plaquette loops that one uses in order to approximate the
loop $\alpha_I$. In contrast to the situation with two-dimensional
Yang-Mills theory \cite{almmt2}, the numbers $J_\pi$ are already
independent of $\epsilon$. The reason for this is, of course, the
background independence of the original action (\ref{a.1}). By
contrast, as we saw in section \ref{s4.2}, the Yang-Mills action
requires a background area-element. At first the difference seems
small. However, it leads one in Yang-Mills theory to the Wilson action
$\frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \sum_\Box [s(h_\Box)]^2$ ---rather than $\sum_\Box
s(h_\Box)$--- which makes $J_\pi$ $\epsilon$-dependent in just the
right way to produce the area law \cite{almmt2} as $\epsilon\to 0$.
In the present case there is no background structure and therefore we
cannot have an area law; there is no area 2-form to measure the area
with! Instead we have the following. Since the definition of
$J_\pi$ implies $|J_\pi|<J_{\pi_0}$ for $\pi\not=\pi_0$ and since in
the limit $\epsilon\to 0$ the numbers $|\alpha_I|$ diverge, it follows
that $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
(J_{\pi_I}/J_{\pi_0})^{|\alpha_I|}=\delta_{\pi,\pi_0}$. Consequently,
we have:
\begin{equation} \label{a.9}
\lim_{T\to\infty} \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
<T_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\pi},c}>_{T,\epsilon}
=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & \mbox{ if } \vec{\alpha}=\{p\},\vec{\pi}=c=\pi_0 \\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
in other words, we arrive at the characteristic functional of the
uniform measure in $D=1$ discussed in section \ref{s4.1}. Note that
the limit (\ref{a.9}) is {\it completely insensitive to the choice of
the regularizing lattice}. Hence, the result is independent of the
regulator.
Finally, we note that in place of (\ref{a.1}) we could have considered
the most general diffeomorphism and gauge invariant action
$\tilde{S}(A)$ which depends on the field strengths $F^i$ but not on
their derivatives. For this, we can begin with globally defined
(i.e. gauge invariant) monomials
$F^n:=F^{i_1}..F^{i_n}\mbox{tr}(\tau_{i_1}..\tau_{j_1})$. (If the rank
of $G$ is $R$, only the first $R-1$ of these will be independent,
others being polynomials in them.) Let $P_n$ be an arbitrary, gauge
invariant, positive semi-definite, homogeneous polynomial of degree $n$
in the $F^j$ and set
\begin{equation} \label{a.10}
\tilde{S}(A)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \int_M d^2x \sqrt[n]{P_n[F]}
\end{equation}
where $a_i$ are non-negative constants all but a finite number of
which are zero. This action is diffeomorphism invariant, again because
the integrand is a scalar density of weight one. We could have
carried out the above procedure for any of these
theories. Irrespective of the action in this class, the final
characteristic function would have been again (\ref{a.9}). Thus, all
these theories lie in the same universality class; their
renormalization group flows all reach the same UV fixed point and the
final quantum theory is dictated by the uniform measure. This issue,
the Hamiltonian formulation, and the canonical quantization of these
theories will be discussed in \cite{12}.
\end{appendix}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Fulton asked how many solutions to a problem of enumerative
geometry can be real, when that problem is one of counting geometric figures
of some kind having specified position with respect to some general fixed
figures~\cite{Fu_84}.
For the problem of plane conics tangent to five general conics, the
(surprising) answer is that all 3264 may be real~\cite{RTV}.
Similarly, given any problem of enumerating $p$-planes incident on
some general fixed subspaces, there are real fixed
subspaces such that each of the (finitely many) incident $p$-planes are
real~\cite{So99}.
We show that the problem of enumerating parameterized rational curves in a
Grassmannian satisfying simple (codimension 1) conditions may have all of
its solutions be real.
This problem of enumerating rational curves on a Grassmannian arose in at
least two distinct areas of mathematics.
The number of such curves was predicted by the formula of Vafa and
Intriligator~\cite{Vafa,Intriligator} from mathematical physics.
It is also the number of complex dynamic compensators which stabilize a
particular linear system, and the enumeration was solved in this
context~\cite{RRW98,RRW96}.
The question of real solutions also arises in systems theory~\cite{Byrnes}.
Our proof, while exploiting techniques from systems theory, has no direct
implications for the problem of real dynamic output compensation.
\section{Statement of results}
We work with complex algebraic varieties and ask when {\it a
priori}$\,$ complex solutions to an enumerative problem are real.
Fix integers $m,p>1$ and $q\geq 0$.
Set $n:=m+p$.
Let ${\bf G}$ be the Grassmannian of $p$-planes in
${\mathbb C}^n$.
The space ${\mathcal M}_q$ of maps
$M:{\mathbb P}^1\rightarrow{\bf G}$ of degree $q$ has
dimension $N:=pm+qn$~\cite{Clark,Stromme}.
If $L$ is an $m$-plane and $s\in {\mathbb P}^1$, then the collection of
all maps $M$ satisfying $M(s)\cap L\neq \{0\}$ is an
irreducible subvariety of codimension 1.
We study the following enumerative problem:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:enumerative}
\begin{minipage}{5.2in}
Given general points $s_1,\ldots,s_N$ in ${\mathbb P}^1$ and general
$m$-planes $L_1,\ldots,L_N$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$,
how many maps $M\in {\mathcal M}_q$
satisfy $M(s_i)\cap L_i\neq\{0\}$ for $i=1,\ldots,N$?
\end{minipage}
\end{equation}
Rosenthal~\cite{Rosen94} interpreted the solutions as a linear section of a
projective embedding of ${\mathcal M}_q$, and
Ravi, Rosenthal, and Wang~\cite{RRW98,RRW96} show that
the degree of its closure ${\mathcal K}_q$ in this embedding is
\begin{equation}\label{dqmp}
\delta\quad:=\quad(-1)^{q(m+1)}N!
\sum_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_p=q}
\frac{\prod_{i<j}(j-i+n(\nu_j-\nu_i))}
{\prod_{j=1}^p(m+j+n\nu_j-1)!}\ .
\end{equation}
Thus, if there are finitely many solutions, then their number (counted with
multiplicity) is at most $\delta$.
The difference between $\delta$ and the number of solutions counts points
common to both the linear section and the boundary
${\mathcal K}_q-{\mathcal M}_q$ of ${\mathcal K}_q$.
Since ${\bf G}$ is a homogeneous space, an application of
Kleiman's Theorem~\cite{Kleiman} shows there are finitely many solutions
and no multiplicities.
Bertram~\cite{Bertram} uses explicit methods (a moving lemma) to to show
there are finitely many solutions and also no points in the boundary of
${\mathcal Q}_q$, and hence none in the boundary of ${\mathcal K}_q$.
He also computes the small quantum cohomology ring of ${\bf G}$, which gives
algorithms for computing $\delta$ and other intersection
numbers involving rational curves on a Grassmannian.
When the $s_i$ and $L_i$ are real, not all of these solutions are defined
over the real numbers.
We show there are real $s_i$ and $L_i$ for which each of the
$\delta$ maps are real.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:real}
There exist real $m$-planes $L_1,\ldots,L_N$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$ and
points $s_1,\ldots,s_N\in{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb R}$ so that
there are exactly $\delta$ maps
$M:{\mathbb P}^1\rightarrow{\bf G}$ of degree $q$
which satisfy $M(s_i)\cap L_i \neq \{0\}$ for each $i=1,\ldots,N$,
and each of these are real.
\end{thm}
Our proof is elementary in that it argues from the equations for the
locus of maps $M$ which satisfy $M(s)\cap L\neq \{0\}$.
A consequence is that we obtain fairly explicit choices of $s_i$ and $L_i$
which give only real maps, which we discuss in Section 4.
Also, our proof uses neither Kleiman's Theorem nor Bertram's moving
lemma, and thus it provides a new and elementary proof that there are
$\delta$ solutions to the enumerative problem~(\ref{eq:enumerative}).
\section{The quantum Grassmannian}
The space ${\mathcal M}_q$ of maps
${\mathbb P}^1\rightarrow{\bf G}$ of degree $q$ is a smooth
quasi-projective algebraic variety.
A smooth compactification is provided by a quot scheme
${\mathcal Q}_q$~\cite{Stromme}.
By definition, there is a universal exact sequence
$$
0\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal S}\ \rightarrow\
{\mathbb C}^n\otimes{\mathcal O}\ \rightarrow\
{\mathcal T}\ \rightarrow 0
$$
of sheaves on ${\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal Q}_q$ where
${\mathcal S}$ is a vector bundle of degree $-q$ and rank $p$.
Twisting the determinant of ${\mathcal S}$ by
${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1}(q)$ and pushing forward to
${\mathcal Q}_q$ induces a Pl\"ucker map
$$
{\mathcal Q}_q\ \rightarrow\
{\textstyle {\mathbb P}\left( \bigwedge^p{\mathbb C}^n\otimes
H^0({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1}(q))^*\right)}
$$
which is the analog of the Pl\"ucker embedding of ${\bf G}$.
The Pl\"ucker map is an embedding of ${\mathcal M}_q$, and so its image
${\mathcal K}_q$ provides a different compactification of
${\mathcal M}_q$.
We call ${\mathcal K}_q$ the quantum Grassmannian.
(In~\cite{BDW}, this space is called the Uhlenbeck compactification).
Our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:real} exploits some of its structures that
were elucidated in work in systems theory.
The Pl\"ucker map fails to be injective on the boundary
${\mathcal Q}_q-{\mathcal M}_q$ of ${\mathcal Q}_q$.
Indeed, Bertram~\cite{Bertram} constructs a ${\mathbb P}^{p-1}$ bundle over
${\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal Q}_{q-1}$ that maps onto the boundary, with its
restriction over ${\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal M}_{q-1}$ an embedding.
On this projective bundle, the Pl\"ucker map factors through the base
${\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal Q}_{q-1}$ and the image of a point in the base
is $s\cdot S$, where $s$ is the section of
${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1}(1)$ vanishing at $s\in{\mathbb P}^1$ and
$S$ is the image of a point in ${\mathcal Q}_{q-1}$ under its Pl\"ucker map.
This identifies the image of the exceptional locus of the Pl\"ucker map
with the image of ${\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal K}_{q-1}$ in
${\mathcal K}_q$ under a map $\pi$ (given below).
More concretely, a
point in ${\mathcal Q}_q$ may be (non-uniquely) represented by
a $p\times n$-matrix $M$ of forms in $s,t$, with
homogeneous rows and whose maximal minors have degree $q$~\cite{RR94}.
The image of such a point under the Pl\"ucker map is the collection of
maximal minors of $M$.
The maps in ${\mathcal M}_q$ are represented by matrices whose maximal
minors have no common factors:
Given such a matrix $M$, the association
$$
{\mathbb P}^1\ni(s,t)\ \longmapsto\ \mbox{row space }M(s,t)
$$
defines a map of degree $q$.
The collection $\binom{[n]}{p}$ of $p$-subsets of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$
index the maximal minors of $M$.
For $\alpha\in\binom{[n]}{p}$ and $0\leq a\leq q$, the coefficients
$z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$ of $s^at^{q-a}$ in
the $\alpha$th maximal minor of $M$ provide Pl\"ucker coordinates
for maps in ${\mathcal M}_q$, and for the space
${\mathbb P}\left(\bigwedge^p{\mathbb C}^n\otimes
H^0({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1}(q))^*\right)$.
Let ${\mathcal C}_q:=
\{\alpha^{(a)}\mid \alpha\in\binom{[n]}{p}, 0\leq a\leq q\}$ be the
indices of these Pl\"ucker coordinates.
Then the image of the exceptional locus in
${\mathcal K}_q$ is the image of the (birational) map
$\pi: {\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal K}_{q-1}\rightarrow{\mathcal K}_q$
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pi}
\pi\ :\ \left([A,B],(x_{\beta^{(b)}}\mid
\beta^{(b)}\in{\mathcal C}_{q-1})\right)
\ \longmapsto\
(Ax_{\alpha^{(a)}}-Bx_{\alpha^{(a-1)}}\mid
\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q)\,.
\end{equation}
\rule{0pt}{15pt}
The relevance of the quantum Grassmannian ${\mathcal K}_q$ to the enumerative
problem~(\ref{eq:enumerative}) is seen by considering the condition
for a map $M\in{\mathcal M}_q$ to satisfy $M(s,t)\cap L\neq\{0\}$
where $L$ is an $m$-plane in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $(s,t)\in{\mathbb P}^1$.
If we represent $L$ as the row space of a $m\times n$ matrix, also written
$L$, then this condition is
$$
0\ =\
\det\left[\begin{array}{c}L\\M(s,t)\end{array}\right]\ =\
\sum_{\alpha\in\binom{[n]}{p}} f_\alpha(s,t)\, l_\alpha\,,
$$
the second expression given by Laplace expansion of the
determinant along the rows of $M$.
Here, $l_\alpha$ is the appropriately signed maximal minor of $L$.
If we expand the forms $f_\alpha(s,t)$ in this last expression, we obtain
$$
\sum_{\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q}
z_{\alpha^{(a)}} s^a t^{q-a}l_\alpha\ =\ 0\,,
$$
a linear equation in the Pl\"ucker coordinates of $M$.
Thus the solutions $M\in{\mathcal M}_q$ to the enumerative
problem~(\ref{eq:enumerative}) are a linear section of ${\mathcal M}_q$ in
its Pl\"ucker embedding, and so the degree $\delta$ of ${\mathcal K}_q$
provides an upper bound on the number of solutions.
The set ${\mathcal C}_q$ of Pl\"ucker coordinates has a natural partial
order
$$
\alpha^{(a)}\ \geq\ \beta^{(b)} \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
\begin{array}{c}
a\geq b, \mbox{ and if } a-b<p, \mbox{ then }\\
\alpha_{a-b+1}\geq \beta_1,
\ldots,\alpha_p\geq \beta_{p+1-b+a}
\end{array}\ .
$$
The poset ${\mathcal C}_q$ is graded with the rank, $|\alpha^{(a)}|$, of
$\alpha^{(a)}$ equal to $an + \sum_i \alpha_i-i$.
Figure~\ref{fig:one} shows ${\mathcal C}_1$ when $p=2$ and $m=3$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
$$\epsfxsize=1.8in \epsfbox{fig1.eps}$$
\caption{${\mathcal C}_1$\label{fig:one}.}
\end{figure}
Given $\alpha^{(a)}\in {\mathcal C}_q$, define the {\it quantum
Schubert variety}
$$
Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\quad :=\quad \{z=(z_{\beta^{(b)}})\in {\mathcal K}_q\mid
z_{\beta^{(b)}}=0\mbox{ if }\ \beta^{(b)}\not\leq \alpha^{(a)} \}\ .
$$
Let ${\mathcal H}_{\alpha^{(a)}}$ be the hyperplane
defined by $z_{\alpha^{(a)}}=0$.
The main technical result we use is the following.
\begin{prop}[\cite{RRW96,RRW98}]\label{prop:RRW}
Let $\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
$Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$ is an irreducible subvariety of $\,{\mathcal K}_q$ of
dimension $|\alpha^{(a)}|$.
\item[(ii)]
The intersection of $\,Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$ and
${\mathcal H}_{\alpha^{(a)}}$ is
generically transverse, and
$$
Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\cap {\mathcal H}_{\alpha^{(a)}}\ =\
\bigcup_{\beta^{(b)}\lessdot\alpha^{(a)}} Z_{\beta^{(b)}}\,.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Another proof of (ii) is given in~\cite{SS_SAGBI}, which shows (ii) is an
ideal-theoretic equality.
From (ii) and B\'ezout's theorem, we obtain the following recursive formula
for the degree of $Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$
$$
\deg Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\ =\
\sum_{\beta^{(b)}\lessdot\alpha^{(a)}} \deg Z_{\beta^{(b)}}\,.
$$
Since the minimal quantum Schubert variety is a point, we deduce the main
result of~\cite{RRW98}:
\begin{cor}
The degree $\delta$ of $\,{\mathcal K}_q$ is the number of
maximal chains in the poset ${\mathcal C}_q$.
\end{cor}
Closed formulas are given for $\delta$ in~\cite{RRW96,RRW98},
the source of the formula~(\ref{dqmp}), as well as the
number $\deg Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$ of maximal chains below $\alpha^{(a)}$.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:real}}
Let $L(s,t)$ be the $m$-plane osculating the parameterized rational normal
curve
$$
\gamma\ :\ (s,t)\in{\mathbb P}^1\ \longmapsto\
(s^{n-1},\,ts^{n-2},\,\ldots,\,t^{n-2}s,\,t^{n-1})\in{\mathbb P}^{n-1}
$$
at the point $\gamma(s,t)$.
Then $L(s,t)$ is the row space of the $m\times n$ matrix of forms with rows
$\gamma(s,t),\gamma'(s,t),\ldots,\gamma^{(m-1)}(s,t)$, the derivative taken
with respect to the parameter $t$.
Write $L(s,t)$ for this matrix.
For $\alpha\in\binom{[n]}{p}$, the maximal minor of $L(s,t)$
complementary to $\alpha$ is
$(-1)^{|\alpha|}s^{\binom{m}{2}}l_\alpha s^{|\alpha|}t^{mp-|\alpha|}$,
where $|\alpha|:=\sum_i \alpha_i-i$ and $(-1)^{|\alpha|}l_\alpha$ is the
corresponding maximal minor of $L(1,1)$.
Let ${\mathcal H}(s,t)$ be the pencil of hyperplanes
given by the linear form
$$
\Lambda(s,t)\ :=\ \sum_{\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q}
z_{\alpha^{(a)}}
l_\alpha s^{|\alpha^{(a)}|}t^{N-|\alpha^{(a)}|}\,.
$$
Let $M$ be a matrix representing a curve in ${\mathcal M}_q$.
Then
$$
\det\left[\begin{array}{c}
L(s,t)\\M(s^n,t^n)\rule{0pt}{16pt}\end{array}\right]\ =\
s^{\binom{m}{2}} \sum_{\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q} z_{\alpha^{(a)}}
s^{an}t^{(q-a)n} l_\alpha s^{|\alpha|}t^{mp-|\alpha|}\ =\
s^{\binom{m}{2}}\Lambda(s,t)\,.
$$
Thus ${\mathcal M}_q\cap {\mathcal H}(s,t)$ consists of all maps
$M:{\mathbb P}^1\rightarrow {\bf G}$ of degree $q$ which satisfy
$M(s^n,t^n)\cap L(s,t)\neq \{0\}$.
Theorem~1 is a consequence of the following two theorems.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:transverse}
There exist positive real numbers $t_1,\ldots,t_N$ such that for any
$\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q$, the intersection
$$
Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap\cdots\cap
{\mathcal H}(1,t_{|\alpha^{(a)}|})
$$
is transverse with all points of intersection real.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:proper}
If $t_1,\ldots,t_k\in {\mathbb C}$ are distinct,
then for any $\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q$,
the intersection
\begin{equation}\label{eq:proper}
Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap\cdots\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_k)
\end{equation}
is proper in that it has dimension $|\alpha^{(a)}|-k$.
\end{thm}
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:real}. }
By Theorem~\ref{thm:transverse}, there exist positive real numbers
$t_1,\ldots,t_N$ (necessarily distinct) so that the intersection
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int}
{\mathcal K}_q \cap
{\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap\cdots\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_N)
\end{equation}
is transverse and consists of exactly $\delta$ real points.
We show all these points lie in ${\mathcal M}_q$, and thus are maps
$M:{\mathbb P}^1\rightarrow {\bf G}$ of degree $q$ satisfying
$M(1,t_i^n)\cap L(1,t_i)\neq\{0\}$ for $i=1,\ldots,N$, which proves
Theorem~\ref{thm:real}.
Recall the map
$\pi:{\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal K}_{q-1}\rightarrow
{\mathcal K}_q$~(\ref{eq:pi}) whose
image is the complement of ${\mathcal M}_q$ in ${\mathcal K}_q$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi^*{\mathcal H}(s,t)&=&
\sum_{\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_q}
(Ax_{\alpha^{(a)}}-Bx_{\alpha^{(a-1)}})
l_\alpha s^{|\alpha^{(a)}|}t^{N-|\alpha^{(a)}|}\\
&=&
(At^n-Bs^n)\sum_{\alpha^{(a)}\in{\mathcal C}_{q-1}}
x_{\alpha^{(a)}}l_\alpha s^{|\alpha^{(a)}|}t^{N-n-|\alpha^{(a)}|}\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, if ${\mathcal H}'(s,t)$ is the pencil of hyperplanes in the Pl\"ucker
space of ${\mathcal K}_{q-1}$ defining the locus of $M\in{\mathcal M}_{q-1}$
satisfying $M(s^n,t^n)\cap L(s,t)\neq \{0\}$, then
$$
\pi^*{\mathcal H}(s,t)\ =\
(At^n-Bs^n){\mathcal H}'(s,t)\,.
$$
Thus any point in~(\ref{eq:int}) not in ${\mathcal M}_q$ is the
image of a point
$([A,B],M)$ in ${\mathbb P}^1\times{\mathcal K}_{q-1}$
satisfying
$\pi^*{\mathcal H}(1,t_i)=(At_i^n-B){\mathcal H}'(1,t_i)$
for each $i=1,\ldots,N$.
As the $t_i$ are positive and distinct,
such a point can only satisfy $At_i^n-B=0$ for one $i$.
Thus $M\in{\mathcal K}_{q-1}$ lies in
at least $N-1$ of the hyperplanes ${\mathcal H}'(1,t_i)$.
Since $N-1$ exceeds the dimension $N-n$ of ${\mathcal K}_{q-1}$, there are
no such
points $M\in{\mathcal K}_{q-1}$, by Theorem~\ref{thm:proper} for maps of
degree $q-1$.
\qed\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:proper}. }
For any $t_1,\ldots,t_k$, the intersection~(\ref{eq:proper}) has dimension
at least $|\alpha^{(a)}|-k$.
We show it has at most this dimension, if $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ are distinct.
Suppose $k=|\alpha^{(a)}|+1$ and let $z\in Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$.
Then $z_{\beta^{(b)}}=0$ if $\beta^{(b)}\not\leq\alpha^{(a)}$
and so the form $\Lambda(1,t)(z)$ defining ${\mathcal H}(1,t)$ is divisible
by $t^{N-|\alpha^{(a)}|}$ with quotient
$$
\sum_{\beta^{(b)}\leq\alpha^{(a)}} z_{\beta^{(b)}}l_\beta\,
t^{|\alpha^{(a)}|-|\beta^{(b)}|}\,.
$$
This is a non-zero polynomial in $t$ of degree at most $|\alpha^{(a)}|$
and thus it vanishes for at most $|\alpha^{(a)}|$ distinct $t$.
It follows that~(\ref{eq:proper}) is empty for $k>|\alpha^{(a)}|$.
If $k\leq |\alpha^{(a)}|$ and $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ are distinct,
but~(\ref{eq:proper}) has dimension exceeding
$|\alpha^{(a)}|-k$, then completing $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ to a set of distinct
numbers $t_1,\ldots,t_{|\alpha^{(a)}|+1}$ would give a non-empty
intersection in~(\ref{eq:proper}), a contradiction.
\qed\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:transverse}. }
We construct the sequence $t_i$ inductively.
If we let $\alpha=1<2<\cdots<p-1<p+1$, then
$ Z_{\alpha^{(0)}}$ is a line.
Indeed, it is isomorphic to the set of $p$-planes containing a fixed
$(p-1)$-plane and lying in a fixed $(p+1)$-plane.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:proper}, $Z_{\alpha^{(0)}}\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t)$ is
then a single, necessarily real, point, for any real number $t$.
Let $t_1$ be any positive real number.
Suppose we have positive real numbers $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ with the property
that for any $\beta^{(b)}$ with $|\beta^{(b)}|\leq k$,
$$
Z_{\beta^{(b)}}\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap\cdots\cap
{\mathcal H}(1,t_{|\beta^{(b)}|})
$$
is transverse with all points of intersection real.
Let $\alpha^{(a)}$ be an index with $|\alpha^{(a)}|=k+1$ and consider the
1-parameter family ${\mathcal Z}(t)$ of schemes defined for $t\neq 0$ by
$ Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t)$.
For $t\neq 0$, if we restrict the form $\Lambda(1,t)$ to
$z\in Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}$, then, after dividing out $t^{N-|\alpha^{(a)}|}$,
we obtain
$$
z_{\alpha^{(a)}} + \sum_{\beta^{(b)}<\alpha^{(a)}} z_{\beta^{(b)}}l_\beta\,
t^{|\alpha^{(a)}|-|\beta^{(b)}|}\,.
$$
Thus ${\mathcal Z}(0)$ is
$$
Z_{\alpha^{(a)}}\cap {\mathcal H}_{\alpha^{(a)}}\ =\
\bigcup_{\beta^{(b)}\lessdot\alpha^{(a)}} Z_{(\beta,d)}\,,
$$
by Proposition~\ref{prop:RRW} (ii).
\noindent{\bf Claim:}
The cycle
$$
{\mathcal Z}(0)\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap\cdots\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_k)
$$
is free of multiplicities.
If not, then there are two components $ Z_{\beta^{(b)}}$
and $ Z_{\gamma^{(c)}}$ of ${\mathcal Z}(0)$ such that
$$
Z_{\beta^{(b)}} \cap Z_{\gamma^{(c)}}
\cap {\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap \cdots\cap {\mathcal H}(1,t_k)
$$
is nonempty.
But this contradicts Theorem~\ref{thm:proper}, as
$Z_{\beta^{(b)}} \cap Z_{\gamma^{(c)}}=Z_{\delta^{(d)}}$, where
$\delta^{(d)}$ is the greatest lower bound of $\beta^{(b)}$ and
$\gamma^{(c)}$ in ${\mathcal C}_q$, and so
$\dim Z_{\delta^{(d)}}<\dim Z_{\beta^{(b)}}=k$.
From the claim, there is an $\epsilon_{\alpha^{(a)}}>0$ such that if
$0\leq t\leq \epsilon_{\alpha^{(a)}}$, then
$$
{\mathcal Z}(t)\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_1)\cap\cdots\cap{\mathcal H}(1,t_k)
$$
is transverse with all points of intersection real.
Set
$$
t_{k+1}\ :=\ \min\{\epsilon_{\alpha^{(a)}} : |\alpha^{(a)}|=k+1\}\,.
\qquad\qed
$$
\section{Further Remarks}
From our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:transverse}, we obtain a rather precise
choice of $s_i$ and $L_i$ in the enumerative problem which give only real
maps.
By $\forall t_1\gg t_2\gg\cdots\gg t_N>0$, we mean
$$
\forall t_1>0\ \ \exists \epsilon_2>0\ \ \forall \epsilon_2>t_2>0\ \
\cdots\ \ \exists \epsilon_N>0\ \ \forall \epsilon_N>t_N>0\, .
$$
\begin{cor}
$\forall t_1\gg t_2\gg\cdots\gg t_N>0$, each of the $\delta$ maps
$M:{\mathbb P}^1\rightarrow{\bf G}$ of degree $q$ which satisfy
$M(1,t_i)\cap L(1,t_i^{1/n})\neq \{0\}$
for $i=1,\ldots,N$ are real.
\end{cor}
When $q=0$, there is substantial evidence~\cite{Sottile_shapiro}
that this choice of $t_1,\ldots,t_N$ is too restrictive.
B.~Shapiro and M.~Shapiro have the following conjecture:
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Conjecture. }
{\it
Suppose $q=0$.
Then for generic real numbers $\,t_1,\ldots,t_{mp}$ all of the finitely many
$p$-planes $H$ which satisfy $H\cap L(1,t_i)\neq \{0\}$ are real.
}\medskip
In contrast, when $q>0$, the restriction
$\forall t_1\gg t_2\gg\cdots\gg t_N>0$ is necessary.
We observe this in the case when $q=1$, $p=m=2$, so $N=8$ and $\delta=8$.
That is, for parameterized curves of degree 1 in the Grassmannian of
2-planes in ${\mathbb C}^4$.
Here, the choice of $t_i=i$ in~(\ref{eq:int}) gives no real maps, while
the choice $t_i=i^6$ gives 8 real maps.
We briefly describe that calculation.
There are 12 Pl\"ucker coordinates $z_{ij^{(a)}}$ for $1\leq i<j\leq 4$ and
$a=0,1$.
If we let $f_{ij}:=tz_{ij^{(0)}}+sz_{ij^{(1)}}$, then
$$
f_{14}f_{23} - f_{13}f_{24} + f_{12}f_{34}\ =\ 0\,,
$$
as $f_{ij}(s,t)\in{\bf G}$ for all $s,t$.
The coefficients of $t^2$, $st$, and $s^2$ in this expression give three
quadratic relations among the $z_{ij^{(a)}}$:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
z_{14^{(0)}}z_{23^{(0)}}\ -\
z_{13^{(0)}}z_{24^{(0)}}\ +\ z_{12^{(0)}}z_{34^{(0)}}\,,\\
z_{12^{(1)}}z_{34^{(0)}}\ -\
z_{13^{(1)}}z_{24^{(0)}}\ +\ z_{14^{(1)}}z_{23^{(0)}} \rule{0pt}{15pt}
+ z_{23^{(1)}}z_{14^{(0)}}\ -\
z_{24^{(1)}}z_{13^{(0)}}\ +\ z_{34^{(1)}}z_{12^{(0)}}\,,\\
z_{14^{(1)}}z_{23^{(1)}}\ -\ \rule{0pt}{15pt}
z_{13^{(1)}}z_{24^{(1)}}\ +\ z_{12^{(1)}}z_{34^{(1)}}\,,
\end{array}
$$
and these constitute a Gr\"obner basis for the
homogeneous ideal of ${\mathcal K}_1$\cite{SS_SAGBI}.
Here, the form $\Lambda$ is
$$
\begin{array}{c}
{\displaystyle
\ \
t^8z_{12^{(0)}}-2t^7z_{13^{(0)}}+t^6z_{14^{(0)}}+3t^6z_{23^{(0)}}
-2t^5z_{24^{(0)}}+t^4z_{34^{(0)}}}\\
+\,t^4z_{12^{(1)}}-2t^3z_{13^{(1)}}+t^2z_{14^{(1)}}+3t^2z_{23^{(1)}}
-2t\ \, z_{24^{(1)}}+\ \ z_{34^{(1)}}\,.
\end{array}
$$
We set $z_{34^{(1)}}=1$ and work in local coordinates.
Then the ideal generated by the 3 quadratic equations
and 8 linear relations $\Lambda(t_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,8$
defines the 8 solutions to~(\ref{eq:int}).
We used Maple V.5 to generate these equations and then compute
a univariate polynomial in the ideal, which had degree 8.
This polynomial had no real solutions when $t_i=i$, but all 8 were
real when $t_i=i^6$.
(Elimination theory guarantees that the number of real solutions equals the
number of real roots of the eliminant.)
\medskip
We describe how the enumerative problem~(\ref{eq:enumerative}) arises in
systems theory (see also~\cite{Byrnes}).
A physical system (eg.~a mechanical linkage) with $m$ inputs and $p$
measured outputs whose evolution is governed by a system of linear
differential equations is modeled by a $m\times n$-matrix $L(s)$ of
real univariate polynomials.
The largest degree of a maximal minor of this matrix is the
MacMillan degree, $r$, of the evolution equation.
Consider now controlling this linear system by output feedback with a
dynamic compensator.
That is, a $p$-input, $m$-output linear system $M$ is used to couple the $m$
inputs of the system $L$ to its $p$ outputs.
The resulting closed system has characteristic polynomial
$$
\varphi(s)\ :=\ \left[\begin{array}{c}L(s)\\M(s)\end{array}\right]\,,
$$
and the roots of $\varphi$ are the natural frequencies or {\it poles} of the
closed system.
The dynamic pole assignment problem asks, given a system $L(s)$ and a
desired characteristic polynomial $\varphi$, can one find a (real)
compensator $M(s)$ of MacMillan degree $q$ so that the resulting closed
system has characteristic polynomial $\varphi$?
That is, if $s_1,\ldots,s_{r+p}$ are the roots of $\varphi$, which
$M\in{\mathcal M}_q$ satisfy
$$
\det\left[\begin{array}{c}L(s_i)\\M(s_i)\end{array}\right]\ =\ 0,
\qquad\mbox{for }i=1,2,\ldots,r+p\,?
$$
In the critical case when $r+q=mp+qn$, this is an instance of the
enumerative problem~(\ref{eq:enumerative}).
When the degree $\delta$ is odd, then for a real system $L$ and a real
characteristic polynomial $\varphi$, there will be at least one real dynamic
compensator.
Part of the motivation for~\cite{RRW96} was to obtain a formula for $\delta$
from which its parity could be deduced for different values of
$q,m$, and $p$.
From this description, we see that the choice of planes $L_i$ that arise
in the dynamic pole placement problem are
$N=mp+qn$ points on a rational curve of degree $mp+(n-1)q$ in the
Grassmannian of $m$-planes in ${\mathbb C}^n$.
In contrast, the planes of Theorem~\ref{thm:transverse} (and hence of
Theorem~\ref{thm:real}) arise as $N$ points on a
rational curve of degree $mp$.
Only when $q=0$ (the case of static compensators) is there any overlap.
While our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:real} owes much to systems theory, it
has no direct implications for the problem of real dynamic output
compensation.
\medskip
Our method of proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:real} (like that in~\cite{So99}) was
inspired by the numerical
Pieri homotopy algorithm of~\cite{HSS} for computing the solutions
to~(\ref{eq:enumerative}) when $q=0$.
Likewise, the explicit degenerations of intersections of the
${\mathcal H}(s,t)$ that we used, and more generally
Proposition~\ref{prop:RRW} (ii), can be used to construct an optimal
numerical homotopy algorithm for finding the solutions
to~(\ref{eq:enumerative}).
This is in exactly the same manner as the explicit degenerations of
intersections of special Schubert varieties of~\cite{So97d} were used to
construct the Pieri homotopy algorithm of~\cite{HSS}.
\medskip
We close with one open problem concerning the enumeration of
rational curves on a Grassmannian.
For a point $s\in{\mathbb P}^1$ and any Schubert variety $\Omega$ of
${\bf G}$, consider the quantum Schubert variety $\Omega(s)$ of curves
$M\in{\mathcal M}_q$ satisfying $M(s)\in\Omega$.
The quantum Schubert calculus gives algorithms to compute the number of
curves $M\in{\mathcal M}_q$ which lie in the intersection of an appropriate
number of these $\Omega(s)$, and we ask when it is possible to have all
solutions real.
A modification of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:transverse} shows that
this is the case when all except possibly 2 are hypersurface Schubert
varieties.
In every case we have been able to compute, all solutions may be real.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{secintro}
\indent
At a normal metal - superconductor (NS) junction, electrons incident
from the normal metal can be scattered into time reversed electrons
(holes) by the pairing potential. This conversion process is known as
Andreev reflection.~\cite{rAndreev} When the NS junction carries an
electrical current, Andreev reflection is accompanied by the
conversion of normal current to supercurrent.~\cite{rKum,rMathews}
This supercurrent flow modifies the current-voltage relation in NS and
NSN junctions~\cite{rSanSol}~\cite{rSanSol2}~\cite{rLamb},
superconducting wires~\cite{rLiFu,rBag1}, SNS junctions~\cite{rRie1},
and NS junctions with a supercurrent parallel to the NS
interface~\cite{rHofKum}. In this paper we consider the
current-voltage relation for NS junctions having a supercurrent flow
perpendicular to the NS junction.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centps{riedelfig1.eps}{45}
\caption{Different types of NS Junctions. (a) NS point contact, (b)
N-Narrow S- S, (c) N - Wider S- S. The wire width determines the
number of conducting modes in the narrow segments ($M_N$ and
$M_S$). The superfluid flow velocity $v_s$ cannot be neglected when
$M_N \simeq M_S$.}
\label{fig1DGeom}
\end{figure}
The superfluid flow present for the point contact NS
junction in Fig.~\ref{fig1DGeom}(a) will have little effect on its I-V
characteristic, since the current density inside the wide
superconductor approaches zero. However, for the NS junctions shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig1DGeom}(b)-(c) , the number of conducting modes in the
superconducting wire ($M_S$) is comparable to to the number of
conducting modes in the normal wire ($M_N$). Since the current
density is not zero inside the superconductor, one cannot neglect the
effect of a superfluid flow on the I-V characteristics of the NS
junctions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1DGeom}(b)-(c). Since the superfluid
flow strongly modifies the dispersion relationship of the
superconductor when the ratio of the number of conducting modes
$\alpha = M_S / M_N$ is of order one, including such a superfluid flow
will influence the I-V characteristic of NS junctions. Since the
number of conducting modes is roughly proportional to the width of the
conductor, namely $\alpha \simeq W_S / W_N$, we can vary the ratio of
conducting modes by varying the width of the superconductor $W_S$.
Blonder, Tinkham and Klapwijk (BTK) showed that the point contact NS
junction in Fig.~\ref{fig1DGeom}(a) carries a larger current than a
normal metal point contact junction~\cite{rBTK}. This 'excess'
current of is due to the presence of Andreev reflection, and has the
value $I_{\rm exc} = (4/3)(2e\Delta/h)$ in a ballistic point-contact
NS junction. By varying the width of the superconducting wire forming
the NS junction in Fig.~\ref{fig1DGeom}(c), we determine in this paper
how the excess current varies as a function of the transverse mode
ratio $\alpha$. Using both an independent band model, and a second
model which includes scattering between different lateral modes at the
NS interface, we show the excess current in NS junction can be much
larger than the BTK result. This enhancement of the excess current over
the BTK value has also been noted in Ref.~\cite{rSanSol2}.
More Andreev reflections can occur at higher voltages when a
supercurrent flows perpendicular to the NS interface, accounting for
an excess current larger than the BTK result. If the superconductor is
narrower than about $W_S < (7/3) W_N$, the narrow region of the
superconductor exceeds its critical current before allowing the
maximum number of Andreev reflections. If the superconductor is much
wider than $W_S >> (7/3) W_N$, there is too much geometrical dilution
of the supercurrent for a significant superfluid flow to develop
inside the narrowest region of the superconductor. We find a maximum
excess current when the width of the superconductor is approximately
$W_S = (7/3) W_N$.
\section{Why Superfluid Flow Increases the Excess Current}
\label{secwhymore}
\indent
In this section we give the simplest physical model which illustrates
why the excess current in NS junctions can be larger than the point
contact limit. To make our physical points, we construct a crude two
fluid model, which does not obey electrical current conservation at
every point in space. A fully self-consistent solution of the
Bogoliubov-deGennes equations automatically ensures current
conservation, eliminating the need for this ad-hoc two-fluid model,
but requires more computational effort. The two-fluid model we develop
only guarentees current conservation at the terminal contacts. A
fully self-consistent solution of the BdG equations in a single mode
junction ($\alpha = 1$), done in section \ref{secself1d}, gives
the same results for the excess current as the two-fluid
model. Viewing the electrical conduction in terms of this two fluid
model, therefore, allows us to obtain a value of the superfluid
velocity $v_s$ inside the superconducting contacts for each value of
the bias voltage across the NS or NIS junction. We then use this value
of the flow velocity $v_s$ to compute Andreev and normal reflection
probabilities for each value of the voltage, and thus obtain the
electrical current in a globally self-consistent manner.
\subsection{Two Fluid Model}
\label{twoflu}
\indent
Figure~\ref{figBand} shows the energy band diagram of an NS junction
when the superconductor carries a finite supercurrent~\cite{rBag1}.
In a transmission formalism, one must compute the electrical current
operator for all incident quasi-particle states, and add them to
obtain the total current. Ref.~\cite{rDatta1} evaluates the electrical
current operator on the normal side of the NS junction in terms of
particle current transmission and reflection probabilities. The
derivation in section 3 of Ref.~\cite{rDatta1} is valid for a
multiple moded NS junction subject to a superfluid flow.
Ref.~\cite{rDatta1} recovers the well-known BTK current
formula~\cite{rBTK}, namely (for zero temperature)
\begin{equation}
I = (2e/h) M_N \int^{eV}_{0}
[1 - T_{Ne,Ne}(E) + T_{Nh,Ne}(E)] dE.
\label{I_NT=0}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{I_NT=0}) we use the notation of Ref.~\cite{rDatta1},
where the $T_{N \delta, N \beta}$ particle current reflection
probabilities from the incident channel $(N \beta)$ to reflected
channel $(N \delta)$. The indices $\beta, \delta = e \; {\rm or } \;
h$ for electron-like or hole-like quasi-particles. We must compute
the both the normal $T_{Ne,Ne}=R_N$ and Andreev $T_{Nh,Ne}=R_A$
reflection probabilities when the superconducting contact is subject
to a superfluid flow. For simplicity we have taken the $M_N$ modes in
the normal conductor to be both independent and to carry identical
electrical currents.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centps{riedelfig2.eps}{60}
\caption{ Energy band diagram of an NS junction subject to a
superfluid flow $v_S \ge 0$. The shifted energy bands in the
superconductor cause Andreev reflection to occur at higher energies
than without superfluid flow. The contacts inject electron-like (solid
dots) and hole-like (open circles) quasi-particles as shown.}
\label{figBand}
\end{figure}
In order for the superconductor to carry a finite supercurrent, the
form of the order parameter $\Delta(x)$ inside the superconductor must
be generalized to $\Delta(x) = |\Delta| e^{2iqx}$. The superfluid
velocity is $v_{s}= \hbar q / m$.
If we consider solutions accurate within the Andreev approximation
($|E| \ll \mu$), we can approximate the dispersion relation near the
Fermi level as being rigidly shifted in energy as~\cite{rBag1}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m} - \mu
\simeq \pm \sqrt{(E \mp |\Delta| (q/q_d))^{2} - |\Delta|^{2}} \; .
\label{shiftE}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $v_d = \hbar q_d / m = |\Delta| / \hbar k_F$ is the Landau
depairing velocity.~\cite{rLan} The electrical current is given by
$I_C \simeq e n v_s M_S$ with $n = 2(k_F/\pi)$ the electron density
per mode and $M_S$ the number of (equivalent, for simplicity)
conducting modes in the superconductor~\cite{rLiFu}. We can rewrite
the supercurrent $I_C$ in terms the depairing velocity as
\begin{equation}
I_C \simeq (4e|\Delta|/h) (v_s/v_d) M_S .
\label{I_C}
\end{equation}
At zero temperature, the critical current phase boundary occurs when
$v_s = v_d$. We must therefore maintain $v_s < v_d$ to preserve the
superconducting order parameter $|\Delta| \ne 0$.
Inside the superconductor, the electrical current
is often argued to be composed of a `quasi-particle' and `condensate'
contribution~\cite{rBTK,rPethik}. To break Eq.~(\ref{I_NT=0}) down
into these two contributions to the current we use the sum
rule~\cite{rBTK}
\begin{equation}
1 = T_{Ne,Ne}(E) + T_{Nh,Ne}(E) + T_{Se,Ne}(E) + T_{Sh,Ne}(E).
\label{Pconserv}
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{Pconserv}) states that the normal ($T_{Se,Ne}=T_{N}$)
and Andreev ($T_{Sh,Ne}=T_{A}$) particle current transmission
coefficients into the superconductor conserve the total number of
quasi-particles. Combining Eqs.~(\ref{I_NT=0}) and (\ref{Pconserv}),
the electrical current inside the superconductor at zero temperature
is
\begin{equation}
I = I_{QP} + I_A.
\label{I_S}
\end{equation}
We identify the portion of the electrical current due to
`quasi-particle' injection as
\begin{equation}
I_{QP} = (2e/h) M_N \int^{eV}_{0}
[T_{Se,Ne}(E) - T_{Sh,Ne}(E)] dE,
\label{I_QP}
\end{equation}
and the `Andreev' portion of the current $I_A$ as
\begin{equation}
I_A = (2e/h) M_N \int^{eV}_{0} 2
[T_{Nh,Ne}(E)+ T_{Sh,Ne}(E) ] dE .
\label{2And}
\end{equation}
The `Andreev' current in Eq.~(\ref{2And}) equals
twice the sum of all Andreev processes.
Equations~(\ref{I_S})-(\ref{2And}) give the same current as the BTK
expression from Eq.~(\ref{I_NT=0}), since both are simply the current
operator evaluated inside the normal metal. The key physical element
in our `two-fluid' model is that we require that both Eqs.~(\ref{I_C})
and (\ref{2And}) for the `condensate' current $I_C$ and the `Andreev'
current $I_A$ must be equal. We examine this assumption more
rigorously in the Appendix, by evaluating the electrical current
operator inside the superconductor. In this section we make a
plausibility argument for equating $I_A$ from Eq.~(\ref{2And}) with
the `condensate current' $I_C$ from Eq.~(\ref{I_C}), or the `current
of Cooper pairs'.
Eq.~(\ref{2And}) expresses the condensate current in terms of
probabilities for Andreev reflection and Andreev transmisison of an
electron incident from the normal metal. Conversely, Eq.~(\ref{I_C})
expresses the condensate current in terms of the superfluid velocity.
That an incident electron and a reflected hole on the normal metal
side requires a Cooper pair to move off into the superconductor (to
preserve electrical charge conservation) is well
known~\cite{rBTK}. Similarly, Andreev transmission of an electron also
requires a Cooper pair flow inside the superconductor. Andreev
reflection and Andreev transmission of electrons incident from the
normal metal require Cooper pairs flow away from the NS interface (in
the same direction) for both processes. Equation~(\ref{2And})
embodies this physical reasoning. Similarly, identifying
Eq.~(\ref{I_QP}) as the `quasi-particle' contribution to the
electrical current is also quite natural, being proportional to the
electrical current operator for an electron injected from the normal
metal (evaluated on the superconducting side).
The `two fluid' picture here requires Eqs.~(\ref{I_C}) and
(\ref{2And}) be equal be satisfied in order to guarentee global
current conservation. Once the junction geometry and applied voltage
is specified, the only free parameter in Eqs.~(\ref{I_C}) and
(\ref{2And}) is the superfluid velocity $v_s=\hbar q/m$. Since the
quasi-particle transmission and reflection coefficients themselves
depend on $v_s$, equating Eqs.~(\ref{I_C}) and (\ref{2And}) is then a
globally self-consistent procedure for determining the superfluid flow
velocity $v_s$. Using this value for $v_s$, one then uses either
Eq.~(\ref{I_NT=0}) or (\ref{I_S}) to find the terminal currents for
each value of the bias voltage $V$.
\subsection{Two-Fluid Approximation for Ballistic NS Junction}
\label{balns}
\indent
We now restrict our attention to ballistic NS junctions, and
approximate the energy bands near the Fermi level as simply rigidly
shifted in energy by an amount $\pm |\Delta| (v_s/v_d)$, as determined
from Eq.~(\ref{shiftE}). When the superconductor carries a finite
supercurrent, we can then obtain the Andreev reflection coefficient
from
\begin{equation}
T_{Nh,Ne}(E) = R_A^0(E - |\Delta| (v_s/v_d)).
\label{RAshift}
\end{equation}
Here $R_A^0(E)$ is the Andreev reflection coefficient found by
BTK~\cite{rBTK} when the superfluid flow is zero ($v_s=0$), namely
\begin{equation}
R_A^0(E)= \left\{
\matrix{
1 & |E| \leq |\Delta|
\cr
\left(
\frac{\displaystyle E - \sqrt{E^{2} - |\Delta|^{2}}}
{\displaystyle E + \sqrt{E^{2} - |\Delta|^{2}}}
\right) & |E| \geq |\Delta|
}
\right. .
\label{RA0}
\end{equation}
This rigid shift in the Andreev reflection coefficient, corresponding
to the rigid shift in the energy bands near the Fermi level, is shown
in Fig.~\ref{figAnd}. Simply shifting the reflection coefficients in
energy is not a valid approximation when a tunnel barrier is present
at the NS interface~\cite{rRieThes}, as also noted in Fig.~\ref{figAnd}.
Since the differential conductance of an NS junction is
\begin{equation}
\left. \frac{dI}{dV} \right|_V
= \frac{2e}{h} [ 1 + R_A (E = eV) - R_N(E = eV) ] ,
\end{equation}
a differential conductance measurement producing a larger than expected
energy gap could point to significant superfluid flow in the junction.
Shifting the Andreev reflection coefficient in energy makes it
possible for the `negative energy' Andreev reflections, i.e. the
Andreev reflection probabilities having $E<0$ in Eqs.~(\ref{RA0}) to
contribute to the excess electrical current. These `negative energy'
Andreev reflections are shown as the additional area under the Andreev
reflection probability for $E>0$ when $v_s > 0$ in Fig.~\ref{figAnd},
At zero temperature, Eqs.~(\ref{I_NT=0}) and (\ref{RAshift}) give
\begin{equation}
I = (2e/h) M_N \int^{eV}_{0}
[1 + R_{A}^0(E - |\Delta| (v_s/v_d))] dE.
\label{INbalT=0}
\end{equation}
To determine the superfluid velocity $v_s$ in Eq.~(\ref{INbalT=0}),
Eqs.~(\ref{I_C}) and (\ref{2And}) require
\begin{equation}
|\Delta| \alpha (v_s/v_d)
= \int^{eV}_{0} R_{A}^0(E - |\Delta| (v_s/v_d)) dE.
\label{selfconvs}
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{selfconvs}) is a self-consistent equation for the
superfluid velocity $v_s$, and depends on the ratio of the number of
conducting modes in the superconductor to the normal conductor $\alpha
= M_S/M_N$. The largest possible excess current would occur if we
could fix $v_s \to \infty$ in Eqs.~(\ref{INbalT=0}), and would give
twice the BTK result of $I_{\rm exc}^{max} = 2 I_{\rm exc}^{BTK} =
(8/3)(2e\Delta/h)$. However, this theoretical maximum excess current is
not possible due to the constraint that the superfluid velocity must
remain smaller than the depairing velocity. One must therefore discard
any solution of Equation~(\ref{selfconvs}) giving $v_s > v_d$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centps{fig3.eps}{60}
\caption{Andreev reflection probability for an electron incident on an
NS interface when the superfluid velocity is zero (solid line) and
when $v_S = v_d/2$ (dashed line). Superfluid flow simply shifts the
Andreev reflection probability by an amount $\Delta (v_S/v_{d})$. If
a tunnel barrier is placed at the NS interface (dotted line), there is
no simple relation between the Andreev reflection probabilities with
and without superfluid flow.}
\label{figAnd}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical Evaluation of Two-Fluid Formula}
\label{numeval}
\indent
We plot the numerical solution of
Eqs.~(\ref{INbalT=0})-(\ref{selfconvs}) for the total current through
the NS junction as a function of the voltage in Fig.~\ref{figIV}.
When the transverse mode ratio is small, namely when $\alpha \leq 7/3$
shown in Fig.~\ref{figIV}(a), there is a voltage above which current
conservation requires that $v_s$ exceed the Landau depairing velocity
of the superconductor. When $v_s \geq v_d$, the narrower
superconducting region (between the large normal contact and the large
superconducting reservoir) becomes a normal conductor. This collapse
of the order parameter in the narrower superconducting wire continues
until a new NS interface is formed where the narrow conductor meets
the wide superconducting reservoir. Geometrical dilution of the
supercurrent where the superconductor widens into a thermodynamic
reservoir moves the NS interface so that a stable point contact
junction is formed. Forcing the narrower superconducting region into
the normal state therefore creates a point contact NS junction having
$\alpha = \infty$, i.e. the BTK limit of an NS junction. Forcing the
narrower superconducting region to become normal therefore forces the
excess current to fall abruptly to the BTK limit shown in
Fig.~\ref{figIV}(a).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\twofig{fig4a.eps}{fig4b.eps}{6.0}
\caption{ (a) When the transverse mode ratio $\alpha < (7/3)$, the
order parameter in the narrow superconducting wire can collapse,
giving rise to discontinuities in the I-V relation. (b) When
$\alpha > (7/3)$ no such discontinuities arise. The excess current
is larger than the BTK result for $\alpha = 7/3$, shown in both
(a) and (b). The I-V evolves smoothly into the BTK result for a
point contact NS junction when $\alpha \to \infty$.}
\label{figIV}
\end{figure}
An excess current larger than the BTK limit is also shown in
Fig.~\ref{figIV}(a), due to the additional `negative energy' Andreev
reflections. When the transverse mode ratio is larger, namely when
$\alpha \geq 7/3$ shown in Fig.~\ref{figIV}(b), the superfluid
velocity in the narrower superconductor is always less than the Landau
depairing velocity. Consequently, no abrupt drops in the current occur
for any value of the voltage. The excess current simply decreases
gradually from its maximum value at $\alpha = 7/3$ to the BTK value
for a NS point contact at $\alpha = \infty$.
We plot the maximum excess current in a ballistic NS junction versus
the mode ratio $\alpha$ in Figure~\ref{figExCur}. The excess current
at any given voltage is defined as the difference between the current
carried by the NS superconducting junction and a normal NN junction,
namely $I_{ex}(V) = I_{NS}(V) - I_{NN}(V)$. The maximum excess
current occurs at voltage for which $I_{ex} = {\rm Max} \; [ I_{ex}(V)
]$. For $\alpha < 4/3$ the excess current is given by the point
contact value, namely the BTK result of $(4/3)(2e\Delta/h)$, and
occurs at a voltage $V = \infty$. When $4/3 \leq \alpha \leq 7/3$ the
excess current occurs at a finite voltage $V \leq \infty$, and is
larger than the BTK result. As the transverse mode ratio increased
above $\alpha \geq 7/3$, geometrical dilution of the supercurrent
reduce the band tilting in the superconductor, reducing the maximum
excess current of the junction. When the mode ratio is very large, so
that $\alpha \to \infty$ we recover the point contact result for the
excess current.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centps{fig5.eps}{60}
\caption{The excess current $I_{\rm exc}$ of a ballistic
normal-superconducting wire at zero degrees Kelvin is maximum when the
transverse mode ratio is $\alpha = (M_S/M_N) = 7/3$. $I_{\rm exc}$
approaches the point contact (BTK) value of $4/3 (2e\Delta/h)$ when
$\alpha \to \infty$. Collapse of the order parameter in the narrow
superconducting wire limits $I_{\rm exc}$ when $\alpha < 7/3$.}
\label{figExCur}
\end{figure}
The circled dots in Figure~\ref{figExCur} show the results of a more
realistic numerical calculation~\cite{rRieThes} for the excess
current. As detailed in Ref.~\cite{rRieThes}, we permit interband
scattering at the NS junction and allow different conducting modes in
the superconductor to carry different amounts of
supercurrent~\cite{rLiFu}. The general behavior for the excess current
versus mode ratio $\alpha$ of this more realistic NS junction model is
quite similar to our simplified model, except the maximum in the
excess current is slightly smaller and shifted to a slightly larger
transverse mode ratio. The slightly lower excess current arises
because the higher lying modes have a smaller Fermi velocity, and
therefore the Andreev reflection coefficients for the higher lying
modes do not shift in energy as much as the lower lying modes. We
conclude that this more realistic model, even though still a two-fluid
type model which only globally conserves electrical current, confirms
the essential features of our simpler independent mode calculation in
this section.
\subsection{Limiting Cases of Two-Fluid Formula}
\label{limitcases}
\indent
We can understand how the excess current $I_{exc}$ depends on the mode
ratio $\alpha = M_S / M_N$ in Figure~\ref{figExCur} by examining
Eqs.~(\ref{INbalT=0})-(\ref{selfconvs}) in different limits. The
integral of the shifted Andreev reflection probability in
Eqs.~(\ref{INbalT=0})-(\ref{selfconvs}) can be done analytically to
yield
\begin{equation}
\int^{eV}_{0} R_{A}^0(E - |\Delta| (v_s/v_d)) dE
= eV
\label{intRA01}
\end{equation}
when $eV \leq |\Delta| (1 + (v_s/v_d))$. In this limit,
Eqs.~(\ref{selfconvs}) and (\ref{intRA01}) show the superfluid
velocity increases linearly with bias voltage $V$.
For larger biases, namely when $eV \geq |\Delta| (1 + (v_s/v_d))$,
the superfluid velocity increases more slowly with
voltage, as determined from
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \int^{eV}_{0} R_{A}^0(E - |\Delta| (v_s/v_d)) dE
\nonumber \\
& = & |\Delta| (1 + (v_s/v_d)) + |\Delta| [ \frac{1}{3}
- \frac{1}{2} e^{-\gamma} + \frac{1}{6} e^{-3 \gamma} ] .
\label{intRA02}
\end{eqnarray}
The factor $\gamma$ in
Eq.~(\ref{intRA02}) is
\begin{equation}
\gamma = \cosh^{-1}(\frac{eV}{|\Delta|} - \frac{v_s}{v_d}) .
\label{gamma}
\end{equation}
The excess current we obtain from
\begin{equation}
I_{exc} = (2e/h) M_N \int^{eV}_{0}
R_{A}^0(E - |\Delta| (v_s/v_d)) dE.
\label{IexcT=0}
\end{equation}
Consider first the case where the narrower superconducting wire is not
driven normal, so that $v_s < v_d$ for all values of voltage. In that
case, the maximum excess current occurs when $V = \infty$, so that
$\gamma = \infty$ in Eq.~(\ref{gamma}). Eqs.~(\ref{selfconvs}) and
(\ref{intRA02}) for the superfluid velocity then reduce to $(\alpha -
1)(v_s/v_d) = 4/3$. The maximum allowed superfluid velocity,
$(v_s/v_d) = 1$, then occurs for a transverse mode ratio of $\alpha =
7/3$. The excess current from Eqs.~(\ref{IexcT=0}) and
(\ref{intRA02}) then becomes
\begin{equation}
I_{exc} = \left( \frac{2e |\Delta|}{h} M_N \right)
\left( \frac{4}{3} \right)
\left( \frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1} \right) ,
\label{IexcT=0high}
\end{equation}
when $\alpha \geq 7/3$. The
excess current reaches its
maximum value of $I_{exc} = (7/3) (2e |\Delta|/h) M_N$ when
$\alpha \geq 7/3$ as shown in Figure~\ref{figExCur}. Taking the
limit $\alpha \to \infty$ in Eq.~(\ref{IexcT=0high}) recovers the
BTK result $I_{exc} = (4/3) (2e |\Delta|/h) M_N$.
We can also obtain an analytical solution for the excess current using
Eqs.~(\ref{selfconvs}) and (\ref{intRA01}) to determine the superfluid
velocity as $(v_s/v_d) = eV / |\Delta| \alpha$.
The excess current then follows from Eqs.~(\ref{IexcT=0}) and
(\ref{intRA01}) as $I_{exc} = (2e |\Delta|/h) M_N
|\Delta| \alpha (v_s/v_d)$. Using the maximum alllowed depairing velocity
of $(v_s/v_d) = 1$ then gives
\begin{equation}
I_{exc} = \left( \frac{2e |\Delta|}{h} M_N \right) \alpha.
\label{IexcT=0low}
\end{equation}
The range of allowed mode ratios $\alpha$ for which
Eq.~(\ref{IexcT=0low}) is valid lie along the curve $(v_s/v_d) = 1 =
eV / |\Delta| \alpha$. Furthermore, Eq.~(\ref{intRA01}) is only valid
for $eV / |\Delta| \leq (1 + (v_s/v_d))$. Combining all these
requirements restricts the mode ratio between $1 \leq \alpha \leq 2$.
However, for $1 \leq \alpha \leq 4/3$ the order parameter in the
narrower superconducting wire collapes before the excess current
reaches the BTK value. Eq.~(\ref{IexcT=0low}) therefore describes the
excess current between $4/3 \leq \alpha \leq 2$ as shown in
Figure~\ref{figExCur}.
\section{Exact Solution of a Single Mode NS Junction}
\label{secself1d}
\indent
In this section we wish to evaluate several assumptions made in the
two fluid model of section \ref{secwhymore}. To do this, we solve the
BdG equation, together with the self-consistency requirement for the
order parameter, in a single band (1D) model of the NS junction where
$M_N = M_S = 1$ ($\alpha = 1$). This self-consistent solution allows
us to demonstrate how the supercurrent flow develops naturally from a
self-consistent solution of the NS junction under a voltage bias. We
use this solution to verify the approximate (two-fluid) procedure we
use to guarentee global current conservation in section
\ref{secwhymore}. One might expect that conserving the current only
globally certainly gives qualitatively correct answers for the I-V
characteristic. However, since the Andreev reflection probability does
not vary much (as a function of energy) if we allow the order
parameter to reach its final self-consistent form, the two-fluid model
also gives accurate quantitative estimates for the I-V
relation.
Our self-consistent solution of the BdG equations in this section
verifies the main assumptions used in our two-fluid model (when
$\alpha = 1$). When a voltage is applied to the ballistic NS junction
junction, the magnitude of $\Delta(x)$ remains approximately constant
inside the superconductor (at zero temperature). However, the order
parameter phase varies approximately linearly inside the
superconducting metal. There are essentially no additional
quasi-particles injected into the single moded NS junction at zero
temperature, so the total current is simply $I = e n v_s$. The slope
of the phase is related to the supercurrent velocity as $d \phi/dx =
2q = 2 v_s m / \hbar $. The superfluid velocity is linearly related to
the voltage as $I = (4e^2/h) V = e n v_s$. As voltage bias increases,
the slope of the phase $d \phi /dx$ increases until the superfluid
velocity reaches the Landau depairing velocity, $v_s = v_d$ (or $d
\phi /dx = 1/\xi_0$). At this voltage $V= V_{c}$ the ordering
parameter inside the narros superconductor collapses, and a stable
point contact NS junction forms inside the wide superconducting
reservoir.
\subsection{Self-Consistent Solution Procedure for BdG Equation}
\label{selfconproc}
The motion of quasi-particles in our one band NS junction, including
the superfluid flow inside in the superconductor, is determined from
the 1D time independent Bogliobov-de Gennes~\cite{rBdG} (BdG)
equation
\begin{equation}
\left(
\matrix{
H(x)-\mu & \Delta(x) \cr
\Delta^*(x) & -(H^*(x) - \mu ) \cr}
\right)
\left(
\matrix{
u(x) \cr
v(x) }
\right)
= E
\left(
\matrix{
u(x) \cr
v(x)}
\right)
\label{eBdG}
\end{equation}
The one-electron Hamiltonian $H(x)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eBdG}) is
\begin{equation}
H(x) = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}} + V(x) .
\end{equation}
The order parameter $\Delta(x)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eBdG}) is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(x) & = & g(x) F(x) \nonumber \\
& = & g(x) \sum_{pn} v^{*}_{pn}(x) u_{pn}(x) f_{pn}
\theta(|E_{pn}| - \hbar \omega_D),
\label{eCond}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g(x)$ is the electron-phonon interaction strength at each point
and $F(x)$ is the pair correlation function. (Although we assume $g(x)$
is local, in reality it is spread over a correlation
distance $v_F/\omega_D$.) The index $p$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) denotes the lead from which the scattering state
originates, namely $p=N$ is the left lead and $p=S$ the right lead.
The index $n$ in Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) denotes the good quantum numbers in
the lead, namely $n = (k,\beta)$ where $k$ is the wavenumber and
$\beta = (e,h)$ the electron-like and hole-like states. The sum in
Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) runs over states injected from the leads, including
both positive ($E_n > 0$) and negative energies ($E_n < 0$). The
coherence factors $u(x)$ and $v(x)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) are functions
of the order parameter $\Delta(x)$ through Eq.~(\ref{eBdG}).
In this section we show the self-consistent solutions of
Eq.~(\ref{eBdG}) and (\ref{eCond}) for a voltage-biased NS
junction. Details of the self-consistent solution procedure are given
in Ref.~\cite{rRie1}. To solve the order parameter self-consistently,
we first assure an initial or zeroth order guess $\Delta_0(x)$ for the
order parameter. We then divide the one dimensional space is into
differential elements, where the magnitude of the order parameter
superfluid velocity are constant in each section. We match the
wavefunctions and their derivatives at each interface to obtain the
zeroth order wavefunctions $u_0(x)$ and $v_0(x)$. The first iteration
for the order parameter $\Delta_1(x)$ we then obtain from
Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) using the zeroth order wavefunctions $u_0(x)$ and
$v_0(x)$, etc. The zeroth order guess for the order parameter
$\Delta_0(x)$ can either be constant, i.e. $\Delta_0(x) = \Delta$, or
it can contain a superfluid flow, i.e. $\Delta_0(x) = \Delta
e^{2iqx}$. Given the same electrical current flow, either initial
guess for the order parameter converges to the same final answer.
The voltage bias across the NS junction is a boundary condition which
determines the Fermi occupation probabilities $f_{pn}$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eCond}). The occupation probability $f_{pn}$
of a scattering state $(p,n)$ which originates
inside the normal or superconducting reservoir $p$, is the same for
holes and electrons when the applied bias is zero ($V=0$). Under a
voltage bias, however, electrons in the normal metal are occupied up
to an energy $\mu+eV$, while holes are occupied up to an energy
$\mu-eV$.~\cite{rDatta1} These different Fermi factors electron-like
and hole-like quasi-particles injected from the normal metal are shown
schematically in Fig.~\ref{figBand}. The unequal occupation
probabilities for holes and electrons injected from the normal metal
causes these two classes of scattering states to contribute
differently to the sum in Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) under an applied bias.
We can write the Fermi factors as
\begin{equation}
f_{pn} = f_{p \beta} = f(E - eV_{p \beta} ) \; ,
\label{fermi}
\end{equation}
where $f(E) = 1/[1+{\rm exp} \left( E / k_B T \right)]$. Here
$eV_{p \beta}$ is
effective biasing voltage (or effective electrochemical potential)
applied to the $(p \beta)$th
lead, namely~\cite{rDatta1}
\begin{equation}
V_{Ne} = V \; ,
\label{vefactors}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{Nh} = - V \; .
\label{vhfactors}
\end{equation}
In this paper the superconducting leads are grounded so that $V_{S
\beta} = 0$.
To obtain the electrical current $I(x)$, we do not invoke any ad hoc
`source term' as done in Ref.~\cite{rBTK}, but instead simply evaluate
the electrical current operator for a scattering state originating in
lead $q$ (having quantum number $n$) and terminating in lead $p$,
namely
\begin{equation}
I_{q} = \sum_{pn}
\left( J_{u} + J_{v} \right)_{q ; pn} f_{pn}
- \sum_{p n} \left( J_{v} \right)_{q ; p n}
\; .
\label{eCur}
\end{equation}
The $J_{u}$ and $J_{v}$ are Schr\"{o}dinger currents associated with
the waves $u$ and $v$, namely $J_{u}=(e\hbar/m) {\rm Im}\{u^{*}(x)
\nabla u(x)\}$ and $J_{v}=(e\hbar/m) {\rm Im}\{v^{*}(x) \nabla
v(x)\}$. The `vacuum current' due to the filled hole band is argued
in Ref.~\cite{rDatta1} to be zero, namely $\sum_{q n} (J_{v})_{p ; q
n} = 0$, as we have confirmed for the NS junction. Solving
Eq.~(\ref{eBdG}) together with Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) guarentees electrical
current
conservation~\cite{rKum,rMathews},\cite{rBag1},\cite{rSols,rFurusaki3},
even when the superconductor is far from equilibrium. A proof of this
statement for NS junctions follows from generalizing the discussion in
Appendix B of Ref.~\cite{rBag1} to the nonequilibrium case. If the
nonequilibrium system involves two superconductors at different
biases~\cite{rHurd}, current conservation is more complex and $\sum_{q
n} (J_{v})_{p ; q n} \ne 0$.
\subsection{Order Parameter Phase}
\label{opphase}
Consider first the NS junction, where the coupling constant $g(x)$ is
\begin{equation}
g(x) = \left\{
\matrix{
g_R & x > 0 \cr
0 & x < 0 }
\right.
\end{equation}
We choose $g_R$ and $\omega_D$ so that the critical temperature of the
right superconductor is $T_c = 6.6$K. Our initial guess for the
order parameter we take to be
\begin{equation}
\Delta_0(x) = \left\{
\matrix{
\Delta & x > 0 \cr
0 & x < 0 }
\right.
\label{delta0}
\end{equation}
We therefore do not force a superfluid flow inside the superconductor
from our zeroth order guess for the order parameter.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\twofig{fig6a.eps}{fig6b.eps}{6.0}
\caption{Both (a) the electrical current throughout an NS junction,
and (b) the phase in the superconducting metal, develop naturally from
a self-consistent model. The initial order parameter guess
$\Delta_0(x)$ assumed zero supercurrent, however a superfluid flow
appeared naturally upon reaching self-consistency.}
\label{figcurrcons}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{figcurrcons}(a) shows the electrical current $I(x)$ versus
position $x$ inside the superconductor. The numbers beside the lines
in Fig.~\ref{figcurrcons}(a) denote the iteration number. For the
first iteration ($N=1$), the electrical current dies off within a
coherence length of the NS interface, so that the electrical current
is not conserved. After the iterative scheme converges ($N=700$) in
Fig.~\ref{figcurrcons}(a), we see the electrical current $I(x)$ is
constant as a function of position, indicating the electrical current
is indeed conserved. In Fig.~\ref{figcurrcons}(b) we plot the order
parameter phase inside the superconductor as a function of position.
A uniform phase gradient develops inside the superconductor when the
iterative scheme has converged to self-consistency, showing that the
development of a supercurrent is necessary to guarentee current
conservation. We expected this constant order parameter phase gradent
in the NS junction, since it is similar to that constant order
parameter phase found in the self-consistent solution of the SNS
junction.~\cite{rRie1}
We can understand these result using our two-fluid picture from
section \ref{secwhymore}, and assuming rigidly shifted energy
bands. The maximum current of $4e\Delta/h$ is reached when the voltage
$eV = \Delta$. At this point the energy bands have shifted up faster
than the Fermi level of the normal contact, and thus no direct
transmission of electrons across the junction inside the energy range
$0<E<eV$ is allowed. Andreev transmission will also be small, as is
usually the case in NS junctions. There will therefore be essentially
no quasi-particles above the Fermi level of the superconductor, while
all states below the Fermi level are filled. The quasi-particle
contribution to the current inside the superconductor, $I_{QP}$ in
Eq.~(\ref{I_QP}), is essentially zero in the single mode NS junction
when $eV < \Delta$. The electrical current is therefore $I = e n v_s$
in this single moded NS junction, the same as for a uniform 1D
superconductor. The order parameter magnitude collapses when the
superfluid velocity equals the depairing velocity $v_s = v_d$, at a
bias voltage $eV = \Delta$.
\subsection{Order Parameter Magnitude}
\label{opmag}
\indent
Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(a) shows the magnitude of the condensation
amplitude $F(x)$ as a function of position in both the normal and
superconducting metal at zero temperature. The solid line indicates a
bias voltage of $V=0$, while the dashed line is for a bias voltage $V
= 0.95 V_c$ ($v_s = 0.95 v_d$). The general form of the condensation
amplitude $F(x)$ for a ballistic NS junction at equilibrium is well
known from earlier non-self-consistent
models.~\cite{rMacMill},\cite{rFalk}. We find substantial agreement
between these earlier results and our fully self-consistent
calculations. In the superconductor, $F(x)$ is suppressed from its
bulk value near the NS interface. In the normal metal, $F(x)$ shows
behavior quite similar to the low temperature experimental results of
Mota~\cite{rMota}. The dotted line in Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(a) is
$F(x) \propto 1/(|x| + x_{0})$, found experimentally by
Mota~\cite{rMota}. The value of $x_{0}$ used in
Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(a) is $x_{0} = \xi_{0}$. The fit between the
experimental determined form $F(x) \propto 1/(|x| + x_{0})$ and the
results of our self-consistent calculation is quite good. The result
$F(x) \propto 1/(|x| + x_{0})$ for the pair correlation function at
low temperature in an NS junction at equilibrium ($V=0$) was also
pointed out by Falk~\cite{rFalk} for the asymptotic limit $x
\rightarrow \infty$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\twofig{fig7a.eps}{fig7b.eps}{6.0}
\caption{The magnitude of the coherence function $F(x)$ (a) changes
little when a large flow is present in a NS junction with an applied
voltage. The solid line is $F(x)$ when the applied voltage is zero.
When the applied voltage is large $.95\Delta$ $F(x)$ shows little
change (dashed line) from the junction in equilibrium. [The phase of
$F(x)$ changes linearly with postion throughout the NS junction.] (b)
In an S'S junction at a temperature above the critical temperature of
S', the order parameter is non-zero in the "normal" metal. The finite
temperature in combination with a moderate supercurrent causes a
supression of the larger gap superconductor. (dashed line)}
\label{figorderparam}
\end{figure}
In an NS junction, the ordering parameter $\Delta(x)$ vanishes in the
normal metal because the electron-phonon coupling constant $g(x)$ is
zero there. For a finite ordering parameter $\Delta(x)$ to exist
inside the normal metal we must have $g(x) \ne 0 $ in the normal
metal. One way to achieve a non-zero $g(x)$ in the normal metal is to
fabricate an $S^{\prime}S$ junction, where the superconductor
$S^{\prime}$ has a smaller critical temperature than S. If we then
elevate the temperature so that $T_c > T > T_c^{\prime}$, we
effectively form an NS junction where $g(x)$ is not zero inside the
normal metal. Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(b) shows a self-consistent
calculation for an such $S^{\prime}S$ junction, where $T_c = 6.6K$,
$T_c^{\prime}= 0.66K$, and $T=2K$. Unlike the NS junction, where
$\Delta(x)=0$ inside the normal metal, we see a non-zero `tail' of the
ordering parameter extending into the normal metal in
Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(b). At zero temperature, the bulk value of
the order parameter inside the weaker superconductor is
$\Delta^{\prime}(T=0) = 0.1 \Delta (T=0)$. From
Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(b) we see that $\Delta(x=0, T=2K) \simeq 2.5
\Delta^{\prime}(T=0)$, larger than even the bulk value of the order
parameter in the weaker superconductor at zero temperature. When a
voltage is applied to the $S^{\prime}S$ junction, namely
$eV=.7\Delta_{0}$ in Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(b), the ordering
parameter inside $S$ is now suppressed from its bulk value at
$T=2K$. This degradation of the order parameter at finite temperature,
when the superconductor carries a finite supercurrent, is similar to
that of a bulk superconducting wire~\cite{rBag1}. The tail of the
ordering parameter extending into $S^{\prime}$ is only slightly
changed in the presence of the supercurrent.
\subsection{Local Density of States}
\label{locdos}
\indent
In addition to the magnetic susceptibility techniques used by Mota,
which explore the condensation amplitude $F(x)$ in the normal metal,
another method to experimentally investigating how the ordering
parameter $\Delta(x)$ varies near NS interfaces is tunnelling
spectroscopy using an STM tip.~\cite{rTess}. We expect that a
measurement of the differential conductance $dI/dV$ at the STM tip is
proportional to to the local density of states $N(x,E)$. We can
calculate the local density of states
using the equation
\begin{equation}
N(x,E) = \frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{p,n}
{|u_{p,n}(x,E)|^{2} + |v_{p,n}(x,E)|^{2}}|\frac{dk}{dE}| ,
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the lead index and the quantum number $n = (k,\beta)$.
Fig.~\ref{figDOS}(a) shows the local density of states for an NS junction
having an applied voltage of $eV=.7\Delta_{0}$. At this bias voltage,
the superconductor carries a supercurrent of $v_s = 0.7 v_{d}$. The
solid line shows $N(x,E)$ at a position $x = 5 \xi_0$ inside the
superconductor. The original peak in the density of states, which
occurs at $E = \Delta$ when the superfluid flow $v_s = 0$, splits into
two separate peaks. As the energy bands inside the superconductor tilt
under the superfluid flow, the band edges move to the energies $E= [1
\pm (v_s/v_{d})]\Delta$, as do the peaks in the density of states. In
the normal metal, the density of states is approximately constant for
energies of interest. The constant density of states in the normal
metal is due to a zero pairing potential $\Delta(x) = 0$ inside the
normal metal, since $g(x)=0$ in the normal metal.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\twofig{fig8a.eps}{fig8b.eps}{6.0}
\caption{(a) When a supercurrent is present in an NS junction, the
local density of states inside the superconductor shows two peaks. The
local density of states inside the normal conductor is constant for
all $x < 0$, indicating the lack of any energy gap due to the
proximity effect. (b) In an S'S junction when a
supercurrent is present, where S' is a superconductor above its
transition temperature, structure is seen in the local density of states
inside the "normal" S' metal. }
\label{figDOS}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{figDOS}(b) shows the local density of states for an
$S^{\prime}S$ junction having $T_c > T > T_c^{\prime}$. We evaluate
the local density of states at a position $x = -\xi_{0}$ in the normal
metal. The local density of states inside the stronger superconductor
is approximately the same as Fig.~\ref{figDOS}(a). For the two
different applied voltages, where $v_{s}=0$ (solid) and
$v_{s}=.5v_{d}$ (dotted), the presence of the superconductor changes
the density of states inside the normal metal. For $v_{s}=0$, there is
a depression in the density of states near $E=0$, showing the partial
development of an energy gap inside the normal metal. The density of
states does not go to zero at $E=0$, since quasi-particles incident
from the left contact can still propagate to the position $x =
-\xi_{0}$. As the current increases, the density of states inside the
normal metal becomes flatter due to injection of quasi-particles from
the tilted energy bands inside the superconductor. The two small
peaks at $eV=.5\Delta_{0}$ and $eV=1.5\Delta_{0}$ when $v_{s}=.5v_{d}$
are again associated with the tilted energy bands inside S, and are
significantly broadened by thermal smearing at $T= 2K$ (which we have
ignored in Fig.~\ref{figDOS}(b)).
To summarize, while looking to justify our two-fluid model for the
effect of superfluid flow in an NS junction, we studied the pair
corrlation function $F(x)$ and ordering parameter $\Delta(x)$.
We looked at $F(x)$ and
$\Delta(x)$ inside both (1) an NS junction at temperature $T=0$, and
(2) an S$^{\prime}$S junction at a temperature $T_c > T >
T_c^{\prime}$. Here S$^{\prime}$ is a superconductor having an order
parameter smaller than $S$, so that $T_c^{\prime} < T_c$. The
S$^{\prime}$S junction at this temperature is therefore a type of NS
junction. First, the condensation amplitude is $F(x) \simeq x_0 / (|x|
+ x_0)$, approximately independent of the applied voltage. Second, at
the voltage $V_{c} = \Delta_{0}/e$, the ordering parameter of the
superconductor collapses, i.e. $\Delta_0 \to 0$. The supercurrent
carried inside the superconductor at a voltage $V = V_{c}$ is
approximately equal to the Landau depairing current $I_C = e n
v_d$. Third, we show how the supercurrent changes the 1-D local
density of states per unit energy $N(x,E)$ at various points in the
normal and superconducting metals, both for the NS junction and the
S$^{\prime}$S junction. The local density of states shows the
influence of the superfluid flow.
\subsection{Locally (But Not Globally) Gapless Superconductivity}
\label{gapless}
The phase gradient of $F(x)$ is approximately constant for both the NS
junction in Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(a) and the $S^{\prime}S$ junction
in Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(b). Since the energy gap $\Delta(x)$
decays to zero in Fig.~\ref{figorderparam}(a)-(b), there are regions
of local `gapless' superconductivity near the NS interface where $v_s
> \Delta(x) / p_F$. However, these regions of local `gapless'
superconductivity do not affect bulk properties such as critical
current, critical temperature, etc. Since our self-consistent model
shows that the supercurrent is approximately constant throughout the
superconductor, depairing will occur when $v_s=v_{d}$ everywhere in
the superconducting wire.
A different type of `global' gapless superconductivity has been
discussed by Sanchez and Sols~\cite{rSanSol}. In this proposed gapless
superconductor~\cite{rSanSol}, a superconducting wire in contact with
an NS junction is postulated to exist when $v_{s} > v_{d}$. It is true
that such a non-equilibrium self-consistent solution to the BdG
equations with $v_{s} > v_{d}$ does exist for a uniform
superconducting wire. However, connecting such a wire in this novel
`global' gapless superconducting state to an NS junction imposes the
additional constraint that the self-consistency condition in
Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) must be satisfied at every point in space. When
Eq.~(\ref{eCond}) is satisfied, the magnitude of the order parameter
can no longer be a constant in space, as required for the globally
gapless solution proposed in Ref.~\cite{rSanSol} to exist.
Another way to view the situation proposed in Ref.~\cite{rSanSol} is
that, for a given applied voltage, the constraint of current
conservation fixes both $\Delta(x)$ and $v_s$, leaving no more degrees
of freedom. The order parameter $\Delta(x)$ and superfluid velocity
$v_s$ cannot be adjusted independently as required for the bulk
solution of Ref.~\cite{rSanSol} to exist in an NS junction. Our
self-consistent model shows instead that the ordering parameter of the
superconducting wire collapses when the junction voltage is
approximately $eV = \Delta$, or equivalently when $v_s = v_d$. In
short, we see no possible way to achieve the non-equlibrium conditions
necessary for this novel gapless superconducting state of
Ref.~\cite{rSanSol} to exist by connecting a superconducting wire to a
ballistic NS junction. Fortunately, many other interesting
measurements are possible at ballistic NS interfaces without invoking
the global gapless superconducting state of Ref.~\cite{rSanSol}. In
particular, the excess current larger than the point contact limit,
which we find in section \ref{secwhymore}, in no way depends on the
gapless state proposed in Ref.~\cite{rSanSol}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conc}
\indent
It is possible to experimentally observe excess currents larger than
the $(4/3)(2e \Delta/h)$ found for ballistic NS point contacts. By
varying the width $W_S$ of a superconducting wire in contact with a
normal metal having width $W_N$, one can vary the effect of the
supercurrent on the energy bands in the superconductor. Varying the
widths of the two conductors controls the ratio of the number of
conducting modes $\alpha \simeq W_S / W_N$ in the ballistic NS
junction. We find the excess current attains a theoretical maximum of
$(7/3)(2e \Delta/h)$ when $\alpha \simeq 7/3$. For $1< \alpha < 7/3$
it should be possible to observe discontinuities in the I-V relation
of the NS junction when the superfluid velocity $v_{s}$ exceeds the
Landau depairing velocity $v_d$. Although these results follow from a
simple model which treats all conducting modes as equivalent, we
confirmed the qualitative results using a more realistic model which
includes the different supercurrent carried in each conducting mode
and the scattering between the different modes. These predictions are
based on a `two-fluid' solution of the BdG equations, in which current
conservation is violated locally near the NS interface.
To confirm our that our `two-fluid' type treatment of the superfluid
flow in NS junctions generates qualitatively accurate predictions for
the I-V relations, we solved the BdG equations self-consistently for a
single mode NS junction under an applied bias. Current conservation
follows automatically in this self-consistent scheme, and shows that
the superfluid velocity is indeed constant throughout the NS junction.
The two important features confirmed in this self-consistent solution
are (1) the superfluid velocity and terminal currents are the same as
required by our `two-fluid' scheme and (2) the order parameter indeed
collapses when the superfluid velocity $v_{s}$ equals the depairing
velocity $v_d$. We did not perform a completely self-consistent
calculation for the multiple moded NS junction, as we believe all the
essential elements of this problem (so far as the excess current is
concerned) are encompassed in the two-fluid treatment of the
multiple-moded NS junction.
Having obtained the a self-consistent solution of the BdG equations
for an NS junction under bias also enabled us to study the pair
correlation function $F(x)$, order parameter $\Delta(x)$, and local
density of states $N(x,E)$ in the NS junction. The peak near the
superconducting energy gap at $E = \Delta$ in local density of states
$N(x,E)$ inside the superconductor is split by the superfluid flow, as
can be measured using STM spectroscopy. If the electron-phonon
interaction in the normal metal is nearly zero, the density of states
in the normal metal is unaffected by the presence of the
superconductor. If the normal metal $N$ is a weak superconductor held
above its transition temperature, the STM can also measure changes in
the local density of states $N(x,E)$ inside the normal metal. Due to
the uniform superfluid velocity inside an NS junction, and the
reduction of the order parameter near the NS interface, the Landau
depairing condition is locally violated and a type of gapless
superconductivity occurs locally near the NS interface.
\section{Acknowledgments}
\indent
We thank Supriyo Datta for many useful discussions. We gratefully
acknowledge support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and
from the MRSEC of the National Science Foundation under grant
No. DMR-9400415 (PFB).
\section{Appendix: Determining the Superfluid Flow Velocity}
\label{AppDetFlow}
If the pairing potential and electron wavefunctions are determined
from a self-consitent solution of the BdG equations, (1) electrical
current will be conserved everywhere in space and (2) the superfluid
flow will develop naturally as the scheme evolves towards
self-consistency (c.f. section \ref{secself1d}). In this appendix we
examine a different `globally self-consistent' scheme, where current
conservation is only guarenteed at the device leads. In this scheme,
the correct value of the superfluid velocity $v_S = \hbar q /m$ is
determined by equating the current operator evaluated on the normal
side of the NS junction with the same operator evaluated deep (several
coherence lengths) inside the superconductor. We then adjust the
superfluid velocity (which is a free parameter in the scheme) until
the current flowing out of the superconducting lead is the same as the
current flow in the normal lead. We consider only a single moded
NS junction with $M_N = M_S = 1$, although the results here are easily
generalized to multiple conducting modes.
The derivation of the electrical current in Ref.~\cite{rDatta1}
applies for an NS junction subject to a superfluid flow. Evaluating
the current operator inside the normal region, Ref.~\cite{rDatta1}
finds the well known formula developed by BTK~\cite{rBTK}, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
I = (2e/h) \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} & &
[1 - T_{Ne,Ne}(E) + T_{Nh,Ne}(E)] \nonumber \\
& & [f(E-eV) - f(E)] dE.
\label{I_N}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we use the notation of Ref.~\cite{rDatta1}, where $T_{Ne,Ne}=R_N$
and $T_{Nh,Ne}=R_A$ are the particle current reflection probabilities
for an electron-like quasi-particle incident from the normal metal
(right index, `$Ne$') to transmit as a hole or electron in the normal
metal (left index). The sum rule from Eq.~(\ref{Pconserv}) then gives
$I = I_{QP} + I_A$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{QP} = (2e/h) \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} & &
[T_{Se,Ne}(E) - T_{Sh,Ne}(E)] \nonumber \\
& & [f(E-eV) - f(E)] dE,
\label{I_QPTne0}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
I_A = (2e/h) \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} & &
[T_{Nh,Ne}(E)+ T_{Sh,Ne}(E) ] \nonumber \\
& & [f(E-eV) - f(E)] dE .
\label{2AndTne0}
\end{eqnarray}
To evaluate the electrical current operator inside the superconductor,
we first note that the energy bands inside superconductor subject to a
superfluid flow are~\cite{rBag1}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m} + \frac{\hbar^{2}q^{2}}{2m} - \mu
= \pm \sqrt{(E \mp \hbar^{2} kq/m)^{2} - |\Delta|^{2}} \; .
\label{dispersion}
\end{eqnarray}
The discussion in Ref.~\cite{rBag1} can be extended to show that the
particle current incident from the superconductor $J_P = (1/\hbar)
(dE/dk)$. Thus, the particle current incident from the superconductor
per unit energy is simply $1/h$. Quasi-particles incident from the
superconductor will then carry an electrical current of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
I = \frac{e}{h} \int dE \frac{J_P^{\rm out}}{J_P^{\rm in}}
\frac{J_Q^{\rm out}}{J_P^{\rm out}} .
\label{exampleJQ}
\end{eqnarray}
We recognize the particle current transmission coefficient in
Eq.~(\ref{exampleJQ}) as
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm out, in} = \frac{J_P^{\rm out}}{J_P^{\rm in}}.
\label{defTP}
\end{equation}
To evaluate the $J_Q^{\rm out}/J_P^{\rm out}$ term in
Eq.~(\ref{exampleJQ}) we use several results from Ref.~\cite{rBag1}.
The scattering states inside the superconductor have solutions of the
form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\matrix{
u(x) \cr
v(x) }
\right)
=
\left(
\matrix{
u_{kq} \exp (iqx) \cr
v_{kq} \exp (-iqx) }
\right)
e^{ikx}.
\label{uvkq}
\end{eqnarray}
{ \onecolumn
The electrical current carried by each occupied state is therefore
\begin{equation}
J_Q = \left( \frac{\hbar k}{m} \right)
\left( |u_{kq}|^2 + |v_{kq}|^2 \right) f
+ \left( \frac{\hbar q}{m} \right)
\left( |u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2 \right) f ,
\label{defJQ}
\end{equation}
and the particle current for each occupied state is
\begin{equation}
J_P = \left( \frac{\hbar k}{m} \right)
\left( |u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2 \right) f
+ \left( \frac{\hbar q}{m} \right)
\left( |u_{kq}|^2 + |v_{kq}|^2 \right) f .
\label{defJP}
\end{equation}
The state are normalized so that $|u_{kq}|^2 + |v_{kq}|^2 = 1$.
Hence the factor
\begin{equation}
\frac{J_Q^{\rm out}}{J_P^{\rm out}} =
\frac{1}{(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2) + (q/k)}
+ \frac{(q/k)(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2)}
{(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2) + (q/k)}.
\label{defJQ/JP}
\end{equation}
The first term in Eq.~(\ref{defJQ/JP}) one can show is simply the
ratio of the density of states in the superconductor to that of the normal
metal (for a fixed value of wavevector $k$, not a fixed energy), namely
\begin{equation}
\tilde{N}^S(E) \equiv \frac{N_S(k)}{N_N(k)} =
\frac{1}{(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2) + (q/k)} .
\label{dosk}
\end{equation}
We make the translation between wavevector $k$ and energy $E$ inside
the superconductor using Eq.~(\ref{dispersion}). The second term in
Eq.~(\ref{defJQ/JP}) will be only a minor correction to the first,
being nearly zero near the Fermi level, equal to $(q/k) << 1$ over
most of the energy range, and equal to 1 only near the bottom of the
electron energy bands. The first term in Eq.~(\ref{defJQ/JP}) therefore
dominates, being much larger than 1 near the Fermi level and equal to
1 over most of the energy range.
Applying the procedure outlined in Ref.~\cite{rDatta1} for
construction of the scattering states, and multiplying by their
appropriate Fermi occupation factors, we find a total current inside
the superconductor of
\begin{equation}
I_S = I_1 + I_2 .
\label{IS}
\end{equation}
The current $I_1$ arises from first term in Eq.~(\ref{defJQ/JP})
and is
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1 & = & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
[\tilde{N}^S_{Se,out}(E) T_{Se,Ne}(E)
- \tilde{N}^S_{Sh,out}(E) T_{Sh,Ne}(E)]
[f(E-eV) - f(E)] dE
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde{N}^S_{Se,out}(E) [2f(E)-1] dE
- \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde{N}^S_{Se,in}(E) [2f(E)-1] dE .
\label{I1s}
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain Eq.~(\ref{I1s}) we used the sum rule and electron hole
symmetry, Eqs.~(C.1) and (C.6) of Ref.~\cite{rDatta1}. We distinguish
between $\tilde{N}^S_{Sh,out}(E)$ and $\tilde{N}^S_{Se,in}(E)$ in
Eq.~(\ref{I1s}), since the incoming and outgoing electron-like
quasi-particles have different densities of states. The second term in
Eq.~(\ref{defJQ/JP}) results in a small correction current $I_2$,
proportional to $(q/k_F)$. The rather cumbersome expression for $I_2$
is
\begin{eqnarray}
I_2 & = & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
[(q/k)(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2)]_{Se,out}
\tilde{N}^S_{Se,out}(E) T_{Se,Ne}(E)
[f(E-eV) - f(E)] dE
\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
[(q/k)(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2)]_{Sh,out}
\tilde{N}^S_{Sh,out}(E) T_{Sh,Ne}(E)]
[f(E-eV) - f(E)] dE
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
[(q/k)(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2)]_{Se,out}
\tilde{N}^S_{Se,out}(E) [2f(E)-1] dE
\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
[(q/k)(|u_{kq}|^2 - |v_{kq}|^2)]_{Se,in}
\tilde{N}^S_{Se,in}(E) [2f(E)-1] dE .
\label{I2s}
\end{eqnarray}
We again translate between $k$ and $E$ inside the superconductor using
Eq.~(\ref{dispersion}), taking care to assign the appropriate branch
of the dispersion curve for incoming or outgoing electron- or hole-
like particles. The first two terms in $I_2$ are a small correction to the
superfluid flow due to additional quasi-particle injection, while the
last two terms are a small correction to the equilibrium superfluid flow.
A rigorous treatment guarenteeing global current conservation at
any temperature would equate the current $I$ from Eq.~(\ref{I_N})
with the current $I_S$ from Eq.~(\ref{IS}), adjusting the superfluid
velocity $q$ until $I = I_S$.
}
\twocolumn
We now analyze the validity of our `two-fluid'' procedure from Section
\ref{secwhymore}. We henceforth neglect the current $I_2$ as
insignificant compared with $I_1$. At zero temperature, the current
operator evaluated inside the superconductor we find from from
Eq.~(\ref{I1s}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1(T=0) & = & \frac{2e}{h} \int_{0}^{eV}
[\tilde{N}^S_{Se,out}(E) T_{Se,Ne}(E) \nonumber \\
& - & \tilde{N}^S_{Sh,out}(E) T_{Sh,Ne}(E)] dE \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{4e\Delta}{h} (v_s/v_d).
\label{I1sT0}
\end{eqnarray}
The zero temperature limit of Eq.~(\ref{I_N}) is given in Section
\ref{secwhymore} as Eqs.~(\ref{I_QP})-(\ref{2And}). The second term
in Eqs.(\ref{I1sT0}) is the superfluid flow term $I_C$. So we can
certainly identify $I_A$ from Eq.~(\ref{2And}) with $I_C$.
However, Eq.~(\ref{I_QP}) for $I_{QP}$ is not exactly equal to
the first term in Eq.~(\ref{I1sT0}), the difference being the
additional factor of the superconducting density of states
$\tilde{N}^S(E)$ in Eq.~(\ref{I1sT0}).
For the Cooper pair flow away from the NS interface (which we are
considering in this paper), and for the energy range between $0$ and
$eV$, the outgoing hole-like quasi-particle conduction channel opens
at a lower energy than the electron-like quasi-particle channel (see
Fig.~\ref{figBand}). This
means the first term in Eq.~(\ref{I1sT0}) will be larger and more
negative than $I_{QP}$ from Eq.~(\ref{2And}), requiring a larger value
of the superfluid velocity $v_s$ at each value of the applied voltage
$V$ than in the two-fluid model of Section \ref{secwhymore}. We
conclude that the treatment in Section \ref{secwhymore} therefore
underestimates the effect of superfluid flow on the excess current.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, one of us [1] has shown that, under certain physically
reasonable conditions, a generic gravitational collapse developing from
a regular initial state cannot lead to the formation of a final state
resembling the Kerr solution with $a^{2}>m^{2}$---i.e., of a naked
singularity accompanied by closed timelike curves. This result
supports the validity of Penrose's cosmic censorship hypothesis [2]
and suggests that there may exist some deeper connection between cosmic
censorship and the chronology protection conjecture put forward by
Hawking [3]. An important role in this result plays the so-called {\em
inextendibility condition} (see Sec. II), which is assumed to be
satisfied for certain incomplete null geodesics. This condition enables
one to rule out artificial naked singularities that could easily be
created by simply removing points from otherwise well-behaved
spacetimes. The inextendibility condition is based on the idea that
physically essential singularities should always be associated with
large curvature strengths, which are in turn usually associated with
the focusing of Jacobi fields along null geodesics.
It is easily seen that the inextendibility condition will always hold
for null geodesics terminating at the so-called {\em strong curvature
singularities} defined by Tipler [4] (see below).
Singularities of this type are sometimes considered to be the {\em
only} physically reasonable singularities (cf., e.g., [5,6]).
However, strong curvature singularities can exist only if the curvature
in their neighborhood diverges strong enough [7], while it is not
unlikely that some singularities occurring in generic collapse
situations will involve a weaker divergence of the curvature. In fact,
one cannot {\em a priori} exclude the existence of some ``real''
singularities near which the curvature would remain even bounded (such
singularities occur, for example, in Taub-NUT space). Accordingly,
since we still have no fully accepted {\em necessary} condition on the
behavior of the curvature near generic singularities, one should try to
prove any cosmic censorship result under as weak a curvature condition
as possible. It would be therefore of interest, in view of the
mentioned censorship result [1], to know what are curvature conditions
for the occurrence of singularities corresponding to the
inextendibility condition. Furthermore, the inextendibility condition
has also been used in proving some other recent results [8,9] that
restrict a class of possible causality violations in classical general
relativity.
In this paper, we formulate and prove a theorem that establishes some
relations between the inextendibility condition and the rate of growth
of the Ricci curvature along incomplete null geodesics. This theorem
shows that the inextendibility condition may hold for a much more
general class of possible singularities than only those of the strong
curvature type. Our theorem will be stated in Sec. II of the paper.
In Sec. III we present a proof of the theorem; our main
mathematical tool in this proof is a Sturm-type comparison lemma for
nonoscillatory solutions of second-order differential equations. In
Sec. IV we give a few concluding remarks; in particular, we argue
that some earlier cosmic censorship results obtained for strong
curvature singularities can be extended to singularities corresponding
to the inextendibility condition.
\section{The theorem}
To begin with, we clearly need to recall the precise
formulation of the inextendibility condition. Let $\eta(t)$ be an
affinely parametrized null geodesic, and let $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$ be
two linearly independent spacelike vorticity-free Jacobi fields along
$\eta(t)$. The exterior product of these Jacobi fields defines a
spacelike area element, whose magnitude at affine parameter value $t$
we denote by $A(t)$. If we now introduce the function $z(t)$ defined by
$A(t)\equiv z^{2}(t)$, then one can show [4] that $z(t)$ satisfies the
following equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}z}{dt^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}(R_{ab}K^{a}K^{b}+
2\sigma^{2})z=0,
\end{equation}
where $K^{a}$ is the tangent vector to $\eta(t)$ and
$\sigma^{2}$ is a non-negative function of $t$ defined as
follows: $2\sigma^{2}\equiv
\sigma_{mn}\sigma^{mn}$ $(m,n=1,2)$. Here
$\sigma_{mn}$ is the shear tensor (see [10], p. 88) that
satisfies the equation [4]:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\sigma_{mn}=-C_{manb}K^{a}K^{b}-
\frac{2}{z}\frac{dz}{dt}\sigma_{mn}.
\end{equation}
In the following, by $M$ we shall denote a spacetime, i.e., a smooth,
boundaryless, connected, four-dimensional Hausdorff manifold with a
globally defined $C^{2-}$ Lorentz metric.
\vspace{3mm}
{\em Definition: Let $\eta: (0,a]\rightarrow M$
be an affinely parametrized, incomplete null geodesic. Assume also
that $\eta(t)$ generates an achronal set, i.e., a set such that no two
points of it can be joined by a timelike curve. Then $\eta(t)$ is said
to satisfy the} {\bf inextendibility condition} {\em if for some affine
parameter value $t_{1}\in (0,a)$ there exists a solution $z(t)$ of
Eq. (1) along $\eta(t)$ such that $z(t_{1})=0$,
$dz/dt|_{t_{1}}\neq 0$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}z(t)=0$.}
\vspace{3mm}
The key idea behind the inextendibility condition is based on the fact
that any two zeros of any solution of Eq. (1), which is not identically
zero along a given null geodesic, correspond to a pair of conjugate
points along the geodesic (see [4]). From Proposition 4.5.12 of Ref.
[10] it follows that incomplete null geodesics generating achronal sets
cannot contain any pairs of conjugate points. One can thus easily
show [8] that if a geodesic $\eta: (0,a]\rightarrow M$ satisfies the
inextendibility condition, then there is $no$ extension of the
spacetime $M$, preserving all the above mentioned properties of $M$, in
which $\eta(t)$ could be extended beyond a point $\eta(0)$. This means,
according to the standard interpretation, that $\eta(t)$ should then
approach a genuine singularity of the spacetime $M$ at affine parameter
value 0. [Formally, this singularity has the same status as those
predicted by the familiar singularity theorems [10], because these
theorems predict in fact the existence of incomplete causal (usually
null) geodesics in maximally extended spacetimes satisfying just the
same topological and smoothness conditions as those imposed on $M$.]
Let us now compare the inextendibility condition with the concept of
a strong curvature singularity [4]. Consider a null geodesic $\lambda:
(0,a]\rightarrow M$ that terminates in a strong curvature singularity
at affine parameter value 0. This means that every solution $z(t)$ of
Eq. (1) along $\lambda(t)$, which vanishes for at most finitely
many points in $(0,a]$, satisfies $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}z(t)=0$
(cf. Ref. [5], p. 160). Suppose now that $\lambda(t)$ generates an
achronal set; then any solution of Eq. (1), which is not identically
zero along $\lambda(t)$, cannot vanish for any two points in $(0,a]$ by
the argument with conjugate points mentioned above. Thus, for {\em all}
$t_{1}\in (0,a]$ and for {\em all} solutions $z(t)$ of Eq. (1) along
$\lambda(t)$ with initial conditions $z(t_{1})=0$ we will have
$\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}z(t)=0$. It is thus clear that any null geodesic
terminating in Tipler's strong curvature singularity and generating an
achronal set must always satisfy the inextendibility condition. Notice
also that the terms ``all'' emphasized above imply, via Eqs. (1) and
(2), that $\lambda(t)$ can terminate in the strong curvature
singularity only if the curvature diverges strong enough along
$\lambda(t)$ as $t\rightarrow 0$, while the inextendibility condition
could actually be satisfied for $\lambda(t)$ even if the curvature
along it would remain bounded. Indeed, the theorem stated below makes
it clear [see condition (i)] that the curvature need not necessarily
diverge along geodesics satisfying the inextendibility condition.
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Theorem:} \, {\em Let $\eta: (0,a]\rightarrow M$ be an affinely
parametrized, incomplete null geodesic generating an achronal set.
Suppose that the Ricci tensor term $r(t)\equiv R_{ab}K^{a}K^{b}$ along
$\eta(t)$, where $t$ is the affine parameter and $K^{a}$ is the tangent
vector to $\eta(t)$, obeys at least one of the following conditions.} \\
(i) {\em There exists an affine parameter value $b\in (0,a)$ such that
$\inf\{r(t)| \, 0<t<b\}\geq 2(\pi/b)^{2}$.} \\
(ii) {\em There exist an affine parameter value $c\in (0,a)$ and a
constant $\mu\in (0,2)$ such that
$r(t)\geq \kappa t^{-\mu}$ for all $t\in (0,c]$,
where $\kappa = (2/3)(33-26\mu+5\mu^{2})c^{\mu-2}$.}
{\em Then $\eta(t)$ satisfies the inextendibility condition. }
\vspace{3mm}
{\em Remark 1:} From the proof of this theorem, which is given below,
it may be seen that the parameter values $b$ and $c$ mentioned
above in conditions (i) and (ii) correspond to the parameter value
$t_{1}$ occurring in the definition of the inextendibility condition.
{\em Remark 2:} Since in the theorem $\eta(t)$ is assumed to be a
generator of an achronal set, $\eta(t)$ cannot contain any pair of
conjugate points, and so one can expect that there should exist an {\em
upper} limit on the rate of growth of the curvature along $\eta(t)$.
Indeed, from Theorems (3) and (4) of Ref. [11] it follows immediately
that the Ricci tensor term $r(t)$ along $\eta(t)$ must satisfy the
following two conditions: (1) there is no affine parameter value $b'\in
(0,a]$ such that $\inf\{r(t)|\, 0<t<b'\}>8(\pi/b')^{2}$; and (2) if
$r(t)\geq 0$ on $\eta(t)$, then $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\inf
t^{2}r(t)\leq 1/2$. Similar restrictions on the growth of the Weyl part
of the curvature along $\eta(t)$ can be obtained from Proposition 2.2
of Ref. [12].
In the context of our theorem, it is worth recalling the analogous
results obtained by Clarke and Kr\'olak [7] for singularities of the
strong curvature type. They have been obtained for two definitions of a
strong curvature singularity: the original one formulated by
Tipler [4] and its modification proposed by Kr\'olak [6]. According
to these results, if a null geodesic $\eta: (0,a]\rightarrow M$
terminates at affine parameter value 0 in a strong curvature
singularity defined by Tipler (resp., by Kr\'olak), then there must
exist some affine parameter value $c\in (0,a]$ such that
$R_{ab}K^{a}K^{b}>A t^{-2}$ (resp., $R_{ab}K^{a}K^{b}>A t^{-1}$) on
$(0,c]$, where $K^{a}$ is the tangent vector to $\eta(t)$, $t$ is the
affine parameter, and $A$ is some fixed positive constant. [Or very
similar conditions on the rate of growth of the Weyl part of the
curvature along $\eta(t)$ must be satisfied; see Corollary 2 of Ref.
7.] Comparing these results with condition (ii) of our theorem we see
that singularities of the strong curvature type involve a considerably
stronger divergence of the Ricci tensor term $R_{ab}K^{a}K^{b}$ than
singularities corresponding to the inextendibility condition. There may
thus exist a large class of curvature singularities that are not
strong in the sense of the definition of Tipler or Kr\'olak, but they
may still satisfy the inextendibility condition. Note also that the
above conditions for strong curvature singularities are the {\em
necessary} ones, whereas conditions (i) and (ii) of our theorem are
only {\em sufficient} to ensure that the inextendibility condition does
hold for a given geodesic. This implies that the inextendibility
condition might be satisfied in more general situations than only those
characterized by conditions (i) and (ii).
\section{Proof of the theorem}
\vspace{4mm}
Now we shall prove the theorem; our main tool in this
proof will be the following comparison lemma.
\vspace{3mm}
{\em Lemma (The comparison lemma): Suppose that $u(s)$ is a solution
of the equation
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{d^{2}u}{ds^{2}}+F(s)u(s)=0
\end{displaymath}
on an interval $(a,b]$ with initial conditions:
$u(b)=0$ and $du/ds|_{b}\neq 0$. Let $v(s)$ be a solution of
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{d^{2}v}{ds^{2}}+G(s)v(s)=0
\end{displaymath}
on $(a,b]$ such that $v(b)=0$,
$dv/ds|_{b}=du/ds|_{b}$ and $v(s)>0$ on $(a,b)$.
Assume also that $F(s)$ and $G(s)$ are piecewise continuous on
$(a,b]$, and let $G(s)\geq F(s)$ on $(a,b]$. Then
$u(s)\geq v(s)$ on $(a,b]$. }
\vspace{3mm}
$Proof:$ \, The proof of this lemma is based essentially on Theorem 1.2
of Ref. [13], p. 210. To apply this theorem in its original form, it is
convenient to reparametrize both of the equations in the lemma
introducing the parameter $t=-s$ instead of $s$. Note that this
reparametrization does not change the form of the equations. Clearly,
we shall now have established the lemma if we show that for any $c\in
(a,b)$, $u(t)\geq v(t)$ on $[-b,-c]$.
Consider the ratio $u(t)/v(t)$. Since $v(t)>0$ on $(-b,-a)$, it is
well defined on $(-b,-c]$. Using l'Hospital's rule, we get
\begin{displaymath}
\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow -b}\frac{u(t)}{v(t)}=1.
\end{displaymath}
Therefore, as $v(t)>0$ on $(-b,-c]$, to show that
$u(t)\geq v(t)$ on $[-b,-c]$, it suffices to show that
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{u(t)}{v(t)}\right]\geq 0
\end{displaymath}
on $(-b,-c]$. It is easy to see that this inequality
holds if
\begin{equation}
\frac{v(t)}{\dot{v}(t)}\geq \frac{u(t)}{\dot{u}(t)}
\end{equation}
on $(-b,-c]$, where the overdot denotes the first derivative with
respect to $t$. Since $F(t)$ and $G(t)$ are piecewise continuous on
$[-b,-c]$, by Theorem 1.2 of Ref. 13, p. 210, we have
\begin{displaymath}
\tan^{-1}\left[\frac{v(t)}{\dot{v}(t)}\right]\geq
\tan^{-1}\left[\frac{u(t)}{\dot{u}(t)} \right]
\end{displaymath}
for all $t\in [-b,-c]$. Thus, as $\tan^{-1}$ is an increasing
function, the inequality (3) does hold as it is desirable.
\hfill $\Box$
{\em Proof of the theorem:}
(Part I) Suppose the condition (i) is satisfied. Let $z_{0}(t)$ be a
solution of Eq. (1) along $\eta(t)$ such that $z_{0}(t)$ is
not identically zero on $(0,b]$ and $z_{0}(b)=0$, where $b$ is the
parameter value mentioned in condition (i). Clearly, such a solution
will always exist. Since $\eta(t)$ generates an achronal set,
$z_{0}(t)$ can vanish nowhere in $(0,b)$; otherwise $\eta(t)$ would
have a pair of conjugate points in $(0,b]$ (see Ref. [4]), which would
contradict, by Proposition 4.5.12 of Ref. [10], the achronality of
$\eta(t)$. Notice also that Eq. (1) is linear, and so the function
$-z_{0}(t)$ will be a solution of Eq. (1) as well. Thus, as $z_{0}(t)
\neq 0$ on $(0,b)$, without loss of generality we can assume that
$z_{0}(t)>0$ on $(0,b)$. This implies, as $z_{0}(b)=0$, that
$dz_{0}/dt|_{b}\leq 0$. Since $z_{0}(t)>0$ on $(0,b)$, and condition
(i) holds, from Eq. (1) we see at once that $z_{0}(t)$ must be a
concave function on $(0,b]$. This makes it obvious that
$dz_{0}/dt|_{b}\neq 0$, and so we must have $dz_{0}/dt|_{b}=\alpha<0$.
Let us now define the function $z_{1}(t)\equiv-(1/\alpha)z_{0}(t)$. As
Eq. (1) is linear, it is clear that $z_{1}(t)$ will be a solution of
Eq. (1) along $\eta(t)$; notice also that $z_{1}(t)>0$ on $(0,b)$,
$z_{1}(b)=0$ and $dz_{1}/dt|_{b}=-1$.
Consider now the equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}x}{dt^{2}}+\omega x(t)=0,
\end{equation}
where $\omega=\frac{1}{2}\inf\{r(t)|\, 0<t\leq b\}$ and $r(t)$ is the
function defined in the theorem. Notice that $\omega>0$ by condition
(i). Let $x_{1}(t)$ be a solution of Eq. (4) on $(0,b]$ with initial
conditions: $x_{1}(b)=0$ and $dx_{1}/dt|_{b}=-1$. It is a simple matter
to see that $x_{1}(t)=\omega^{-1/2}\sin[\omega^{1/2} (b-t)]$. Let us
now apply the comparison lemma to the equations (1) and (4) and their
solutions $z_{1}(t)$ and $x_{1}(t)$. Since $\omega\leq\frac{1}{2}r(t)$
on $(0,b]$, by the comparison lemma we must have
$x_{1}(t)\geq z_{1}(t)$ on $(0,b]$. Consequently, as $z_{1}(t)>0$ on
$(0,b)$, we obtain $x_{1}(t)>0$ on $(0,b)$. This implies, by the
above form of $x_{1}(t)$, that $\omega\leq(\pi/b)^{2}$. But $\omega\geq
(\pi/b)^{2}$ by condition (1). We must thus have $\omega=(\pi/b)^{2}$,
which gives $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}x_{1}(t)=0$. Therefore
$\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}z_{1}(t)=0$ since $x_{1}(t)\geq z_{1}(t)> 0$ on
$(0,b)$. This means that $\eta(t)$ does satisfy the inextendibility
condition.
(Part II) The task is now to prove the theorem in the case when
condition (ii) holds. For this purpose, let us consider the following
equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}y}{dt^{2}}+Bt^{-\mu}y(t)=0
\end{equation}
on $(0,c]$, where $B=\kappa /2$, and $\kappa$, $\mu$ and $c$ are some
fixed constants mentioned in the condition (ii). Let $y_{1}(t)$ be a
solution of this equation with initial conditions: $y_{1}(c)=0$ and
$dy_{1}/dt|_{c}=-1$. Let $z_{2}(t)$ be a solution of Eq. (1) along
$\eta(t)$ such that $z_{2}(c)=0$ and $dz_{2}/dt|_{c}=-1$. [There is no
loss of generality in assuming $z_{2}(t)$ to exist; the existence of
$z_{2}(t)$ can be established in the same manner as the existence of
the analogous solution $z_{1}(t)$ considered in the first part of the
proof.] Clearly, the solution $z_{2}(t)$, just as $z_{1}(t)$, can vanish
nowhere in $(0,c)$ by the argument with conjugate points. Therefore, as
$dz_{2}/dt|_{c}=-1$, we must have $z_{2}(t)>0$ on $(0,c)$. Let us now
apply the comparison lemma to the equations (1) and (5) and their
solutions $z_{2}(t)$ and $y_{1}(t)$. By condition (ii) we
have $r(t) \geq \kappa
t^{-\mu}$ on $(0,c]$. Thus by the comparison lemma, we must have
$y_{1}(t)\geq z_{2}(t)$ on $(0,c]$. Of course, in order to prove the
theorem, it suffices to show that $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}z_{2}(t)=0$.
Thus, as $y_{1}(t)\geq z_{2}(t)>0$ on $(0,c)$, to complete the proof it
suffices to show that $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}y_{1}(t)=0$. We shall show
below that $y_{1}(t)$ does possess this property.
To this end, let us first find the general solution of Eq. (5). It is
easy to check that if one puts $x=t$, $\alpha=1/2$, $\beta=
2\sqrt{B}(2-\mu)^{-1}$, $\gamma=(2-\mu)/2$ and $n=(2-\mu)^{-1}$
into the equation (4.1) of Ref. [14], p. 138, then this equation reduces
to our equation (5). Thus, according to the solution (4.3) of Eq. (4.1)
of Ref. [14], our equation (5) has the following general solution
\begin{equation}
y(t)=t^{1/2}[C_{1}J_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})+C_{2}Y_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})],
\end{equation}
where $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are arbitrary constants of integration, and
$J_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})$ and $Y_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})$ are the Bessel
functions of order $n$, of the first and second kind, respectively.
Since $\mu\in (0,2)$, from the above relations it follows that
$1/2<n<\infty$, $\sqrt{B}<\beta<\infty$ and $0<\gamma<1$.
Let us recall that any Bessel function of the first kind has infinitely
many positive zeros (cf., e.g., [15], p. 29). Let $j_{n,1}$ be the
first positive zero of the function $J_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})$, i.e.,
$J_{n}(j_{n,1})=0$ and $J_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})\neq 0$ as long as
$0<\beta t^{\gamma}<j_{n,1}$. Since $n>1/2$, $j_{n,1}$ must satisfy the
following relation (see Eq. (2) of Ref. [15], p. 29):
\begin{equation}
j_{n,1}<2[(n+1)(n+5)/3]^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
For $J_{n}(\beta t^{\gamma})$ we now define $L$ to be the number such
that $j_{n,1}=L\beta c^{\gamma}$. Putting this into (7), and taking
into account the fact that $\beta =(2\kappa)^{1/2}(2-\mu)^{-1}$,
$\kappa=3^{-1}(66-52\mu+10\mu^{2})c^{\mu-2}$, $\gamma=(2-\mu)/2$ and
$n=(2-\mu)^{-1}$, we readily find that $L^{2}<1$.
Consider now equation (5) with $B$ replaced by $B'=L^{2} B$.
Let $y_{2}(t)$ be a solution of this equation on $(0,c]$
with initial conditions: $y_{2}(c)=0$ and $dy_{2}/dt|_{c}=-1$. The
general form of this solution is given by (6), where $\beta$ should be
replaced by $\beta'= 2\sqrt{B'}(2-\mu)^{-1}$ (notice that $\beta'=
L\beta$). Let us now insert the initial conditions for $y_{2}(t)$ into
this general solution in order to determine for $y_{2}(t)$ the
constants $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ occurring in (6). To find the first
derivative of the general solution (6), we use the following recurrence
formula
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{dJ_{n}(x)}{dx}=-J_{n+1}(x)+\frac{n}{x}J_{n}(x),
\end{displaymath}
which is also valid for $Y_{n}(x)$ (see [15], p. 197). We can now
easily calculate the constants $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$; the result is as
follows
\begin{equation}
C_{1}=\frac{Y_{n}(\beta'c^{\gamma})}{\beta'\gamma c^{\gamma
-1/2}\left[Y_{n}(\beta'c^{\gamma})
J_{n+1}(\beta'c^{\gamma})-Y_{n+1}(\beta'c^{\gamma})
J_{n}(\beta'c^{\gamma})\right]}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
C_{2}=\frac{-J_{n}(\beta'c^{\gamma})}{\beta'\gamma c^{\gamma
-1/2}\left[Y_{n}(\beta' c^{\gamma}) J_{n+1}(\beta'
c^{\gamma})-Y_{n+1}(\beta' c^{\gamma})J_{n}(\beta' c^{\gamma})\right]}.
\end{equation}
As $\beta'=L \beta$, from the above definition of $L$ it is clear
that $\beta' c^{\gamma}=j_{n,1}$. Thus $J_{n}(\beta' c^{\gamma}) =0$
and the numerator in (9) must vanish. As $J_{n}(\beta' c^{\gamma})=0$,
the denominator in (9) can vanish only if $Y_{n}(\beta'c^{\gamma})
J_{n+1}(\beta' c^{\gamma})=0$. But the Bessel functions $J_{n+1}$ and
$Y_{n}$ cannot have any common zeros with the Bessel function $J_{n}$
(see [15], pp. 29-32), and so the denominator in (9) cannot vanish.
We thus have $C_{2}=0$ and, by (6) and (8), the solution $y_{2}(t)$ can
be written as follows
\begin{equation}
y_{2}(t)=C_{1}t^{1/2}J_{n}(\beta' t^{\gamma}),
\end{equation}
where $C_{1}=[\beta'\gamma c^{\gamma -1/2}J_{n+1}(\beta'
c^{\gamma})]^{-1}$.
Let us now compare the solutions $y_{1}(t)$ and $y_{2}(t)$ by means of
the comparison lemma. Recall that $y_{1}(t)$ is a solution of equation
(5) with $B=\kappa/2$, while $y_{2}(t)$ is a solution of the same
equation with $B$ replaced by $B'=L^{2}\kappa/2$. Since $L^{2}<1$, by
the comparison lemma we must have $y_{2}(t)\geq y_{1}(t)$ for all $t\in
(0,c]$. We recall that any Bessel function $J_{k}(x)$ of the first kind
with real $x$ and $k>0$ is continuous at $x=0$ (cf. [15], p. 182).
Thus, as $n>1/2$ and $0<\gamma<1$, from (10) it follows immediately
that $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}y_{2}(t)=0$. Therefore, as $y_{2}(t)\geq
y_{1}(t)>0$ on $(0,c)$, we obtain $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}y_{1}(t)=0$,
which completes the proof. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Concluding remarks}
We have been concerned in this paper with the problem of determining
what are curvature conditions for the occurrence of singularities
corresponding to the inextendibility condition. We have found two such
sufficient conditions concerning the behavior of the Ricci tensor term
$R_{ab}K^{a}K^{b}$ along incomplete null geodesics---these are
conditions (i) and (ii) of the theorem stated in Sec. II. This
theorem shows that the inextendibility condition may hold for a
considerably larger class of possible singularities than only those of
the strong curvature type. In particular, condition (i) of the theorem
shows that the inextendibility condition may hold even if the curvature
along incomplete geodesics would remain bounded. In this context, it is
worth recalling that singularities predicted by the famous singularity
theorems [10] can be interpreted as regions of the universe at which
the normal classical spacetime picture and/or certain energy conditions
break down, and this may occur in regions where the curvature, though
extremely large, still remains finite. Accordingly, if one attempts to
establish, for example, whether or not these singular regions will
conform to any cosmic censorship principle, it would be well to try to
characterize, if necessary, incomplete geodesics terminating in these
regions by a condition that may hold even if the curvature along the
geodesics would remain bounded. One possible candidate for such a
condition may thus be the inextendibility condition.
It should also be stressed here that some earlier cosmic censorship
theorems [6,16,17] proved for strong curvature singularities can
be extended to singularities corresponding to the inextendibility
condition. To see this, let us first recall that these theorems show,
briefly, that under certain restrictions imposed on the causal
structure, strong curvature singularities are censored (see Refs.
[6,16,17] for details). Proofs of these theorems are, in essence,
alike. In a brief outline, they run as follows. First, one shows that
if the theorem under consideration were false, then there would have to
exist a sequence $\{\mu_{i}\}$ of future endless, future complete null
geodesics converging to a null geodesic $\mu$ that terminates in the
future at a strong curvature singularity. One also shows that $\mu$ and
all the $\mu_{i}$ must be generators of achronal sets. As all $\mu_{i}$
are achronal, none of them can have a pair of conjugate points, and so
any irrotational congruence of Jacobi fields along any $\mu_{i}$ cannot
be refocused. As $\{\mu_{i}\}$ converges to $\mu$, this must then
imply, by continuity, that any irrotational congruence of Jacobi fields
along $\mu$ cannot be refocused as well. However, as $\mu$ terminates
in a strong curvature singularity, all irrotational congruences of
Jacobi fields along $\mu$ should be refocused. This gives the required
contradiction. It is not difficult to see, however, that this
contradiction can equally well be obtained if $\mu$ would be assumed to
satisfy the inextendibility condition, for this condition holds if at
least one irrotational congruence of Jacobi fields along a given
geodesic is refocused. It is thus clear that the censorship theorems
given in Refs. [6,16,17] are unnecessarily restricted to strong
curvature singularities and they can be extended to singularities
corresponding to the inextendibility condition.
\acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the Polish State
Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) under Grant No. 2 P03B 073 15.
|
\section{Introduction}
The possible changes of space-time properties at small (Plank) scale
now extensively discussed $\cite{Aha,Dop}$. Due to the absence of
any experimental
information it seems instructive to look for some directions
exploring attentively the standard
Quantum Physics space-time structure.
Some years ago Aharonov and Kaufherr have shown that in nonrelativistic
Quantum Mechanics (QM) the correct definition of physical reference
frame (RF) must differ from commonly accepted one, which in fact was
transferred copiously from Classical Physics $\cite{Aha}$. The main reason
is that to perform exact quantum description
one should account the quantum properties
not only of studied object, but also RF, despite the possible practical
smallness.
The most simple of this RF properties is the existence of Schroedinger
wave packet of free macroscopic object with which RF is usually
associated $\cite {Schiff}$. Then it introduces
additional uncertainty into the measurement of object space coordinate
in this RF.
Furthermore this effect results in the states transformations
between two such RFs which includes quantum corrections to the
standard Galilean group transfromations $\cite{Aha}$.
Algebraic and group theorettical structure of this transformation was
studied in $\cite{Tol}$.
In their work Aharonov and Kaufherr formulated Quantum Equivalence
Principle (QEP) in nonrelativistic QM - all the laws of Physics are invariant
under transformations between both classic and this finite mass RFs
which called quantum RFs.
The importance of RF quantum properties account was shown already in
Quantum Gravity and Cosmology studies $\cite {Rov,Unr,Dew}$ and will
be considered here in connection with the time problem in quantum
gravity.
In this paper the consistent
relativistic covariant theory of quantum RFs formulated,
our preliminary results were published \cite{May2}.
In this theory no new {\it ad hoc} hypothesis introduced;
all calculations are performed in the standard QM formalism.
It will be shown that the transformation of the particle state
between two quantum RFs obeys to relativistic invariance
principles, but differs from standard Poincare Group
transformations, due to quantum relativistic correction
for RF motion. Solving the evolution equation
for quantum clocks models the proper time in moving quantum RF
calculated and the related effects of RF momentum quantum fluctuations
revealed. This clocks model applied for the analysis of
the space-time structure of
canonical quantum gravity $\cite {Rov}$.
In chap.2 canonical
formalism for quantum RFs described. In chap.3 we study
quantum clocks models and obtain relativistic proper time
for quantum RF. In chap.4 the relativistic evolution equations
and unitary transformations for quantum RFs described.
We'll consider also RF quantum motion in gravitation field
where gravitational 'red shift' results in additional
clocks time fluctuations.
\section{Quantum Coordinates Transformations }
For the beginning we'll consider Quantum Measurements problems related
to Quantum RFs model.
In QM framework the system defined as RF should be able to measure
the observables of studied quantum states and so
include the measuring device - detector D.
As the realistic example we can regard the photoemulsion plate or
the diamond crystal which can measure the particle position
and simultaneously record it.
Despite the multiple proposals up to now the established
theory of collapse doesn't exist
$\cite{May,Desp}$.
Yet our problem premises doesn't connected
directly with any state vector collapse mechanism and
and it's enough to detailize standard QM collapse postulate of
von Neumann measurement theory $\cite {Desp}$.
We consider RF which consists of
finite number of atoms (usually rigidly connected) and have the finite
mass.
It's well known that the solution of Schroedinger equation for
any free quantum system can be factorized as :
\begin {equation}
\Psi(t)=
\sum c_l\Phi^c_l(\vec{R}_c,t)*\phi_l(u_{k},t) \label {A1}
\end {equation}
where center of mass coordinate $\vec{R}_c=\sum m_i*\vec{r}_i/M$,
$c_l$ are the partial amplitudes. $u_k$ describes the internal degrees of
freedom, which for potential forces are reduced to
$\vec{r}_{i,j}=\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j$
$\cite{Schiff}$. Here $\Phi^c_l$ describes the c.m. motion of the system.
It means that the evolution of the
system is separated into the external
evolution of pointlike particle M and the internal evolution
defined by $\phi_l(u_{k},t)$.
So the internal evolution is
independent of whether the system is localized
in some 'absolute' reference frame (ARF)
or not. Quantum Field Theory evidences that the
factorization of c.m.
and relative motion holds true even for nonpotential forces and
variable $N$ in the secondarily quantized systems $\cite{Schw}$.
Moreover this factorization expected to be correct for nonrelativistic
systems
where binding energy is much less then its mass $M$, which is
characteristic for the real detectors and clocks.
Consequently it's reasonable
to assume that this factorization fulfilled also
for the detector states despite we don't know
their exact structure. For our problem it's enough to assume
that eq.(\ref{A1}) holds for RF state
only in the time interval $T$
from RF preparation moment $t_0$ until the act of measurement starts
, i.e. the measured particle $n$ wave packet $\psi_n$ impacts with D.
If this factorization holds the space coordinate measured in this RF
depends not only on $\psi_n$ but also on $\Phi_l^c$ which permit
in principle to study quantum RF effects. In this case
the possible factorization violation at later time when
the particle state collapse occured is unimportant for us.
We regard
in our model that all measurements are performed on
the quantum pairs ensemble of particles $G^2$ and
$F^1$. It means that each event is resulted
from the interaction between the 'fresh' RF and particle
,prepared both in the specified quantum
states, alike the particle alone in the standard experiment.
To illustrate the meaning of Quantum RF
consider gedankenexperiment where in ARF
the wave packet of RF $F^1$
described by $\psi_1=\eta_1(x)\xi_1(y)\zeta_1(z)$ at time moment $t_0$.
The test particle $n$
with mass $m_n$ belongs to narrow beam which average velocity
is orthogonal to $x$ axe
and its wave function at $t_0$ is $\psi_n=\eta_n(x)\xi_n(y)\zeta_n(z)$.
Before they start
to interact this system wave function is the product of $F^1$ and $n$
packets.
We want to find $n$ wave function for the observer in
$F^1$ rest frame. In general it can be done by means of the canonical
transformations described below,
but in the simplest case when $n$ beam is localized so that
$\psi_n$ can be approximated
by delta-function $\delta(x-x_b)\delta(y-y_b)\delta(z-z_b)$
n wave function in $F^1$ easily calculated
$\psi'_n(\vec{r}'_n)=\eta_1(x'_n-x_b)\xi_1(y'_n-y_b)\zeta_1(z'_n-z_b)$.
It shows that if for example $F^1$ wave packet along $x$ axe
have average width $\sigma_x$ then from the 'point of view'
of observer in $F^1$ each object localized in ARF acquires wave packet of the
same width $\sigma_x$ in $F^1$ and any measurement in $F^1$ and ARF
will confirm this conclusion.
The generalized Jacoby canonical formalism will be applied in our
model alternatively to Quantum Potentials used in $\cite{Aha}$.
Consider the system $S_N$ of $N$ objects $W^k$ which
include $N_f$ frames $F^i$ which
have also some internal degrees of freedom and
$N_g=N-N_f$ pointlike 'particles' $G^i$.
At this stage we can regard both of them as equivalent objects in the relation
to their c.m. motion.
We'll assume for the beginning that particles and RFs canonical
operators $\vec{r}_i,\vec{p}_i$ are defined
in absolute (classical) ARF - $F^0$ having very large mass $m_0$,
but later this assumption can be abandoned.
We'll start with Jacoby canonical coordinates $\vec{u}_j^l$ associated
with $F^l$ rest frame, which for $l=1$ equal :
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{u}^1_{i}=\frac{\sum\limits^N_{j=i+1}m_j\vec{r}_{j}}{M_{i+1}}
-\vec{r}^l_{i} ;\quad 1\le i<N ;
\quad \vec{u}_N=\vec{u}_s=\vec{R}_{c} \quad \label{B1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_i=\sum\limits^{N}_{j=i}m_j$. $\vec{u}^l_i$ can be obtained
and is the linear combination of $\vec{u}^1_i$.
Conjugated to $\vec{u}^l_i$ canonical momentums are :
\begin {equation}
\vec{\pi}^1_i=
\mu_i(\frac{\vec{p}^s_{i+1}}{M_{i+1}}-\frac{\vec{p}_{i}}{m_{i}}) ,\quad
\vec{\pi}_N=\vec{p}_s=\vec{p}^s_1 \label{B2}
\end {equation}
where $\vec{p}^s_{i}=\sum\limits^{N}_{j=i}\vec{p}_j$
,and reduced mass
$ \mu^{-1}_i=M_{i+1}^{-1}+m_{i}^{-1} $ .
The relative coordinates $\vec{r}_j-\vec{r}_1$ can be represented
as the linear sum of
$\vec{u}^1_i$. They don't
constitute canonical set due to the quantum motion of $F^1$ $\cite{Aha}$.
The Hamiltonian of $S_N$ motion in ARF is expressed also via
momentums $\vec{\pi}^1_i$ :
\begin {equation}
\hat{H}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\vec{p}_i^2}{2m_i}=
\frac{\vec{p}_s^2}{2M}+
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{(\vec{\pi}^{1}_j)^2}{2\mu_j}
=\hat{H}_s+\hat{H}_c \label {B5}
\end {equation}
In $F^1$ rest frame the true observables are $\vec{\pi}^1_i ,
\vec{u}^1_i$ and it's impossible to measure
$S_N$ observables $\vec{p}_s$ and $\vec{R}_c$. The true
Hamiltonian of $S_N$ in $F^1$ should depend on the true observables
only , so we can regard $\hat{H}_c$ as the real candidate for its role.
It results into modified Schroedinger equation
which depends not only of particles masses ,but on observer mass $m_1$
also.
Now we'll regard here the alternatve form of this formalism which use
Jacoby frame condition (JFC) and
is more convenient for the relativistic problem.
For the described system $S_N$ Langrangian in ARF
$L=\sum\frac{m_i\dot{\vec{r}}_i^2}{2}$
gives $H$ of ($\ref{B5}$) after Legandre transform.
If one wish to include ARF motion in this formalism the simplest
way is to define formally $L'=L+\frac{m_0\dot{\vec{r}}_0}{2}$.
It gives $N+1$ canonical momentums :
$\vec{p}_j=\frac{\partial L'}{\partial\dot{\vec{r}}_j}$.
The new Langrangian $L'$ is formally symmetric relative to
the frame choice and it gives the Hamiltonian $H'=H+\frac{\vec{p}_0^2}{2m_0}$
for $H$ of ($\ref{B5}$). Due to it to anchor this momentums
and $H'$ to $F^i$ rest frame in which they
acquire some values
one must broke $L'$ symmetry introducing the frame condition (FC)
or kinematical (holonomial) constraint $\cite{Git}$. For ARF rest frame
we choose FC $\vec{p}^{\,2n}_0 \approx 0$, where from the formal reasons
$n=2$. It means that $\dot{\vec{r}}_0=0$ - RF is at rest relative to
itself which seems quite natural, yet it
differs from FC used in $\cite{Aha}$.
All Classical and QM results are reproduced in this scheme if ARF mass
is taken infinite.
$S_N$ quantization in $F^1$ performed with Hamitonian $\hat{H'}$
and FC regarded as the operator which obeys to
Dirack rules for the first order constraints $\cite {Dir,Git}$.
Galilean-like passive transformations from ARF to $F^1$
and back can be found introducing FC also for
$F^1$ $\vec{p}^{\,2n}_{11}\approx 0$, where
$\vec{p}_{1i}$ are the canonical momentums in $F^1$.
$S_{N+1}$ unitary transformation from ARF to $F^1$
is convenient to write via the $F^{0,1}$ total momentum
$\vec{p}_f=\vec{p}_0+\vec{p}_1$
and $F^0,F^1$ relative momentum $\vec{\pi}_f$
conserving other momentums $\vec{p}_i$.
Their conjugated coordinates $\vec{r}_f,\vec{u}_f$ have the standard
form of ($\ref {B1}$).
In this notations the transformation from $F^0$ to $F^1$ is equal to :
\begin {equation}
U_{1,0}=P_f e^{i a_f\vec{p}_f\vec{r}_f}e^{-i\vec{p}_f\vec{b}_s}
\prod_{i=2}^{N}e^{-im_i\vec{r}_i\vec{\beta}} \label{BBB}
\end {equation}
where
$a_f=\ln\frac{{m}_0}{m_1}, \vec{b}_s=\frac{M}{m_0}\langle\vec{R}_c\rangle$.
$P_f$ is $\vec{r}_f$ reflection (parity) operator.
$\vec{\beta}=\frac{\vec{p}_f}{m_1}$ is the operator corresponding
to the velocity parameter in Galilean transformation.
Under this transformation $\vec{p}_f$ transformed to
$\vec{p}_{1f}=\vec{p}_{10}+\vec{p}_{11}$
and $\vec{\pi}_{1f}= \vec{\pi}_{f}$.
Alike the transformation from $\vec{p}_j$ to $\vec{\pi}^1_i$ obtained
operator $U_{1,0}$ includes the dilatation transformation $\cite{Bar}$.
For $N=2$ one obtains $F^1$ momentums and coordinates :
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{p}_{10}=(1-\frac{m_0}{m_1})\vec{p}_0-\frac{m_0}{m_1}\vec{p}_1 \quad ;\quad
\vec{r}_{10}=-\frac{m_1\vec{r}_1+m_2\vec{r}_2}{m_0}+\vec{b}_s \nonumber \\
\vec{p}_{11}=-\vec{p}_0 \quad ;\quad
\vec{r}_{11}=-\vec{r}_0+(1-\frac{m_1}{m_0})\vec{r}_1-\frac{m_2}{m_0}\vec{r}_2
+\vec{b}_s \label {BA} \\
\vec{p}_{12}=-\frac{m_2}{m_1}(\vec{p}_0+\vec{p}_1)+\vec{p}_2 \quad ; \quad
\vec{r}_{12}=\vec{r}_2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Results for $N>2$ can be easily deduced from this formulaes.
It's easy to see that ARF FC transformed into $F^1$ FC. All $\vec{\pi}^1_i$
are conserved and space shift on $\vec{b}_s$ conserves all the
distances $ \vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j$.
In the limit where heavy $F^1$ moves nearly classically $U_{01}$ becomes
the Galilean momentum transformation with the velocity
$\langle\vec{\beta}\rangle$.
$S_{N+1}$ Hamitonian in $F^1$ also can be rewritten via
new relative momentums $\vec{\pi}_{1j}$ which can be easily
derived following ($\ref {B2}$) :
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^1=\sum^N_{i=0}\frac{\vec{p}^2_{1i}}{2m_i}=H^1_s+H^1_c
=\frac{\vec{p}_{1s}^2}{2M_{N+1}}+
\sum_{j=2}^{N+1}\frac{\vec{\pi}_{1j}^2}{2\mu_{1j}}
\label {BYY}
\end{equation}
The term $\hat{H}^1_s$ describes
$S_N$ c.m. motion relative to $F^1$ which
doesn't influence on the evolution of $S_{N+1}$ true observables
$\vec{\pi}_{1i} , \vec{u}_{1i}$ or $\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j$.
$\vec{r}_{1i},\vec{p}_{1i}$ aren't $S_{N+1}$ observables
for $F^1$ observer, yet $\vec{p}_{1i}$ expectation values
can be found from $\vec{\pi}^1_i$ measurements
Now we have quantum system $S_{N+1}$ which include ARF and in ARF
rest frame we can ascribe to it
without any contradictions with QM the state vector which for $N=2$
is equal :
$\psi_s(\vec{p}_0,\vec{p}_1,\vec{p}_2)=\varphi(\vec{p}_1,\vec{p}_2)
|\vec{p}_0=0\rangle |\vec{p}_1\rangle |\vec{p}_2\rangle$.
After $U_{1,0}$ transformation it acquires the similar form in $F^1$
rest frame with $|\vec{p}_{11}=0\rangle$.
As the result of this transform we obtain the new canonical coordinates
referred to finite mass $F^1$ rest frame. They permit to factorize
internal $S_N$ motion and ARF motion and dropping ARF term in $H^1$
of ($\ref{BYY}$) we obtain $S_N$ Hamitonian.
Remind that active transformation shifts $G^2$ state $\psi_2$ on the
distance $\vec{a}$
and velocity $\vec{\beta}$ relative to RF. Passive $G^2$ transformation
means the transition from one RF to another, but for quantum RF with
state $\psi_s$ it can't be described by any state shift on
$\vec{a},\vec{\beta}$ and have more complicated form.
$U_{1,0}$ is such passive transformation and active $G^2$ transformation
is the standard Galilean one even in $F^1$ $\cite {Schw}$.
In general the quantum transformations in 2 or 3 dimensions
should also take into account the possible
rotation of quantum RF axes relative to ARF, which introduce
additional angular uncertainty into objects coordinates. Thus after
performing coordinate transformation $\hat{U}_{A,1}$ from ARF
to $F^1$ c.m. we must rotate all the
objects (including ARF) around it on the uncertain polar and
azimuthal angles $,\phi_1,\theta_1$ which are $F^1$ internal
degrees of freedom. We can imagine $F^1$ axes as some
solid rods which orientation this angles describe.
As the result the complete transformation is:
$\hat{U}^T_{A,1}=\hat{U}^R_{A,1}\hat{U}_{A,1}$.
Such rotation transformation operator commutes with $\hat{H}_c$ and due to it
can't change the evolution of the transformed states $\cite{Aha,May2}$.
\section {Quantum Clocks Models}
To construct the relativistic covariant formalism of quantum RFs
it's necessary first to define the time in such RFs.
In nonrelativistic mechanics time $t$ is universal and
is independent of observer, while in relativistic
case each observer in principle has its own proper time $\tau$.
We don't know yet the nature of time , but phenomenologically
it can be associated with the clock hands motion or some other relative
motion of the system parts $\cite {Hol}$.
In Special Relativity the time in moving frame $F^1$ can be defined
by external observer at rest measuring the state of $F^1$ comoving clocks.
We'll consider the same procedure in relativistic QM i.e.
some clock observable being measured at some time from the rest frame
gives the estimate of proper time of moving quantum RF $F^1$.
For some clocks models $F^1$ internal evolution which define $F^1$ clocks
motion and consequently its proper time $\tau_1$ can be factorized
from $F^1$ c.m. motion.
Its quantum c.m. motion described by the
relativistic Schrodinger equation for massive boson.
This is Klein-Gordon
square root (KGR) equation in which only positive root
will be regarded for initial positive energy state $\cite{Schw}$.
Solving Dirack constraints
it was shown recently that this first order equation is
completely equivalent to
free Field secondary quantization $\cite {Git2}$.
For our relativistic model we should regard more strictly the features of
reference frames and clocks, taking into account the internal motion.
Consider the evolution of some system $F^1$ where the internal interactions
described by the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_c$
are nonrelativistic , which as was discussed in chap.1 is a reasonable
approximation for the measuring devices or clocks.
We'll use the parameter $\alpha_I=\frac{\bar{H}_c}{m_1}$
,where $m_1$ is $F^1$ constituents total rest mass. In $F^1$ c.m.
$\alpha_I=m_1^{-1}\langle\varphi_c|\hat{H}_c|\varphi_c\rangle$
where $\varphi_c$ is $F^1$ internal state of ($\ref{A1}$). It describes
the relative strength of the internal $F^1$ interactions and for the
realistic clocks is of the order $10^{-10}$.
In addition we'll assume that all RF
constituents spins and orbital momentums are compensated
so that its total orbital momentum is zero, like in $\alpha$-particle
ground state.
In this case the system $F^1$ c.m. motion can be reduced to the
motion of the spinless boson with the mass $m_1$ and
in the next order the mass operator $m_t=m_1+H_c$ will be used.
We'll start the proper time study with the simple models
of quantum RFs with clocks, yet we expect its main results to be true
also for the more sophisticated models.
To introduce our main idea let's regard the dynamics of the
moving clocks in Special relativity $\cite {Dew}$. We'll suppose that the
proper (clocks) time is defined by the coordinate $\theta$
describing some internal system motion independent of its
c.m. motion. For the simplicity assume that
Hamiltonian of clocks $H_c$ results in the trajectory
$\theta(t)=\omega t+\theta_0$ of the clocks canonical observable $\theta$,
which renormalized into the time observable $\tau=\frac{\theta}{\omega}$.
This is the property which is expected from ideal clocks and
the simplest example of such system is the motion of free
particle relative to observer $\tau=\frac{x}{v}$ $\cite {Hol}$.
For this and some other clocks models described below the
Hamitonian of clocks
with mass $m_1$ which c.m. moves with momentum $\vec{p}_1$ relative
to ARF :
$$
H_T=(m_t^2+\vec{p}_1^2)^\frac{1}{2}
$$
where $m_t=m_1+H_c$.
If $\theta ,\vec{p}_1$ commutes, solving Hamilton equations
in ARF time $\tau_0$ one obtains $\theta(\tau_0)=B_1\omega \tau_0+\theta_0'$,
where $B_1=\frac{m_t}{H_T}$ coincides with Lorentz boost value.
So as expected , if $\theta$ is measured by the observer at rest
he finds the proper time $\tau_1=B_1 \tau_0$ of moving frame.
Yet we'll show that the quantum fluctuations
of RF motion results in the principally new additional effects.
One of the most simple and illustrative
quantum clocks models is the quantum rotator proposed by Peres
\cite{Per}. The rotator Hamiltonian
$\hat{H}_c=-2\pi \omega i \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$
, where $\theta$ is the rotator's polar angle.
Preparing the special initial state
$\varphi_c(\theta)=|v^0_J\rangle$ at $t=0$,
where $J$ is its maximum orbital momentum
one obtains the close resemblance of
the classical clocks hand motion.
The clocks state $\varphi_c(\theta-2\pi\omega t)$
for large $J$ has the sharp peak at
$\bar{\theta}=2\pi\omega t$ with the uncertainty
$\Delta_{\theta}=\pm \frac{\pi}{N}$ and can be visualized as the constant
hand motion on the clocks circle.
Our main clocks model - $C_x$ exploits
the nonrelativistic particle motion relative to observer with Hamitonian
$H_c=\frac{\vec{p}^{\,2}}{2m}$
\cite {Hol}. Let's consider the particle 3-dimensional motion, but choose
as its initial state at $t=0$
the Gaussian packet factorized in $x$ direction which
momentum state vector is :
\begin {equation}
\phi_c(\vec{p})=A \phi(p_y,p_z)
e^{\frac{\sigma_x^2}{2}(\bar{p}_x -p_x)^2} \quad \label {CD}
\end {equation}
for which $\bar{p}_x\ne 0$. $\sigma_x$ is the initial wave packet spatial
spread. Then the simplest Hermitian
observable which gives the time estimate
is $\hat{\tau}=\frac{m x}{\bar{p_x}}$ -
the particle's position on the arbitrary $x$ axe.
It describes the nonshifted measurement with $\bar{\tau}=t$ and
the finite dispersion $D_0(t)$ for $0<t<\infty \cite {Hol}$.
In fact in $C_x$ model $\hat{\tau}$ is the clocks hand position operator
or the pseudotime operator, and not a time operator in a strict sense
$\cite{Hol,Per}$.
So from all sides $C_x$ can be regarded as the realistic clocks model
in which measuring $\hat{\tau}$ one obtains the correct $t$ estimate
with some statistical error having quantum origin.
$C_x$ wave function $\varphi_c(x,t)$ evolution can be factorized
as the packet centre of gravity motion with the constant velocity
$\frac{p_x}{m}$
and the packet smearing around it. For the given initial
state there is unambiguous correspondence
between the state vector
$|\varphi_c(x,t)\rangle$ and time $t$, so the quantum clocks synchronization
at $t=0$ means the preparation of the state $\varphi_c(x,0)$.
From the corresponding Heisenberg equation one can find
Heisenberg position operator for the Hamiltonian $H_c$ :
\begin {equation}
x(t)=(\frac{p_xt}{m}+x_0) \label {CAC}
\end {equation}
where $x_0=x(0)$ is Schrodinger position operator
If $\bar{x}_0=0$
the corresponding clock time operator, which will be extensively
used in relativistic theory can be decomposed as :
$$
\hat{\tau}=t+\frac{p_x-\bar{p}_x+x_0m}{\bar{p}_x}
$$
The first term gives the time expectation value and the rest gives
the clocks dispersion $D(t)$.
To simplify our discussion we'll consider
also the clocks model $C_0$ with
the linear approximation of the position
operator $x(t)=\omega t+x_0$ where parameter $\omega=\frac{\bar{p}_x}{m}$
which is the analog of Peres clocks for unbounded motion.
$C_0$ Hamiltonian $H_c^0=\omega p_x$ is unbounded
from below for the continuous spectra, but for the interpretation
of the relativistic clock effects it's unimportant.
Any initial $C_0$ state ($\ref{CD}$) evolves as
$\varphi^0_c (x-\omega t)$, so
the initial form of wave function is conserved and only its centre
of gravity moves.
Now we'll consider the relativistic $C_x$ model in which
RF $F^1$ and the particle $G^2$ system $S_2$ motion
is relativistic.
We'll suppose that ARF proper time $\tau_0$ is defined also by some
quantum clocks ,which dispersion is so small that can be neglected and
$\tau_0$ is the parameter. If
$F^1$ internal interactions neglected
$F^1$ c.m. motion described by the massive boson wave packet evolution
and $S_2$ Hamiltonian $H_T$
in ARF is the sum of two
KGR Hamiltonians for the positive energy states
$\cite{Schw,Git2}$:
\begin {equation}
H_T=(m_1^2+\vec{p}_{1}^{\,2})^{\frac{1}{2}}+(m_2^2+
\vec{p}_{2}^{\,2})^{\frac{1}{2}}=(s+\vec{p}_s^{\,2})^{\frac{1}{2}}
\label {C0}
\end {equation}
, where $\vec{p}_s=\vec{p}_1+\vec{p}_2$ and $s$ is invariant mass square.
$\sqrt{s}$ can be regarded as
the Hamiltonian of two objects $G^2, F^1$
relative motion in their c.m.s. equal to system $S_2$ mass operator :
\begin {equation}
m_t= \sqrt{s}=(m^2_1+\vec{q}^{\,2})^{\frac{1}{2}}
+(m^2_2+\vec{q}^{\,2})^{\frac{1}{2}} \label {C2XYY}
\end {equation}
where $\vec{q}$ is $G^2$ relative invariant momentum \cite{Coe}.
If $|\bar{q}|$ is small we can choose as $p_x$ - clock momentum $\vec{q}$
projection along any suitable direction for which $\bar{q}_x\ne 0$.
In this case $F^1 , G^2$ relative motion
can be regarded as nonrelativistic and $F^1$ mass operator
approximated :
$$
m_t\simeq m_s+\frac{q_x^2}{2\mu_{12}}+E_k(q_y,q_z)
$$
,where $\mu_{12}$ is $G^1,F^2$ reduced mass, $m_s=m_1+m_2$ is $S_2$ rest mass.
In this case $E_k$ is small and can be omitted in the calculations.
Like in nonrelativistic case
$F^1$ proper time in this $C_x$ relativistic model can be estimated
measuring in ARF the distance $x=x_2-x_1$ between $F^1$ and the particle
$G^2$ which operator is equal to :
$x=i\frac{\partial}{\partial q_x}$. For the obtained $m_t$
$S_2$ Hamiltonian $H_T$ can be formally rewritten :
\begin {equation}
{H}_T=[(m_s+H_c)^2+\vec{p}_s^{\,2}]^{\frac{1}{2}} \label {CA11}
\end {equation}
where $H_c=\frac{q_x^2}{2\mu_{12}}$.
Moreover it is reasonable to assume that this
square root Hamitonian can
describe the evolution of any clocks model with nonrelativistic interactions
$H_c$ i.e. for $\alpha_I\ll 1$ $ \cite{Schw}$.
Here and below the algebraic
operations with the operators (if they don't result into singularities)
means Tailor raw decomposition. If
$F^1, G^2$ relative motion is nonrelativistic we can assume for the beginning
that $F^1$ and $S_2$ c.m.s. proper time practically coincide.
For the classical motion $F^1$ Lorentz factor in $S_2$ c.m.s.
$(1+\frac{\vec{q}^{\,2}}{m^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and below we'll show that in quantum
case their difference is also negligible.
It's impossible to resolve in analytical form the Schrodinger
equation for $H_T$ of ($\ref {CA11}$) , only some approximated
solutions discussed below can be found.
$S_2$ observables evolution
can be found solving Heisenberg
equation for the Hamitonian $H_T$ of (\ref{CA11})
or for exact Hamitonian of (\ref{C0}) as will be done below \cite {Hol}.
After the simple algebra one obtains $x$ evolution
in ARF proper time $\tau_0$ :
\begin {eqnarray}
\dot{x}=-i[x,H_T]=
\frac{ -im_t}{(m_t^2+\vec{p}_s^2)^\frac{1}{2}}[x,H_c]=-iB_1[x,H_c]
\label {C0H}
\end {eqnarray}
We'll call the operator $B_1(\vec{p}_s,m_t)$ the time boost operator,
which interpretation will be discussed after some calculations.
The clock observables we obtain in this clock models
are the functions of canonical momentums only and due to it their
factor ordering is unimportant for our problem.
After the commutators calculations we can approximate operator $m_t$ by
the parameter $m_t\simeq m_s+\frac{\bar{q}_x^2}{2m}$.
The operator $x$ easily restored from $\dot{x}$ :
$$
x(\tau_0)=B_1(\vec{p}_s,m_t)\frac{q_x\tau_0}{\mu_{12}}+x_0
$$
where $x_0$ is Schroedinger position operator for $\tau_0=0$.
If we take that $\bar{x}_0=0$ it results into $F^1$ proper time operator :
\begin {equation}
\hat{\tau}_1= B_1(\vec{p}_s,m_t) \frac{q_x}{\bar{q}_x}\tau_0
+\frac{\mu_{12} x_0}{\bar{q}_x} \label {C2XX}
\end {equation}
Its meaning will be discussed after some calculations, but formally
it's $F^1$ moving clocks hand position measured in ARF
at the moment $\tau_0$.
$\tau_1$ operator in $C_0$ model have the simpler form
which prompts its interpretation :
\begin {equation}
\hat{\tau}_1= B_1(\vec{p}_s,m_t) \tau_0
+\frac{ x'_0}{\omega} \label {CXT}
\end {equation}
If $\bar{x}'_0=0$ $C_0$
$\hat{\tau}_1$ expectation value $\bar{\tau}_1=\bar{B}_1\tau_0$
coincides with the classical Lorentz time boost value.
Its dispersion have the form :
\begin {eqnarray}
D_{\tau}=D_L(\tau_0)+D_c=D_B\tau_0^2+\bar{D}_2\tau_0+D_0 \label {C2X}
\end {eqnarray}
where $D_B=\bar{B}^2_1-(\bar{B}_1)^2$
and
$D_0=\langle\frac{x_0^{'2}}{\omega^2}\rangle$ is the clocks
mechanism dispersion, which for $C_0$ is time independent.
Operator $D_2$ is equal to :
\begin {equation}
D_2=\frac{B_1 x_0+x_0 B_1}{\omega}
\label {C2ZZ}
\end {equation}
The numerical calculations show that for $C_0$ localized states
$D_2$ expectation value is very small and can be neglected.
If $D_0$ is small $\tau_1$ fluctuations are defined mainly by
$D_L(\tau_0)$ Lorentz boost dispersion stipulated by
$\vec{p}_s$ fluctuations in $F^1$ wave packet.
It's independent of the clocks mechanism and demonstrates that
the proper time measurement have the principal quantum uncertainty
growing unrestrictedly proportional to $\tau_0^2$.
For $C_x$ model the factor $\frac{q_x}{\bar{q_x}}$ in ($\ref{C2XX}$)
produces additional
$\hat{\tau}_1$ fluctuations.
Due to it Lorentz boost expectation value differs only for
the small factor of the order $\alpha_I$ :
$$
\bar{\tau_1}=\tau_0\bar{B}_1[1+\frac{\bar{B}_1}{\sigma_x^2\mu_{12}m_s}
(1-\bar{B}_1^2)]
$$
It results from $m_t$ dependence on $p_x$ and reflects influence
of clocks energy on total mass. We'll neglect this effect in $C_x$ dispersion
also described by ansatz (\ref {C2X}),
but with different parameters :
\begin {eqnarray}
D_2=\frac{\mu_{12}}{\bar{q}_x^2}(q_xB_1x_0+x_0q_xB_1) ; \\
D_B=\frac{\bar{q}_x^2}{(\bar{q}_x)^2}\bar{B}_1^2-(\bar{B}_1)^2
\label {C2Y} ; \quad
D_0=\frac{ \mu_{12}^2 \sigma_x^2}{\bar{q}_x^2} \label {C2WW}
\end {eqnarray}
Here $\bar{D}_2=0$ for the gaussian wave packets (\ref{CD})
and any other localizable states.
Due to $q_x$ fluctuations absent in $C_0$ model
the part of $D(\tau_1)$ :
$$
D_x= D_0
+\frac{\bar{q}_x^2-(\bar{q}_x)^2}{(\bar{q}_x)^2}(\bar{B}_1)^2\tau_0^2
$$
can be related to the packet smearing along $x$ coordinate,
regarded as the clocks mechanism uncertainty.
To illustrate the physical meaning of this time operator
let's consider the corresponding approximate solutions of $F^1$ state
evolution equation for Hamiltonian (\ref{CA11}).
For $\alpha_I\rightarrow 0$ we can decompose $H_T$ of (\ref{CA11}) in the
first $\alpha_I$ order :
\begin {equation}
-i\frac{d\Psi_s}{d\tau_0}
\simeq
[(m_s^2+\vec{p}^2_s)^{\frac{1}{2}}+
\frac{m_1\hat{H}_c}{(m^{2}_s+\vec{p}_s^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}]\Psi_s
\label {C01}
\end {equation}
Here the first term is independent of $H_c$
which permit to represent $\Psi_s$ as the sum of factorized states.
The second term is in fact the product of clock Hamitonian and
Lorentz boost $B_1$.
Let's choose the initial $F^1$ state
$\Psi_s(0)=\Phi_s(\vec{p}_s)\varphi_c(x,0)$ and
$\Phi_s=\sum c_l|\vec{p}_{sl}\rangle$, where the sum
denotes the integral over $\vec{p}_s$. From our definition of
quantum clocks synchronization it follows that
$\Psi_s(0)$ describes $F^1$ clocks
synchronized with ARF clocks at $\tau_0=0$. Solving equation ($\ref{C01}$)
one finds :
\begin {equation}
\Psi_s(\tau_0)=\sum c_l\varphi_c(x ,B_l\tau_0)
|\vec{p}_{sl}\rangle e^{-iE(\vec{p}_{sl})\tau_0} \label {C0A}
\end {equation}
where $E(\vec{p})=(m_s^{2}+\vec{p}^2)^\frac{1}{2}$ ,
$ B_l=B_1(\vec{p}_{sl},m_s)$.
For linear clock $C_0$ Hamiltonian $H_c=H_c^0$
for small $\alpha_I$ this state can be rewritten :
\begin {equation}
\Psi_s(\tau_0)=\sum_l c_l \varphi^0_c(x-\omega B_l\tau_0)
~|\vec{p}_{sl}\rangle e^{-iE(\vec{p}_{sl})\tau_0} \label {C0B}
\end {equation}
To make the situation more clear suppose that
$\varphi^0_c(0)=\delta(x)$,
which evolves at rest into $\delta(x-\omega \tau_0)$ .
Then $x$ measurement defines the time $\tau$ of quantum clocks at rest
unambiguously and with zero dispersion,
but $\Psi_s$ of ($\ref {C0B}$) in general isn't
$x$ eigenstate. It means that at any $\tau_0>0$
$\Psi_s$ is the entangled superposition of the states $\varphi_c^0$
which $F^1$ clocks acquires at the consequent $\tau_1$ moments.
As was shown there is one-to one correspondence between clock state
$\varphi_c(x,t)$ and the time moment $t$ and in some sense
it can be regarded as the 'superposition' of $F^1$ proper time moments, or more
precisely $F^1$ states existed at this moments.
For example $F^1$ clocks hand
can show 3,4 and 5 o'clocks simultaneously
which can be tested by $x$ measurement at some $\tau_0$ in ARF.
This spread corresponds to $D_B$ dispersion term resulting from the
$F^1$ momentum $\vec{p}_s$ uncertainty. For the realistic clocks their
$x$ dispersion given by $D_0$ isn't zero even at rest and this
two terms added as statistically independent effects.
$\Psi_s$ for $C_x$ Hamitonian is given by ($\ref{C0A}$) and
admits the same interpretation. It corresponds to the more
complicated form of time dependent dispersion ($\ref{C2WW}$) which
can be eventually factorized into the same two parts -
relativistic and clock mechanism.
So we conclude that the interpretation which follows from the
approximate Schrodinger equation agrees well with Heisenberg
operator calculus. In fact operator $\tau_1$ describes $F^1$
proper time in the limit when this clock dispersion is very
small and the clock energy is much less then $F^1$ total mass
energy i.e. $\alpha_I\rightarrow 0$.
Obtained results suppose that the proper time of any quantum RF
being the parameter in it simultaneously
will be the operator from the 'point of view' of other RF.
Qualitatively the appearance of RF proper time fluctuations
can be understood considering the superposition of momentum
eigenstates $|\vec{p}_{si}\rangle$ in $S_2$ wave packet
as the superposition of $S_2$ velocities $\vec{\beta}_i$ and
corresponding Lorentz factors $\gamma_1(\vec{\beta}_i)$.
In Special Relativity
$F^1$ proper time $\tau_1$ measured at the same $\tau_0$ in ARF
depends on $\gamma_1$. If we formally extends this dependence
on $F^1$ wave packet motion we get that the proper time
will fluctuate proportionally to $ \gamma_1$ spread.
So $F^1$ clocks measurement in ARF shows how much time passed in $F^1$
in this particular event and can give the different value
for another event of the same ensemble.
It means that the time moments in different RFs corresponds only
statistically with the dispersion $D_{\tau}$ in ARF
given by (\ref {C2X}). It differs from Special Relativity
where one to one correspondence between $\tau_1, \tau_0$
time moments always exists , but can be incorporated into
relativistic QEP if we find the analogous time relations
between two quantum RFs of finite mass.
In fact $\tau_1$ is more correct to relate to $S_2$ c.m.s. rest frame, but
regarding the difference between $F^1$ and $S_2$ c.m.s. proper time
operators $\tau'_1,\tau_1$ it's easy to show that they coincide
if $\bar{q}_x\rightarrow 0$. From it
we conclude that the principal part of the relativistic time operator,
independent of any particular clocks mechanism features have the form in
the limit $\alpha_I\rightarrow 0$ :
\begin {equation}
\hat{\tau}'_1=B_1(\vec{p}_1,m_1)\tau_0 \label {CBBB}
\end {equation}
Moreover this formulae permits
to define formally the time operator for any object including
the single massive particle.
This operator form of $\tau'_1$ is closely
connected with Fock-Shwinger proper time $\tau_F$ formalism
interpretation and will be discussed in detail in the forcoming paper
$\cite{Fock,Schw}$. Note only
that $\hat{\tau}'_1(\tau_0)$ measurement gives $F^1$ proper time
$\tau_F$ estimate
at $\tau_0$ moment of ARF time. On the opposite in Fock-Shwinger formalism
$\tau_F$ is the parameter time to which particular values operators
$\hat{\tau}_0(\tau_F), \vec{r}_1(\tau_F)$ related. In distinction with our
formalism it makes $\tau_F$ interpretation confusing, because
$\vec{r}_1$ and other $ F^1$ operators are measured in ARF, hence
the time of measurement defined in $F^1$ to which as we have shown
in quantum case they related only statistically.
The practical realization of $x$
measurement in ARF can be the intricated procedure, which
scheme we don't intend to discuss here.
Note only that to perform it one should measure simultaneously
the distance between $F^1$ and $G^2$ and their total momentum
giving total velocity and this two operators commute.
Some examples of the analogous
nonlocal observables measurements are described in \cite{Aha2}.
The most disputable question here is the relativistic particle
coordinate measurements. Yet in the considered case, when the
relative $F^1,G^2$ average velocity is small
then $x$ is the nonrelativistic coordinate operator. Yet to prove
the quantum equivalence principle it's necessary to perform
the full relativistic calculations. We'll present such completely
relativistic results for $C_x$ model using
Newton-Wigner Hermitian operator of the space coordinate
$\cite{Wig}$ which is the direct analog of nonrelativistic operator $x_1$ :
\begin {equation}
\hat{x}^1_{NW}=i\frac{d}{dp_{x1}}
-i\frac{p_{x1}}{2(m_1^2+\vec{p}^2_1)} \label {C5}
\end {equation}
The operator of two objects relative coordinates
conjugated to c.m. momentum $q_x$
can be derived from this objects
c.m. Hamiltonian (\ref{C2XYY}) :
\begin {equation}
\hat{x}_{NW}=x+F(\vec{q})=i\frac{d}{dq_{x}}
-i\frac{q_{x}}{\sqrt{s}}(\frac{1}{w_1}+\frac{1}{w_2})
\end {equation}
where $w_i=(m_i^2+\vec{q}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
The clocks time observable in $F^1$ rest frame is proportional to $x_{NW}$ :
$$
\tau=\frac{x_{NW} - \bar{x}_{NW}(0)}{\bar{\beta}_x}
$$
where $\beta_x=q_x(w_1^{-1}+w_2^{-1})$ is $F^2,G^1$
relative velocity,
If we choose $\bar{x}_{NW}(0)=0$ , then solving
Heisenberg equation in ARF for the Hamiltonian of
(\ref{C0}) we find the resulting $F^1$ time operator :
\begin {equation}
\hat{\tau}_1= \frac{B_1(\vec{p}_s,m_t){\tau_0}\beta_x+x_{NW}(0)}
{\bar{\beta}_x}
\label {C5AA}
\end {equation}
where in $B_1$ $m_t=\sqrt{s}$.
This is the exact relativistic expression for $\tau_1$
without assumption of $q_x$ smallness.
$\bar{\tau}_1$ corresponds to Lorentz boost value $\bar{B}_1$ which depends
both on
$\langle \vec{p}_s \rangle$ and $\langle \vec{q} \rangle$.
It's easy to note that the momentum dependent
part of $x_{NW}$ is constant in time and consequently can only
enlarge the clocks mechanism dispersion $D_0$.
Due to it the dispersion structure is the same as for nonrelativistic
relative motion of (\ref{C2WW}) but its members are
described by the more complicated formulaes omitted here.
In fact this calculations evidence
that $x_{NW}$ meausurements introduces only additional
time-independent clock dispersion of the
order of $G^2$ Compton wavelength
without changing our previous conclusions about time operator properties.
In fact $F^1$ proper time measurement in ARF can be performed by
two different methods which equivalence must be proved.
In the first method described above the detector $D_0$ installed in ARF
measures $\tau_1$ and induces $C_x$ state collapse.
In the second one the detector $D_1$ installed in
$F^1$ measures the clock state and after it $D_1$ signal
transfered to ARF. In this case we should consider the collapse
in the moving frame , which is difficult to describe. But we must
note that independently of its mechanism such interaction happens
after this clocks evolves to this state and so can't influence
directly on their evolution, so it seems correct to neglect it
at this stage.
Obtained time-fluctuation effect reminds the well-known life-time dilatation
for the relativistic
unstable particles $\cite{Byc}$. In this framework such particle
can be regarded as the elementary binary clock having only two states.
Obtained results evidence that the proper time in Quantum RF depend
on the RF quantum state, but doesn't prove QEP directly.
To do it we must consider two finite mass RFs on equal ground
and to find the time transformation between them.
\section {Relativistic Quantum Frames}
To calculate the time operator between two RFs of finite mass
it's necessary first to find the particle evolution equation in
quantum RF rest frame. In general the system Poincare group
irreducible representations contain the information which permit
to describe its evolution completely, but
due to appearance of time operators to find this representations
for quantum RF is quite a problem. Therefore we choose another way;
first we'll find the free particle evolution equation and corresponding
proper time operator from
the phenomenological arguments. After it we'll find
Poincare transformations for quantum RFs which
confirm this Hamiltonian ansatz.
We'll study here only restricted Hilbert space sector where
RF and particles states has positive energy $\cite {Git2}$.
Again we'll study the system $S_2$ of RF $F^1$ and the particle $G^2$
which momentums $\vec{p}_i$, energies $E_i$ are defined in ARF.
In JFC formalism described above we choose
ARF FC $\vec{p}^{\,2}_0\approx 0$ and $S_2$ Hamitonian :
\begin {eqnarray}
H=(m_0^2+\vec{p}_0^2)^\frac{1}{2}+
(m_1^2+\vec{p}^2_{1})^\frac{1}{2}+H_{2} \label {C2}
\end {eqnarray}
Like in nonrelativistic case quantization means that
all $\vec{p}_i$ are the operators and
state vector ascribed also to ARF $|\vec{p}_0=0\rangle$. This formalism
reproduces all relativistic QM results for $m_0\rightarrow\infty$.
Going to $F^1$ rest frame we'll assume that the proper time parameter
$\tau_1$ can be defined in it from $F^1$ clocks measurements extrapolation
as was described in previous chapter. Choosing $F^1$ FC
$\vec{p}^{\,2}_{11}\approx 0$ from the correspondence principle
we'll suppose that the momentums expectation values in $F^1$ rest frame
are given by Lorentz transformations with velocity
$\vec{\beta}=\frac{\vec{p}_1}{E_1}$. :
\begin {eqnarray}
\vec{p}_{1i}=\vec{p}_i+
\frac{(\vec{n}_1\vec{p}_i)(E_1-m_1)\vec{n}_1-E_i\vec{p}_1}{m_1}
+\vec{F}_i(\vec{p}_0) \label {C20}
\end {eqnarray}
where $\vec{n}_1=\vec{p}_1 |\vec{p}_1|^{-1}$.
$\vec{F}_i$ are undefined at this stage operators for which
$\langle \vec{F}_{i}\rangle=0$ and can be neglected
in the following calculations. If $G^2$ have spin zero then the Hamiltonian
$H$ transformed from ARF to $F^1$ is equal :
\begin {eqnarray}
H^1_R=H^1_0+H^1_1+H^1_2=
\sum_{i=0}^2 (m^2_i+\vec{p}^{\,2}_{1i})^\frac{1}{2} \label {CC2}
\end {eqnarray}
For classical Special Relativity where normally RF
supposed to have infinite mass $\vec{p}_{1i}, H^1_R$ corresponds
to the canonical momentums
for finite mass RFs $\cite {Lan}$. We see that
$F^0$ motion is factorized from $S_2$ Hamiltonian $H^1=H^1_1+H^1_2$,
and so in $F^1$ proper time $\tau_1$ $S_2$ evolution equation is :
\begin {equation}
-i\frac{d\psi^1}{d\tau_1}=
[(m_1^2+\vec{p}_{11}^{\,2})^\frac{1}{2}+
(m_2^2+\vec{p}^{\,2}_{12})^\frac{1}{2}]\psi^1
=(s(\vec{q})+\vec{p}_s^{\,2})^\frac{1}{2}\psi^1
\label {C4}
\end {equation}
where $S_2$ c.m. observables $\vec{q},\vec{p}_s$ defined in chap.3.
Solutions of this equation describe $G^2$ normalized
free wave packet localizable relative to $F^1$ rest frame :
\begin {equation}
\Psi^1(\tau_1)=\varphi_2(\vec{p}_{12}) e^{-iE^1\tau_1}
|m_2 ,\vec{p}_{12}\rangle
|m_1,\vec{p}_{11}=0\rangle=\\
\varphi'_2(\vec{q}) e^{-iE^1\tau_1}
|\sqrt{s} ,\vec{p}_s=\vec{p}_{12}\rangle
|m_1,-\vec{q}\rangle|m_2,\vec{q}\rangle
\label {CD1}
\end {equation}
expressed also via $S_2$ c.m. observables.
Here $E^1=E^1_1+E^1_2$ are $H^1$ eigenvalues. They differ from the standard
KGR energy only on $m_1$ and so
we can use in $F^1$ rest frame the standard KGR momentum spectral
decomposition and the states scalar product $\cite{Schw}$.
In $F^1$ rest frame together with its proper time
$\tau_1$ the space coordinate can be defined. We choose
arbitrarily as $G^2$ coordinate (nonhermitian) operator in $F^1$ :
$\hat{x}_{12}=i\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{x}}$ and
corresponding Hermitian Newton-Wigner operator can be easily derived.
Note that $x_q$ defined in $F^1$ differs from the same operator
defined in c.m.s.,
yet our following results doesn't depend on the particular form
of this operator. $x_{12}$ also differs from the operator
$x_{p}=i\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{12x}}$ which corresponds to the
classical distance between $F^1$ and $G^2$. They coincide only
in the limit $m_1\rightarrow\infty$ or in nonrelativistic case.
Now we can calculate
$F^2$ proper time operator as function of the proper time in $F^1$.
To perform it we assume again that $F^2$ c.m. motion is equivalent to
the spinless particle $G^2$ motion.
In the described framework the Hamiltonian of $F^2$ with $C_0$ or $C_x$
clocks in $F^1$ rest frame can be obtained substituting
in $\hat{H}^1$ of (\ref{C4}) $m_2=m'_{2}+\hat{H}_c$.
$\hat{\tau}_2$ can be found
solving Heisenberg equation for $F^2$ clocks coordinate
$\dot{x}=-i[x,H^1]$ analogously to ($\ref{C0H}$).
If we omit
analogously to (\ref{CBBB}) the members describing the clocks mechanism
fluctuations
the $F^2$ proper time operator
$\hat{\tau}_2$ is equal :
\begin {equation}
\hat{\tau}_2=\frac{m_2 \tau_1}{(m^2_2+\vec{p}_{12}^2)^\frac{1}{2}}
\approx \frac{m'_2 \tau_1}{(m'^2_2+\vec{p}_{12}^2)^\frac{1}{2}}
=\hat{B}_1 (\vec{p}_{12},m'_2)\tau_1 \label {C6}
\end {equation}
This formalism is completely symmetrical and the
operator obtained from (\ref{C6}) exchanging indexes 1 and 2
relates the
time $\hat{\tau_1}$ in $F^1$ and $F^2$ proper time
- parameter $\tau_2$.
The Special Relativity limit when $\tau_2$ becomes
the parameter is obvious
and analoguosly to it the average time boost depends on whether
$F^1$ measures $F^2$ clocks observables, as we consider or vice versa,
and this measurement makes $F^1$ and $F^2$
nonequivalent $\cite{Lan}$. The new effect will be found only
when $F^1$ and $F^2$ will compare their initially synchronized clocks.
In QM formalism this synchronization means that
$F^2$ state prepared at the moment $\tau_0$ can be factorized as
$\Phi_2(\vec{p}_{12}) \varphi_c(x,0)$ analogous to ($\ref{C0A}$).
If this $F^2$ time measurements repeated several times
(to perform quantum ensemble) it'll reveal not only
classical Lorentz time boost ,
but also the statistical spread having quantum origin with the
dispersion given in (\ref{C2X}). Obtained relation between two
finite mass RFs proper times evidence that Quantum Equivalence principle
can be correct also in relativistic case.
If the number of particles $N_g>1$ then for the system state description
the clasterization formalism can be used
$\cite{Coe}$. According to it for $N=3$
Hamiltonian in $F^1$ of two free particles $G^2,G^3$ rewritten through
the system canonical observables acquires the form :
\begin {equation}
\hat{H^1}=
(m_1^2+\vec{p}_{11}^2)^\frac{1}{2}+(s_{23}+\vec{p}^2_{1,23})^\frac{1}{2}
=(s+\vec{p}_s^2)^\frac{1}{2} \label {C7}
\end {equation}
,where $\sqrt{s}_{23}$ is $G^2, G^3$
invariant mass, $\sqrt{s},\vec{p}_s$ are the system total invariant mass and
momentum. In clasterization
formalism at the first level the relative motion of $G^2, G^3$ defined by
$\vec{q}_{23}$ their relative momentum is considered.
At the second level we regard them as the single quasiparticle
- cluster $C_{23}$ with mass $\sqrt{s}_{23}$ and momentum $\vec{q}$
in the system c.m.s. It transformed to
$\vec{p}_{1,23}$ momentum in $F^1$
and so at any level we can regard
the relative motion of two objects only. This
procedure can be extended in the obvious inductive way to
arbitrary $N$. If we have two reference frames $F^1,F^2$ and $N_g\ne0$
then their relative momentums can be also described by the cluster formalism.
Due to appearance of the time operator between two RFs
to find the states transformations operator which we denote
$\hat{U}^s_{2,1}(\tau_2,\tau_1)$ is quite a problem and
here we'll obtain it only phenomenologically for some simple examples.
Consider first the case $N=2$ when $S_2$ include $F^1,F^2$ only and
its state in $F^1$ rest frame
$\Psi^1(\tau_1)$ is the solution (\ref{CD1}) of eq. (\ref{C4}).
We'll take that it transformed by $U^F_{2,1}$ into state $\Psi^2(\tau_2)$
in $F^2$ rest frame.
If $F^1,F^2$ clocks are synchronized at $\tau_1=\tau_2=0$ then for
this time moment
$\Psi^2(0)=\hat{U}^F_{2,1}(0,0)\Psi^1(0)$ and from $F^1, F^2$ symmetry
it follows :
$|\Psi^2(0)\rangle=\varphi'_1(\vec{p}_{21})
|m_2,\vec{p}_{22}=0\rangle|m_1,\vec{p}_{21}\rangle$.
$F^{1,2}$ internal wave functions $\varphi^{1,2}_c(x,0)$ at $\tau_1=0$
are obviously invariant and so omitted here.
Like in nonrelativistic case we introduce
$\vec{p}_f=\vec{p}_{11}+\vec{p}_{12}$,
$\vec{p}'_f=\vec{p}_{21}+\vec{p}_{22}$ and conjugated $\vec{r}_f, \vec{r}'_f$.
From the correspondence with Lorentz transformations it should give
$\langle\vec{p}_{12}\rangle=-\frac{m_2}{m_1}\langle\vec{p}_{21}\rangle$
and if to demand $\vec{q}_2=-\vec{q}$
then the simplest transformation is equal to :
\begin {equation}
\hat{ U}^F_{2,1}(0,0)=P_f e^{i a_f\vec{p}_f\vec{r}_f}
\label{CBBW}
\end {equation}
where $a_f=\ln\frac{{m}_1}{m_2}$,
$P_f$ is $\vec{r}_f$ reflection (parity) operator.
We see $\hat{U}^F_{21}(0,0)$ ansatz practically coincides with nonrelativistic
transform of (\ref{BBB}) for $N=1$.
The passive $S_N$ transformation for spinless $G^i$ also found
from the correspondance principle as the minimal extension of
standard Poincare transformations :
\begin {equation}
\hat{U}^s_{2,1}(0,0)=U^F_{21}(0,0)\prod_{j=3}^N
e^{-i\vec{\beta}_{f}\vec{N}'_j} \label {C08}
\end {equation}
where velocity operator $\vec{\beta}_{f}=\vec{p}_{f}(H^{1}_2)^{-1}$,
$\vec{N}'_i=H^1_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{p}_{1i}}
+\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{p}_{1i}}H^1_i$
are $G^i$ Poincare generators in $F^1$ which coincide with standard ansatz.
Then the transformation operator for arbitrary $\tau_1,\tau_2$ is :
\begin {equation}
\hat{U}^s_{21}(\tau_1,\tau_2)=
\hat{W}_2(\tau_2)\hat{U}^s_{21}(0,0)\hat{W}_1^{-1}(\tau_1) \label{C8}
\end {equation}
, where $\hat{W}_{1,2}(\tau_{1,2})=exp(-i\tau_{1,2}\hat{H}^{1,2})$
are $S_N$ evolution operators and $H^{1,2}$
- $S_N$ Hamiltonians in $F^1,F^2$ rest frames.
It means that despite $\tau_2$
and $\tau_1$ are correlated only statistically through $\hat{\tau}_2$
nevertheless $S_N$ state vectors in
$F^2, F^1$ at this moments are related unambiguously.
Transformed $S_N$ momentums are :
\begin {eqnarray}
\vec{p}_{21}=-\frac{m_2}{m_1}\vec{p}_{12}+d_1\vec{p}_{11} \quad ,
\vec{p}_{22}=-\vec{p}_{11}+d_2\vec{p}_{11}\\
\vec{p}_{2i}=\vec{p}_{1i}+
\frac{(\vec{n}_{12}\vec{p}_{1i})(E^1_2-m_2)\vec{n}_{12}-E^1_i\vec{p}_{12}}
{m_2} +d_i\vec{p}_{11} \label {C99}
\end {eqnarray}
, where $\vec{n}_{12}=\frac{\vec{p}_{12}}{|p_{12}|}$, $E^1_i$
are $G^i$ energies in $F^1$.
If to demand that all relative momentums $\vec{q}_{ij}$ conserved
(or reflected), then
$d_i$ can be calculated, but due to their unimportance
we omit it here. It's easy to see that $\vec{p}_{1i}$ of (\ref {C20})
for ARF to $F^1$ transform follows from $U^s_{2,1}$ after the simple
substitutions, and so the semiqualitative Hamiltonian derivation
of (\ref{C20}) was consistent. We see that the passive spinless $G^3$
transformation differs from the standard one only by the change of
velocity parameter to the operator
$\vec{\beta}$ which commutes with $G^3$ Hamiltonian.
To present full Poincare group we must include $F^2$ rotations
which were considered in $\cite {Aha,May}$. In brief for spinless $G^3$
the rotations generators $\vec{M}'=\vec{J}$ are the standard orbital
momentums, but the
parameters $\vec{\omega}_2$ or $\theta_2,\varphi_2$ are changed to operators
as was explained in chap.2.
For illustration we'll consider 2-dimensional case when in $F^1$ rest frame
$F^1,F^2$ axes orientation are given by the operators
$\theta_1\approx 0, \theta_2$ describing $F^1,F^2$ internal degrees of
freedom. Consequently after acting by $U_{2,1}^s$ of ($\ref{C08}$)
on the initial
state one acts by the rotation operator $U_2^R$ so that
complete transformation is :
$$
U^T_{2,1}(0,0)=U^R_2 U^s_{2,1}(0,0)=
U^{in}_2\prod_{l=1}^3 e^{i\theta_2 J'_{lz}} U^s_{2,1}(0,0)
$$
where $J'_{lz}$ are $F^{1,2}$ or $G^3$ orbital momentums
defined in $F^2$ rest frame. $U^{in}_2$ is the operator transforming
internal coordinates $\theta_{1,2}$ given in $\cite {May2}$.
Note that $U^R_2$ commutes with $G^3$ Hamitonian and so don't
influence its dynamics.
Due to the complications of $U^T_{21}$ general form calculations
we can't yet to describe full passive Poincare group with $F^2$ rotations
for $G^3$ arbitrary spin,
so the obtained relativistic theory is in fact consistent only
in 1-dimensional case. For 3-dimensions we can introduce
the active spinless $G^3$ Poincare transformations
in $F^1$ rest frame with parameters
$\vec{a},vec{\beta},\vec{\omega}$ which have the same generators as
the standard ansatz of $\cite {Schw}$.
In general from $U^T_{21}$ ansatz we can expect that
arbitrary spin $G^3$ irreducible representations and Poincare
generators in $F^1$ rest frame
coincides with the standard ones $\cite {Schw}$, yet this
hypothesis must be proved.
It was argued that RF quantum properties can become important in Quantum
Gravity , where in principle one should quantize the field, matter
and RF simultaneously
$\cite{Rov,Unr,Bro}$. In principle our approach permits to calculate
the time operator $\hat{\tau}_1$ for RF $F^1$ moving in the external
gravitational field $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$. We assume that ARF is located in
the region where this field is weak and so we can take $\tau_0=x_0$ -
world time. Analogously to (\ref{CA11}) $F^1$ clocks Hamiltonian in
ARF (for $g_{oa}=0$ gauge) :
\begin {equation}
\hat{H}_T=[g_{00}(m_1+H_c)^2+g_{00}g_{ab}p^a_1p^b_1]
^\frac{1}{2} \label{CG}
\end {equation}
,where $a,b=1,3$ $\cite{Lan}$.
Now $H_T$ depends on $x_{\mu}$ and due to it
solving Heisenberg equation (\ref{C0H}) for the
clocks hand coordinate $x_c$
one obtains the differential relation for $\tau_1$ :
\begin {equation}
d\hat{\tau}_1=\frac{\sqrt{g_{00}}(m_1+H_c)d\tau_0}
{[(m_1+H_c)^2+g_{ab}p^a_1p^b_1]
^\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{g_{00}}B_g(x,\vec{p}_1)d\tau_0 \label {CGG}
\end{equation}
In this case $\hat{\tau}_1$ becomes the integral operator , where
integral is taken over $\tau_0$ interval. If $g_{\mu\nu}$ is
the classical metrics
then this relation contains no new physics , except the additional
gravitational 'red shift' time boost proportional to $\sqrt{g_{00}}$
$ \cite{Lan}$.
But in Quantum Gravity $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ becomes the operator and its
fluctuations can induce the additional quantum fluctuations of the measured
$F^1$ clocks time. Despite that this fluctuation calculations are
quite complicated we can expect from the general Quantum Statistics
rules $\cite{Hol}$ that they can be factorized from the
considered Lorentz boost
fluctuations induced by the $F^1$ momentum fluctuations :
$$
D_T=D_G(\tau_0)+D_L(\tau_0)+D_o(\tau_0)
$$
From this rules we can expect also that for $F^1$ motion
in the homogeneous gravitation field
$D_G$ will grows proportionally to $\tau_0$ analogous to QED fluctuations
(Brownian motion effects). Note that this fluctuations
must be independent of RF mass.
This approach can give some new insight into the famous time problem of
Quantum Gravity $\cite{Rov,Bro}$ which we discuss here briefly.
In this aspect the situation in Classical and Quantum Gravity
seems to differ principally.
Strictly speaking if the metrics becomes the operator it stops to be
space-time metrics which unambiguously defines the space-time geometry.
Due to it the observer can correctly use only the operational
definition of physical space-time by means of clocks and other measurements.
In gravity this operational time can originate from
some evolving observable of gravitation field or
to be the operator describing the time measurement
for some free matter object carrying some nongravitational
'foreign' clocks.
The idea that space-time events can be described by their relation
with some distributed system or media was extensively explored for long time
$\cite {Dew}$ .
The most close to our purposes is the incoherent dust system, each
piece of it carrying clocks. Gravity ADM quantization for
such system with selfgravitation account permits
to extract positive Schrodinger hamiltonian as was shown by Brown and
Kuchar $\cite{Bro}$. Hence the dust pieces motion in their model was described
only semiclassically. Introduction of 'dust space' $\vec{z}$ permit to
quantize the gravitation field. Yet the
free quantum motion of dust pieces transforms
$\vec{z}$ into the operator on the initial space-time
manifold $x_{\mu}$ which makes this quantization procedure contradictory.
We describe here briefly
the model of dust RFs quantum motion where in the first approximatio
its selfgravitation neglected.
Let's consider first classical RF $F^1$ free falling in
external gravitational field.
In $F^1$ comoving 'Gaussian' frame where frame conditions
imposed before the field variation we have $g'_{00}=1, g'_{0a}=0$.
In this RF for the classical field gravity constraints
fulfilled $H_a(x)=0, H_0(x)=0$ which permit to calculate
$g'_{ab},p'_{ab}$ evolution for $F^1$ clock time solving corresponding
Hamilton equations for $H_0$ $\cite {Bro}$. In quantum case
this vacuum field constraints
results in Wheeler - deWitt equation $\hat{H}_0\Psi=0$ from which
Schrodinger Hamiltonian can't be derived easily. Now let's account
RF quantum motion
and suppose that this constraints holds true also in quantum $F^1$
comoving frame. $F^1$ proper time for the external
observer is given by the operator analogous to ($\ref{CGG}$),
but in comoving frame $\tau_1$ is just the parameter.
In this case we can calculate
field observables evolution in $F^1$ clocks time
from Heisenberg equations for $H_0$ vacuum constraint :
$$
\dot{g}'_{ab}(x)=-i[g'_{ab}(x),H_0(x)]
$$
where the commutator in general is nonzero. Note that
this equation is obviously local, so to calculate $g'_{ab}(x,\tau_1)$
we must define $g'_{ab},p'_{ab}$ only on a small spacelike surface region
around $x$ at a preceding moment $\tau_1-d\tau_1$. Space coordinates
$x_a$ supposedly can be defined at least in the close
vicinity of $F^1$ analoguosly to the definition given above for
the flat space-time.
Obviously this approach have many associated problems some of which are the
construction of multifingered time for quantum RF dust
and the field theoretical behavior of such commutators,
despite it seems to deserve additional study.
For the conclusion we can claim that the extrapolation of QM laws on free
macroscopic objects regarded as RFs prompt to change
the common approach to the
space-time which was taken copiously from Classical
Physics. In this paper the relativistic covariant theory
of quantum RFs constructed and at least in flat space-time
it agrees with the principle of equivalence for quantum RFs.
The quantum RF momentum uncertainty results
in the quantum statistical fluctuations of Lorentz boost which relates
the proper times in two RFs.
So in this model each observer has its proper time - parameter and
euclidian coordinate space which can't be
related unambiguously with the another observers space-time
and in this sense is local.
\end{sloppypar}
{\footnotesize
|
\subsubsection{The Origin and Resiliency of Potential Models}
A central puzzle in hadron spectroscopy is the apparent absence of low energy
degrees of freedom beyond those which can be attributed to the valence quarks ({\it e.g.},
gluonic or sea quark excitations). Very closely related to this puzzle is the apparent unimportance of
strong meson loop corrections.
A simple resolution of this
puzzle has been proposed~\cite{adiabatic}.
In the flux tube model~\cite{IsgPat},
the quark potential model arises from
an adiabatic approximation to the gluonic and extra $q \bar q$ degrees of
freedom embodied in the flux tube.
This physics has an analog at short distances where perturbation
theory applies. There $N_f$ types of light $q \bar q$ pairs
shift (in lowest order) the coefficient of the
Coulombic potential from
$\alpha_s^{(0)}(Q^2)=\frac{12\pi}{33 {\it ln}(Q^2/\Lambda_0^2)}$ to
$\alpha_s^{(N_f)}(Q^2)=
\frac{12\pi}{(33-2N_f) {\it ln}(Q^2/\Lambda_{N_f}^2)}$,
the net effect of such pairs
thus being to produce a {\it new} effective short distance $Q\bar Q$
potential. Similarly, when pairs bubble up in the flux tube ({\it i.e.},
when the flux tube breaks to create a $Q\bar q$ plus $q\bar Q$ system
and then ``heals" back to $Q\bar Q$), their net effect is to
cause a shift $\Delta E_{N_f}(r)$ in the ground state gluonic energy
which in turn produces a new long-range effective $Q\bar Q$
potential.
It has indeed been shown~\cite{GIonV} that the net long-distance
effect of the bubbles is to create a
new string tension $b_{_{N_f}}$ ({\it i.e.}, that the potential
remains linear). Since this string tension is to be
associated with the observed string tension, after renormalization
{\it pair creation has no effect on the long-distance structure
of the quark model in the adiabatic approximation}. Thus
the net effect of mass shifts from pair creation
is much smaller than one would na\"\i{ve}ly expect from
the magnitude of typical hadronic widths: such shifts can only arise from
nonadiabatic effects \cite{NIonNonadiabatic}.
It should be emphasized that no simple truncation of the
set of all meson loop graphs can reproduce such results: to recover the adiabatic
approximation requires summing over
large towers of $Q\bar q$ plus $q\bar Q$ intermediate states
to saturate their duality with $q \bar q$ loop diagrams which have strength at high energy.
\subsubsection{The Survival of the OZI Rule}
There is another puzzle of hadronic dynamics which
is reminiscent of this one: the success of the OZI
rule~\cite{OZI}.
A generic OZI-violating amplitude $A_{OZI}$ can
be shown to vanish like $1/N_c$, and this is often quoted as a rationale for the OZI rule.
However, there
are several unsatisfactory features of this
``solution" to the OZI mixing problem~\cite{LipkinOZI}.
Consider $\omega$-$\phi$
mixing as an example. This mixing receives a
contribution from the virtual hadronic loop process
$\omega \rightarrow K \bar K \rightarrow \phi$, both
steps of which are OZI-allowed,
and each of which scales with $N_c$ like
$\Gamma^{1/2} \sim N_c^{-1/2}$.
The large $N_c$ result that this OZI-violating amplitude
behaves like $N_c^{-1}$ is thus not peculiar to large $N_c$:
it just arises from ``unitarity" in the sense that the real and
imaginary parts of a generic hadronic loop diagram will
have the same dependence on $N_c$. The usual interpretation of the OZI rule in this
case ~-~-~-~ that ``double hairpin graphs" are dramatically suppressed ~-~-~-~ is
untenable in the light of these OZI-allowed loop diagrams. They expose the
deficiency of the large $N_c$ argument since $A_{OZI} \sim \Gamma$ is {\it not} a good
representation of the OZI rule. (Continuing to use $\omega$-$\phi$ mixing as
an example, we note that $m_\omega - m_\phi$ is numerically comparable to a
typical hadronic width, so the large $N_c$ result would
predict an $\omega$-$\phi$ mixing angle of order unity in
contrast to the
observed pattern of very weak mixing which implies
that $A_{OZI} << \Gamma <<m$.)
Unquenching
the quark model thus endangers the na\"\i{ve} quark model's agreement
with the OZI rule. It has been shown~\cite{GIonOZI}
how this disaster is naturally averted in the flux tube
model through a ``miraculous" set of cancellations
between mesonic loop diagrams consisting of apparently
unrelated sets of mesons ({\it e.g.}, the $K\bar K$,
$K\bar K^*+K^*\bar K$,
and $K^*\bar K^*$ loops tend to strongly cancel against
loops containing a $K$ or $K^*$ plus one of the four strange
mesons of the $L=1$ meson nonets).
Of course the ``miracle" occurs for a good reason:
the sum of {\it all} hadronic loops is dual to a closed $q \bar q$ loop
created and destroyed by a $^3P_0$ operator \cite{3P0mesons,KI}, but
in the closure approximation such an operator cannot create mixing in other
than a scalar channel. It can also be shown \cite{GIonsbars} that
current matrix elements like $\bar s \gamma^{\mu} s$ vanish in this same
approximation.
\subsubsection{A Summary Comment on Modelling the Effects of $q \bar q$ Pairs}
The preceding discussion strongly suggests
that models which have not addressed the effects of
unquenching on spectroscopy and the OZI rule should be viewed very
skeptically as models of the effects of the
$q \bar q$ sea on hadron structure:
large towers of
mesonic loops are required to understand how quarkonium
spectroscopy and the OZI rule survive once strong pair
creation is turned on. In particular, while pion and kaon loops (which
tend to break the closure approximation due to their
exceptional masses) have a special role to play,
they will not allow a satisfactory solution to these fundamental
problems associated with unquenching the quark model and so cannot be expected to provide a
reliable guide to the physics of $q \bar q$ pairs.
Indeed, I hope the reader can
appreciate just on the basis of this lightning review that there are
great dangers in drawing conclusions about the strength, structure, or significance
of $q \bar q$ pairs in hadrons from any model that has not dealt with these issues.
\section {Unquenching Heavy Quark Decay}
\subsection {Background}
To unquench predictions of the quark model for semileptonic heavy quark decay, I will apply
without alteration the model of Refs. \cite{GIonV,GIonOZI,GIonsbars} which
solves the phenomenological problems associated with unquenching the quark model. In particular, I
assume that the $q \bar q$ pair
is created by the action of a pair creation Hamiltonian density $H_{pc}(x)$ in the $Q \bar d$ flux
tube. I further assume that the pair is created with a
nonlocality (corresponding
to a finite constituent quark radius) in the coordinate $\vec v$. See Fig. 2.
\bigskip
\begin{center}
~
\epsfxsize=3.5in \epsfbox{Qqqdcoords.ps}
\vspace*{0.1in}
~
\end{center}
\noindent{ Fig. 2: The coordinates for a) the $Q \bar d$ system, and b) the $Q \bar q q \bar d$ system.
In each
diagram the cross $\times$ denotes the location of the center-of-mass; most results presented in this
paper are in the heavy quark limit where the center-of-mass coincides with the position
of $Q$.}
\bigskip
The coordinates used here in $Q \bar d$ are the standard center-of-mass and relative coordinates
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec R&=&{{m_Q \vec r_Q+m_d \vec r_{\bar d}} \over m_{Q \bar d}} \simeq \vec r_Q
\label{eq:defR} \\
\vec r&=&\vec r_{\bar d}-\vec r_Q
\end{eqnarray}
while
in $Q \bar q q \bar d$ the choice is
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec R'&=&{{m_Q \vec r_Q+m_q(\vec r_q+\vec r_{\bar q})+m_d \vec r_{\bar d}} \over m_{Q \bar q q\bar d}} \simeq \vec r_Q
\label{eq:defR'} \\
\vec r&=&\vec r_{\bar d}-\vec r_Q \\
\vec v&=&\vec r_{\bar q}-\vec r_q \\
\vec w&=&{1 \over 2}(\vec r_q+\vec r_{\bar q})-{{m_Q \vec r_Q+m_d \vec r_{\bar d}} \over m_{Q \bar d}} \simeq
{1 \over 2}(\vec r_q+\vec r_{\bar q})-\vec r_Q~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_{ij...k} \equiv m_i+m_j+...+m_k$.
(Note that the three-vector coordinate $\vec w$ should not be confused with the Lorentz invariant
heavy quark scalar product
$w=v' \cdot v$ called ``double $u$" (or, in many European
countries, ``double $v$") used in heavy quark form factors). Inverting, we have in $Q \bar d$
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec r_Q&=&\vec R_{cm}-\epsilon_{d/Q\bar d}~ \vec r \simeq \vec R_{cm} \\
\vec r_{\bar d}&=&\vec R_{cm}+\epsilon_{Q/Q\bar d} ~\vec r \simeq \vec R_{cm}+\vec r
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\alpha/\beta} \equiv m_{\alpha}/m_{\beta}$. In
$Q \bar q q \bar d$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec r_Q&=&\vec R'_{cm}-\epsilon_{q\bar q/Q\bar q q \bar d} ~\vec w -\epsilon_{d/Q\bar d} ~\vec r \simeq
\vec R'_{cm} \\
\vec r_{\bar q}&=&\vec R'_{cm}+\epsilon_{Q\bar d/Q\bar q q \bar d} ~\vec w + {1 \over 2} \vec v \simeq
\vec R'_{cm}+ \vec w + {1 \over 2} \vec v \\
\vec r_q&=&\vec R'_{cm}+\epsilon_{Q\bar d/Q\bar q q \bar d} ~\vec w - {1 \over 2} \vec v \simeq
\vec R'_{cm}+ \vec w - {1 \over 2} \vec v \\
\vec r_{\bar d}&=&\vec R'_{cm}-\epsilon_{q\bar q/Q\bar q q \bar d}~ \vec w +\epsilon_{Q/Q\bar d}~ \vec r \simeq
\vec R'_{cm}+\vec r~.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that most of the results of this paper are presented
in the heavy quark limit where the approximations shown in these formulas will often be used.
Thus for a $0^-$ state
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{Q \bar d} = {1 \over {(2 \pi)^{3\over 2}}} e^{i\vec P_{cm}\cdot \vec R}
\psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}
\label{eq:Qbard}
\end{equation}
where $\chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}$ is the spin zero wavefunction, so that
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{Q \bar d} = \delta^3(\vec P - \vec P_{cm})
\phi_{Q \bar d}(\vec p) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}
\end{equation}
is the momentum space $Q \bar d$ wavefunction with
\begin{equation}
\phi_{Q \bar d}(\vec p) \equiv {1 \over {(2 \pi)^{3\over 2}}}
\int d^3r e^{-i\vec p\cdot \vec r} \psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~)
\end{equation}
and accordingly
\begin{equation}
\vert P_{Q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle=
\sqrt{2m_{Q \bar d}}
\int d^3p \phi_{Q \bar d}(\vec p~) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}
\vert Q(\epsilon_{Q/Q \bar d}\vec P_{cm}-\vec p, s_Q)
\bar d(\epsilon_{d/Q \bar d}\vec P_{cm}+\vec p, s_{\bar d}) \rangle~.
\label{eq:defP2}
\end{equation}
Note that in the limit $\vec P_{cm} \rightarrow 0$
relevant here, the factor $\sqrt{2m_{Q \bar d}} \simeq \sqrt{2E_{P_{Q \bar d}}}$
is purely conventional as $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$.
When the flux-tube-breaking pair creation Hamiltonian
${\bf H}_{pc}^{q \bar q} \equiv
\int d^3x H_{pc}^{q \bar q}(0, \vec x)$ acts,
\begin{equation}
{\bf H}_{pc}^{q \bar q} \vert P_{Q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle=
\eta_{q \bar q}\vert P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
\label{eq:Hpc}
\end{equation}
where, according to the flux tube model,
\begin{enumerate}
\item since the $q \bar q$ pair is created in the flux tube,
its center-of-mass is found in a wavefunction $\psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)$
defined by the flux tube spatial profile,
\item the {\it internal} wavefunction of the $q \bar q$ pair has $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ and,
independent of $\vec w$ and $\vec r$, is of the form
$\psi^m_{pc}(\vec v) \cdot \chi^{-m}_{s_q s_{\bar q}}$ where
$\psi^m_{pc}(\vec v)$ has $L=1$, $\chi^{-m}_{s_q s_{\bar q}}$ has $S=1$, and
$\psi^m \cdot \chi^{-m} \equiv {1 \over {\sqrt 3}}(\psi^1 \chi^{-1}-\psi^0 \chi^0+\psi^{-1} \chi^1)$, and
\item the amplitude to find the $Q \bar d$ subsystem inside the $Q \bar q q \bar d$ system at
relative separation $\vec r$ is identical to that in the ground state,
namely $\psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~)$, since the pair
creation Hamiltonian density acts locally and instantaneously on the flux tube.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent In this formulation, $\eta_{q \bar q}$ defines the strength of the
pair creation, and the normalized state $\vert P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle$
is determined by the wavefunction just described:
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{Q \bar q q \bar d} = {1 \over {(2 \pi)^{3\over 2}}} e^{i\vec P_{cm}\cdot \vec R'}
\psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)
\psi^m_{pc}(\vec v) \cdot \chi^{-m}_{s_q s_{\bar q}}
\psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}
\end{equation}
The component parts of this wavefunction and of Eq. (\ref{eq:Qbard})
are defined by previous studies. From ISGW2 \cite{ISGW2},
\begin {equation}
\psi_{Q \bar d} \simeq {\beta^{3/2}_{Q \bar d} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta^2_{Q \bar d}r^2}
\end {equation}
where $\beta_{Q \bar d}=0.41$ GeV as $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$
as determined variationally from a
Coulomb-plus-linear-plus-hyperfine Schrodinger equation. The pair creation wavefunction
$\vec \psi_{pc}$ is constrained in
Ref. \cite{GIonV} by fitting decay data assuming the form
\begin {equation}
\vec \psi_{pc} \sim \vec v e^{-3v^2/8r^2_q} \equiv \vec v e^{-{1 \over 2} \beta^2_{pc} v^2}
\label{eq:psipc}
\end {equation}
to have a quark radius $0 < r_q < 0.4$ fm.
Given this constraint, I will take $r_q=0.3$ fm as a ``canonical" value, corresponding
to $\beta_{pc} \simeq 0.58$ GeV, but will consider deviations of $\pm 0.1$ fm from this value as plausible.
(This central value and range are guided by the difficulty of inventing a mechanism
which could lead to a constituent quark radius $r_q < 0.2$ fm.)
Ideally \cite{KI}, $\psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)$ should
have a probability profile which is a tube around the $Q \bar d$ axis
with ``caps" at $Q$ and $\bar d$. This structure is probably very significant
for the decays of highly excited states, but since all our
decays will emerge from the $Q \bar d$ ground state, I adopt a simpler and more heuristic model which
simply takes
\begin {equation}
\psi_{ft}(\vec w)={\beta^{3/2}_{ft} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta^2_{ft}w^2}
\label{eq:psift}
\end {equation}
with $\beta^2_{ft}=fb$, $b$ being the string tension and $f$ a coefficient
with ``canonical" value $2$ and an uncertainty estimated to be $\pm 1$
based on the calculations of the properties of the ground state wavefunction of
the flux tube
presented in Appendix A of Ref. \cite{KI}.
Some defects in this simplification and some subtleties associated with both the alternative
of using a flux-tube shape and nonrelativistic kinematics
are discussed in Appendix A of this paper.
Since strong decay amplitudes are determined by matrix elements of
$H^{q \bar q}_{pc}(t, \vec x)$ between
the decaying particle and the continuum, $\eta_{q \bar q}$ can be determined empirically. In Appendix B, I
extract from $D^* \rightarrow D \pi$ and $K^* \rightarrow K \pi$
decays the coefficients $\eta_{q \bar q}$ for $q=u$ or $d$.
For concreteness, I will assume following
Refs. \cite{KI,GIonV}, that $\eta_{s \bar s}$ is identical, but
that the $\eta_{Q \bar Q}$ for $Q=c,b,t$ are all zero. Finally, for ease
of exposition, I will treat explicitly the case of a single $q \bar q$ flavor in what follows, but
take into account $q=u,d,s$ in numerical results.
Within these approximations,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{Q \bar q q \bar d} = \delta^3(\vec P- \vec P_{cm})
\phi_{ft}(\vec \omega)
\phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi) \cdot \chi^{-m}_{s_q s_{\bar q}}
\phi_{Q \bar d}(\vec p~) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}
\end{equation}
where
$\phi_{ft}$,
$\phi^m_{pc}$, and
$\phi_{Q \bar d}$
are the momentum space wavefunctions corresponding to
$\psi_{ft}$,
$\psi^m_{pc}$, and
$\psi_{Q \bar d}$, respectively,
so that
\begin{eqnarray}
\vert P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle &=&
\sqrt{2m_{Q \bar q q \bar d}}
\int d^3\omega \int d^3\pi \int d^3p ~\phi_{ft}(\vec \omega)
\phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi) \cdot \chi^{-m}_{s_q s_{\bar q}}
\phi_{Q \bar d}(\vec p~) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}} \nonumber \\
&&\vert
Q(\epsilon_{Q/Q \bar q q \bar d}\vec P_{cm}-\epsilon_{Q/Q \bar d}\vec \omega - \vec p, s_Q)
\bar q(\epsilon_{q/Q \bar q q \bar d}\vec P_{cm}+{1 \over 2}\vec \omega + \pi, s_{\bar q}) \nonumber \\
&&
q(\epsilon_{q/Q \bar q q \bar d}\vec P_{cm}+{1 \over 2}\vec \omega - \pi, s_q)
\bar d(\epsilon_{d/Q \bar q q \bar d}\vec P_{cm}-\epsilon_{d/Q \bar d}\vec \omega + \vec p, s_{\bar d})
\rangle~.
\label{eq:defP4}
\end{eqnarray}
(Up to this point, I have retained the exact kinematics of the nonrelativistic
limit for finite $m_Q$, but from now on I will generally
simplify results by taking the heavy quark symmetry limit
$m_Q \rightarrow \infty$ with $\vec V_{cm} \equiv \vec P_{cm}/m_Q$ fixed.)
While Eq. (\ref{eq:Hpc}) defines the action of ${\bf H^{q \bar q}_{pc}}$
on the $Q \bar d$ sector, it does not of course
provide us with the ${\bf H^{q \bar q}_{pc}}$-perturbed ground state. This state is of the form
\begin{equation}
\vert P_{Q}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle=
{1 \over {\sqrt{1+c^2_{q \bar q}}}}
\Bigl[ \vert P_{Q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
+c_{q \bar q}\vert \tilde P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle \Bigr]
\label{eq:mixedstate}
\end{equation}
where $\vert \tilde P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle$ is a normalized
$Q \bar q q \bar d$ state of the same general form as Eq. (\ref{eq:defP4})
but with a wavefunction $\tilde \Phi_{Q \bar q q \bar d}$ to be
specified below and determined via
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{q \bar q}\vert \tilde P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
&=&
\sum_{ab} \int {d^3q \over 2m_{Q \bar q q \bar d}} \nonumber \\
&&{
{\vert \vec P_{cm}; ab(\vec q~) \rangle
\langle \vec P_{cm}; ab(\vec q~) \vert
{\bf H^{q \bar q}_{pc}}
\vert P_{Q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle}
\over
{E_{ab}(\vec P_{cm},\vec q~)-E_{P_{Q \bar d}}(\vec P_{cm})}
}~~~.
\label{eq:deftildeP}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\vert \vec P_{cm}; ab(\vec q~) \rangle$ is the two meson
eigenstate with $Q \bar q$ in internal state $a$, $q \bar d$ in internal state $b$,
and with $(Q \bar q)_a$ and $(q \bar d)_b$
having relative momentum $\vec q$ and total momentum $\vec P_{cm}$;
$E_{ab}(\vec P_{cm}, \vec q~)$ and $E_{P_{Q \bar d}}(\vec P_{cm})$ are the total energies
of the respective $Q \bar q q \bar d$ and $Q \bar d$ states
with fixed total center-of-mass momentum $\vec P_{cm}$. To obtain a rough expression for
$\vert \tilde P_{Q \bar q q \bar d} \rangle$, I make use of the approximate
duality between each of the towers of states $a$ and $b$ and their corresponding
free particle spectra in the internal
relative momenta $\vec p_{Q\bar q}$ and $\vec p_{q\bar d}$, respectively. {\it E.g.}, I use
\begin{equation}
\sum_{a} \langle (Q\bar q)_a \vert \simeq \sum_{s_Qs_{\bar q}}
\int d^3p_{Q\bar q}\langle Q(-\vec p_{Q\bar q}, s_Q)\bar q(\vec p_{Q\bar q},s_{\bar q}) \vert
\label{eq:freeduality}
\end{equation}
where for simplicity I have illustrated the duality equation in the $Q \bar q$ center of mass frame.
While this replacement is imperfect for low $a$ (corresponding to small $\vec p_{Q\bar q}$),
since ${\bf H^{q \bar q}_{pc}}$
is quite pointlike, Eq. (\ref{eq:deftildeP}) has most
of its strength for relatively massive states $a$ and $b$ and the use of
duality should
be satisfactory for our purposes.
With these approximations
we can change variables from $a,b, \vec q$ to $\vec p_{Q\bar q}$, $\vec p_{q\bar d},\vec q$,
and then convert both sides of
Eq. (\ref{eq:deftildeP}) to the variables $\vec \omega$,
$\vec \pi$, and $\vec p$ to identify
\begin {equation}
c_{q \bar q} \tilde \Phi_{Q \bar q q \bar d} \simeq
{{\eta_{q \bar q} \Phi_{Q \bar q q \bar d}} \over {\Delta E}}
\label{eq:defcqbarq}
\end {equation}
where in the rest frame $\vec P_{cm}=\vec 0$ and with $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin {equation}
\Delta E = 2m_q+{\pi^2 \over m_q}+{\omega^2 \over 4m_q}+\delta
\end {equation}
with
\begin {equation}
\delta=m_Q+m_d+{p^2 \over 2m_d}-m_{P_{Q\bar d}}~.
\end {equation}
In the duality approximation we have adopted, and with the wavefunction of the $Q \bar d$
system identical in $Q \bar q q \bar d$ and $Q \bar d$, $\delta \simeq 0$.
Moreover, using the wavefunctions (\ref{eq:psipc}) and (\ref{eq:psift}) and the
parameters given earlier
\begin {equation}
{ <{ \omega^2 \over 4m_q}> \over <{ \pi^2 \over m_q}>}
\simeq
{3 \beta^2_{ft} \over 20 \beta^2_{pc}}
\end {equation}
is small so that
\begin {equation}
\Delta E \simeq 2m_q+{ \pi^2 \over m_q}
\end {equation}
and we may deduce that
\begin{equation}
\tilde \Phi_{Q \bar q q \bar d} \simeq \delta^3(\vec P- \vec P_{cm})
\phi_{ft}(\vec \omega)
\tilde \phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi) \cdot \chi^{-m}_{s_q s_{\bar q}}
\phi_{Q \bar d}(\vec p~) \chi^0_{s_Q s_{\bar d}}
\end{equation}
{\it i.e.}, that $\tilde \Phi_{Q\bar q q \bar d}$ differs from
$\Phi_{Q\bar q q \bar d}$ simply by the replacement $\phi_{pc} \rightarrow
\tilde \phi_{pc}$ where
\begin{equation}
\tilde \phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi) \equiv n^{-1/2}
{
{\phi_{pc}^m(\vec \pi)}
\over
{1+\pi^2/2m_q^2}
}~.
\label{eq:phipc}
\end{equation}
The normalization factor $n$ is given by
\begin {equation}
n=\int d^3\pi \vert
{
{\phi_{pc}^m(\vec \pi)}
\over
{1+\pi^2/2m_q^2}
}
\vert^2~.
\end {equation}
which may be quite well approximated by the
formula
$n={{1+y}\over{1+21y+12y^3}}$
with
$y={\beta^2_{pc} \over 8m_q^2}$.
From Eqs. (\ref{eq:defcqbarq}) and (\ref{eq:phipc}) follows the key relation that
\begin {equation}
c_{q \bar q}={
{n^{1/2} \eta_{q \bar q}}
\over
2m_q
}~~~.
\label{eq:candeta}
\end {equation}
Note that $\tilde \phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi)$ is softer than $\phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi)$. We will often use a
harmonic approximation
\begin{equation}
\tilde \phi^m_{pc}(\vec \pi)={{\pi^m} \over \pi^{3/4} \tilde \beta_{pc}^{5/2}}e^{-\pi^2/2 \tilde \beta^2_{pc}}
\label{eq:harmonictildephi}
\end{equation}
to $\tilde \phi^m_{pc}$. It is of course the softer shape of $\tilde \phi^m_{pc}$ that makes $n<1$, and
thus $\tilde \beta_{pc}$ can be determined by requiring that Eqs. (\ref{eq:phipc})
and (\ref{eq:harmonictildephi})
match near $\vec \pi=0$,
{\it i.e.}, that
\begin{equation}
\tilde \beta_{pc}=n^{1/5} \beta_{pc}~~.
\end{equation}
With realistic parameter values, $n^{1/5} \sim 0.7$, so the softening
is not dramatic: with our canonical value for $\beta_{pc}$, $\tilde \beta_{pc} \simeq 0.4$ GeV.
\subsection{The Unquenched Isgur-Wise Function}
We are now in a position to calculate the unquenched quark model contribution to the Isgur-Wise
function \cite{IWoriginal}. By heavy quark symmetry,
the form factors for a general $Q_1 \rightarrow Q_2$ transition can be calculated
as matrix elements for the simpler
$Q \rightarrow Q$ transition with an arbitrary current $\bar Q \Gamma Q$. We therefore focus on the matrix
elements of the scalar current $\bar Q Q$ between $Q$-containing states:
\begin {eqnarray}
\xi^{QM}(w)&=&
{1 \over 2m_{Q }}\langle P_Q({\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert \bar Q Q \vert P_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \\
&=&
{1 \over {1+c_{q \bar q}^2}}
[
\xi_{Q \bar d}^{QM}(w)+c_{q \bar q}^2 \xi_{Q \bar q q \bar d}^{QM}(w)
]
\label{eq:xiqm}
\end {eqnarray}
where
$w \equiv v' \cdot v \simeq 1+P_{cm}^2/2m^2_{Q } = 1+V_{cm}^2/2$ and where,
\begin {eqnarray}
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)&=&
{1 \over 2m_{Q }}\langle P_{Q \bar d}({\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert
\bar Q Q\vert P_{Q \bar d}(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \\
&=&
\int d^3r \psi^*_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~)e^{-i m_d \vec V_{cm} \cdot \vec r}\psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~)
\label{eq:xi2}
\end {eqnarray}
and
\begin {eqnarray}
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(w)&=&
{1 \over 2m_{Q}}\langle P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}({\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert
\bar Q Q \vert P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \\
&=&
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w) \xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)
\label{eq:xi4}
\end {eqnarray}
with
\begin {equation}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w) \equiv
\int d^3w \psi^*_{ft}(\vec w)e^{-2i m_q \vec V_{cm} \cdot
\vec w}\psi_{ft}(\vec w)~.
\label{eq:xift}
\end {equation}
(In these equations the notation ``$QM$" reminds us that we are calculating in the quark model
so that the perturbative matching of these HQET matrix elements to field theory must be done
at the quark model scale $\mu_{QM} \sim 1$ GeV.)
{\it We see from Eq. (\ref{eq:xift}) that $\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}$ does not depend on the poorly
known $q \bar q$ wavefunction $\psi_{pc}$}. This simplification
arises because this $q \bar q$ wave function defines the relative position of the $q$ and $\bar q$,
while $\xi^{QM}_{ft}$ is sensitive only to the $q \bar q$ system's wave function relative to $Q$.
Defining for $w-1 <<1$
\begin {eqnarray}
\xi^{QM} & \simeq & 1- \rho^2_{wf}(w-1) \\
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d} & \simeq & 1- \rho^2_{Q \bar d}(w-1) \\
\xi^{QM}_{ft} & \simeq & 1- \rho^2_{ \bar q q }(w-1)
\end {eqnarray}
and recalling the conventional definition
\begin {equation}
\xi \simeq 1- \rho^2( w-1)
\end {equation}
we therefore have (displaying now explicitly the effects of summing over $q=u$, $d$, and $s$) simply
\begin {equation}
\rho^2_{wf}=
\rho^2_{Q \bar d}
+{
{\sum_q c^2_{q \bar q} \rho^2_{ \bar q q }}
\over
{1+\sum_q c^2_{q \bar q}}
}
\end {equation}
where $\rho^2_{wf}$ is the nonrelativistic wavefunction contribution to $\rho^2$,
{\it i.e.}, it excludes the relativistic $1 \over 4$
and the contribution $\Delta \rho^2_{pert}$ from matching to the low energy effective theory \cite{ISGW2}.
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq:xi2}) and (\ref{eq:xi4})
we then have the old result
\begin {equation}
\rho^2_{Q \bar d}={m_d^2<r^2> \over 3}={m_d^2 \over 2 \beta^2_{Q \bar d}}
\label{eq:rhoQbard}
\end {equation}
and the new correction from $q \bar q$ pairs
\begin {equation}
\rho^2_{ \bar q q }=
{4m_q^2<w^2> \over 3}=
{2m_q^2 \over \beta^2_{ft}}
\end {equation}
so that in the $SU(3)$ limit where $m_u=m_d=m_s=m_q$
\begin {eqnarray}
\rho^2_{wf}&=&
{m_d^2 \over 2 \beta^2_{Q \bar d}}
+{
{\sum_q c^2_{q \bar q}
{2m_q^2 \over \beta^2_{ft}}}
\over
{1+\sum_q c^2_{q \bar q}}
}
=
{m_d^2 \over 2 \beta^2_{Q \bar d}}
+{
{ c^2_{q \bar q} }
\over
{1+3 c^2_{q \bar q}}
}
\Bigl({6m_q^2 \over \beta^2_{ft}}\Bigr)
\\
& \equiv &
{m_d^2 \over 2 \beta^2_{Q \bar d}}
+
\Delta \rho^2_{sea} ~.
\label{eq:mainresult}
\end {eqnarray}
This is one of our main new results. It shows that even if the $c_{q \bar q}^2$ are large, the contribution
of pairs to $\rho^2$ will be small in the adiabatic limit where they are highly localized in the
flux tube ({\it i.e.}, as $\beta^2_{ft} \rightarrow \infty$). See Appendix A for a discussion
of this result for a more general flux-tube shape. We will see next
that to the extent that pairs contribute to the
exclusive ``elastic" slope $\rho^2$, they will also contribute to the {\it inclusive}
nonresonant semileptonic rate.
\subsection{A Duality Interpretation of $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ via Bjorken's Sum Rule}
\subsubsection{Motivation}
We have just seen that
even if $P_{Q_1}$ is full of $q \bar q$ pairs, they may not contribute to $\rho^2$.
We will now see that
it is incorrect to associate the relative probabilities of
$Q_1 \bar d$ and $Q_1 \bar q q \bar d$ in $P_{Q_1}$ with the resonant and nonresonant parts,
respectively, of $Q_1 \rightarrow Q_2$ semileptonic decay. As heavy quark symmetry requires,
at $w=1$ the $Q_1 \rightarrow Q_2$ transition creates only $P_{Q_2}$ and $V_{Q_2}$ of the
ground state ${s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}= {1 \over 2}^-$ multiplet {\it independent of
the structure of the ``brown muck"}. {\it I.e.}, in this limit the
$Q_2 \bar d$ and $Q_2 \bar q q \bar d$ components of the hadronic final state, no matter
what their relative strengths, form perfectly into the resonant states $P_{Q_2}$ and $V_{Q_2}$.
For $w-1$ small but nonzero, Bjorken's sum rule \cite{Bj,IWonBj} tells us that the loss of rate
from the ``elastic" transitions $P_{Q_1} \rightarrow P_{Q_2}$ and $P_{Q_1} \rightarrow V_{Q_2}$
relative to structureless hadrons with $\rho^2=1/4$ will be exactly compensated
by the production of
${s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}= {1 \over 2}^+$ and ${3 \over 2}^+$
states. In the valence quark model, this rate must appear in $Q_2 \bar d$ excited states.
In Ref. \cite{IWonBj} this valence quark model duality to the quark level semileptonic
decay was explicitly demonstrated. Here I will show that the $Q_1 \bar q q \bar d$
content of $P_{Q_1}$ leads in general to the production of both resonant and
nonresonant final states, with the latter rates proportional to $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$. In
particular, in the adiabatic limit there will be {\it no} nonresonant production.
To the extent that $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ is nonzero, nonresonant $(Q_2 \bar q)_a(q \bar d)_b$
final states with
${s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}= {1 \over 2}^+$ and ${3 \over 2}^+$
will be produced to compensate for the additional loss of rate from the elastic channels
which it causes.
It is natural to expect the compensation to occur in these channels. The
softening of the elastic form factors which depletes the rate to $P_{Q_2}$ and $V_{Q_2}$
will have its analog in inelastic resonance excitation form factors, so these rates will
also be diminished and cannot compensate for the
additional loss of rate from $P_{Q_2}$ and $V_{Q_2}$.
The population of inelastic channels is thus the only avenue available for
satisfying Bjorken's sum rule. Of course this is also intuitively appealing:
the loss of rate to the elastic channels occurs
because
after the recoil from $-\vec P_{cm}/2$ to $+\vec P_{cm}/2$,
the $q \bar q$ parts of the ground state wave functions of the initial and
final states fail to overlap, and in so doing they must
``by conservation of probability" find themselves in {\it their} excited states, namely as
$(Q_2 \bar q)_a(q \bar d)_b$ continua. We will now make these heuristic observations precise.
\subsubsection{Production of Nonresonant States at Low $w-1$}
\bigskip
The $n^{th}$ valence state perturbed by ${\bf H_{pc}^{q \bar q}}$
(the generalization of Eq. (\ref{eq:mixedstate})) may be written
\begin{equation}
\vert M^{(n)}_Q(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
=
cos \theta \vert M^{(n)}_{Q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
+
sin \theta \vert X^{(n00)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
\end{equation}
where
$\vert M^{(n)}_Q\rangle$,
$\vert M^{(n)}_{Q \bar d}\rangle$, and
$\vert X^{(n00)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}\rangle$ are the generalizations of the states
$\vert P_Q \rangle \equiv \vert M^{(0)}_Q\rangle$,
$\vert P_{Q \bar d}\rangle \equiv \vert M^{(0)}_{Q \bar d} \rangle$, and
$\vert \tilde P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}\rangle \equiv \vert X^{(000)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}\rangle$
of Eqs. (\ref{eq:mixedstate}), (\ref{eq:defP2}), and (\ref{eq:deftildeP}), respectively, and where
under our assumptions that the state of the flux tube is independent of $n$ (the adiabatic approximation)
and that $H_{pc}^{q \bar q}$ does not affect the coordinate $\vec r$, $\theta$ is independent of $n$.
(The rationale for the notation $(n00)$ will become apparent below.) From this expression one can immediately
obtain the generalization of our result for the elastic transition that
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi^{QM}(w)^{n'n}
&\equiv&{1 \over 2m_Q}
\langle M^{(n')}_Q(+{ \vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(n)}_Q(-{ \vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \\
&=&
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n'n}[cos^2 \theta
+
sin^2 \theta \xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)]
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n'n}$ is the valence quark model generalization
of the Isgur-Wise function for $n \rightarrow n'$ transitions and
$\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)$ is exactly the same $q \bar q$ overlap form factor
that appears in the elastic $n=0 \rightarrow n'=0$ transition. Thus the unquenched result
for small $w-1$ is
\begin{equation}
\xi^{QM}(w)^{n'n}
=
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n'n}[1-sin^2 \theta \rho^2_{ \bar q q }(w-1)]
\end{equation}
as for the Isgur-Wise function with, once again,
$sin^2 \theta={{\sum_q c^2_{q \bar q}} \over {1+\sum_q c^2_{q \bar q}}}$.
Since the production of each inelastic resonant channel occurs with
strength proportional to $w-1$ to a positive integral power, the $q \bar q$ modification
of $\xi^{QM}(w)^{n'n}$ for $n'>0$ has no effect
on the saturation of Bjorken's sum rule for $\xi(w)$ to order $w-1$ since
it produces effects which are at least of order $(w-1)^2$. This is in accord
with the expectations outlined above that the additional
depletion of elastic rate by $q \bar q$ pairs must be
compensated by the explicit production of a $(Q \bar q)_a(q \bar d)_b$ continuum.
To see this we must introduce the states in the continuum orthogonal
to $\vert M^{(n)}_Q \rangle$. To this end we
define a complete set of states $\vert X^{(n \alpha \beta)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle$
in the $Q \bar q q \bar d$ sector. Here $n$, $\alpha$, and $ \beta $ are excitation
quantum numbers associated with the $\vec r$, $\vec w$, and $\vec v$ coordinates, respectively.
These states are {\it not} the eigenstates of this sector in the absence of
${\bf H_{pc}^{q \bar q}}$:
the eigenstates are the $\vert \vec P_{cm};ab(\vec q~) \rangle$
defined above. However, we can expand
\begin{equation}
\vert \vec P_{cm};ab(\vec q~) \rangle
=
\sum_{n \alpha \beta}
\phi_{ab}^{(n \alpha \beta)}(\vec q~)^*
\vert X^{(n \alpha \beta)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle~.
\end{equation}
It follows that to lowest order in $\theta$ (or equivalently the pair creation operator)
we can form an orthogonal set of ${\bf H_{pc}^{q \bar q}}$-perturbed states
\begin{eqnarray}
\vert M^{(n)}_Q(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
& \simeq &
\vert M^{(n)}_{Q\bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
+\theta \sum_{ab} \int d^3q \phi_{ab}^{(n00)}(\vec q~)\vert \vec P_{cm};ab(\vec q~) \rangle \\
\vert X_{ab}(\vec P_{cm}, \vec q~) \rangle
& \simeq &
\vert \vec P_{cm};ab(\vec q~) \rangle
-\theta \sum_n \phi_{ab}^{(n00)}(\vec q~)^* \vert M^{(n)}_{Q\bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\alpha, \beta)=(0,0)$ define the universal state of
the $q \bar q$ pair created in a flux tube by the action
of ${\bf H_{pc}^{q \bar q}}$. Let us now compute the transition
amplitude to the continuum:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X_{ab}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}, \vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle
& \simeq &
\theta[
\langle +{\vec P_{cm} \over 2};ab(\vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert \tilde P_{Q \bar q q \bar d} (-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \nonumber \\
~~~~~&-&
\sum_n \phi_{ab}^{(n00)}(\vec q~)
\langle M^{(n)}_{Q \bar d}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_{Q \bar d}(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle]
\\
&& \nonumber \\
& \simeq &
\theta[\sum_{n \alpha \beta} \phi_{ab}^{(n\alpha \beta)}(\vec q~)
\langle X^{(n\alpha \beta)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert X^{(000)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d} (-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \nonumber \\
~~~~~&-&
\sum_n \phi_{ab}^{(n00)}(\vec q~)
\langle M^{(n)}_{Q \bar d}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_{Q \bar d}(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle]~.
\label{eq:trans1}
\end{eqnarray}
As $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$, $ \vec P_{cm} = m_Q \vec V_{cm} $ is much larger
than any internal momentum so the matrix elements
$\langle Q \vert \bar Q Q \vert Q \rangle$
appearing in the $Q \bar d \rightarrow Q \bar d$ and
$Q \bar q q \bar d \rightarrow Q \bar q q \bar d$ transitions here are identical. Moreover, since the
$\bar Q Q$ current does not affect the internal state of the $q \bar q$ pair,
$\beta$ is required to be zero.
Thus Eq. (\ref{eq:trans1}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\langle X_{ab}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}, \vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle
\simeq
\theta \sum_n \xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n0}
\Bigl[\sum_{\alpha}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{\alpha 0}
\phi_{ab}^{(n \alpha 0)}(\vec q~)
-
\phi_{ab}^{(n 0 0)}(\vec q~)\Bigr]
\label{eq:trans2}
\end{equation}
where $\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{\alpha 0}$ is the generalization of $\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)$
encountered above, namely
\begin{equation}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{\alpha 0}
\equiv
\int d^3w~
\psi^{(\alpha)}_{ft}(\vec w)^*e^{-2i m_q \vec V_{cm} \cdot \vec w}
\psi^{(0)}_{ft}(\vec w)
\end{equation}
where $\psi^{(\alpha)}_{ft}$ is the $\alpha^{th}$ basis state for the expansion of
the $q \bar q$ center of mass coordinate $\vec w$. Expanding the exponential in powers of $\vec V_{cm}$
as is appropriate for small $w-1$, we obtain Eq. (\ref{eq:xift}) of Section II for
$\alpha=0$ and
\begin{equation}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{\alpha \neq 0, 0}
\simeq -2i m_q \vec V_{cm} \cdot
\int d^3w~
\psi^{(\alpha)}_{ft}(\vec w)^* \vec w
\psi^{(0)}_{ft}(\vec w)~.
\end{equation}
Since $\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{0 0} \simeq 1 - \rho^2_{ \bar q q }(w-1)$
with $w-1=V^2_{cm}/2$, to leading order in $V_{cm}$ the $\alpha=0$ term
in Eq. (\ref{eq:trans2}) cancels with $\phi_{ab}^{(n00)}(\vec q~)$ to leave
\begin{equation}
\langle X_{ab}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}, \vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle
\simeq
\theta \sum_{n, \alpha \neq 0} \xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n0}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{\alpha 0}
\phi_{ab}^{(n \alpha 0)}(\vec q~)~.
\label{eq:trans3}
\end{equation}
An immediate consequence of this relation is that in the adiabatic limit ($\beta_{ft} \rightarrow \infty$),
$\xi^{QM}_{ft}(w)^{\alpha 0} \sim \beta_{ft}^{-1} \rightarrow 0$ for
$\alpha \neq 0$ so we have explicitly demonstrated that there is no nonresonant production
in this limit.
Since we have for our discussion
assumed that $\psi^{(0)}_{ft}(\vec w)$ has the form of a ground state
harmonic oscillator wave function, it is natural to use a harmonic oscillator basis
as the orthonormal expansion functions for the variable $\vec w$. Doing so, it follows
that only three basis states give nonzero contributions to Eq. (\ref{eq:trans3}) to
leading order in $\vec V_{cm}$ since $\vec w \psi^{(0)}_{ft}(\vec w)$ is proportional
to the three $n_w=0$, $\ell_w=1$ harmonic oscillator
wave functions:
\begin{equation}
\psi^{[n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i]}_{ft}(\vec w)
=
\sqrt{2}{\beta_{ft}^{5/2} \over \pi^{3/4}} w^i
e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta_{ft}^2w^2}
\end{equation}
in a Cartesian basis, giving
\begin{equation}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(\vec w)^{[n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i]0}
=
-{
{i \sqrt{2} m_q V^i_{cm}} \over
{\beta_{ft}}
}
\end{equation}
and thence
\begin{equation}
\langle X_{ab}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}, \vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle
\simeq
\theta \sum_{n, i} \xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n0}
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(\vec w)^{[n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i]0}
\phi_{ab}^{(n [n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i] 0)}(\vec q~)~.
\end{equation}
Next we note that
\begin{equation}
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w)^{n\neq0,0} \sim (w-1)^k
\end{equation}
where $k$ is a positive integer by Luke's Theorem \cite{Luke} so that to order $\vec V_{cm}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X_{ab}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}, \vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle
& \simeq &
\theta \xi^{QM}_{Q \bar d}(w) \sum_i
\xi^{QM}_{ft}(\vec w)^{[n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i]0}
\phi_{ab}^{(0 [n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i] 0)}(\vec q~) \\
& \simeq &
-{
{i \theta \sqrt{2} m_q \vec V_{cm}} \over
{\beta_{ft}}
} \cdot
\vec \phi_{ab}(\vec q~)
\end{eqnarray}
where I have introduced the notation $\vec \phi_{ab}(\vec q~)$ for the three-vector
$\phi_{ab}^{(0 [n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i] 0)}(\vec q~)$.
This key result has a simple interpretation. Nonresonant production at
order $w-1$ requires that the current $\bar Q Q $ acting on $Q \bar q q \bar d$ create neither the
ground state nor the $P$-wave resonances. However,
it cannot excite the $q \bar q$ internal coordinate $\vec v$ and,
if it excites $\vec r$ then to order $w-1$ it has just produced the $Q \bar q q \bar d$ component
of either the ground state or the $P$-wave resonances. {\it Hence nonresonant
production to order $w-1$ occurs purely by excitation of the $q \bar q$
coordinate $\vec w$ to $\ell_w=1$.} The
factors $\vec \phi_{ab}(\vec q~)$ are simply the projections of
these $\ell_w=1$ states onto the continuum eigenstates
consisting of mesons $a$ and $b$ with relative momentum $\vec q$.
We are now in a position to verify that the $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ contribution
to the slope of the Isgur-Wise function is indeed compensated by the production
of these continuum $(Q \bar q)_a (q \bar d)_b$ states. The probability for their production
at $w$ is, up to $(w-1)^2$ corrections,
\begin{equation}
dP(P_Q \rightarrow {\rm{continuum}})
\simeq
\sum_{ab} \int d^3q
\vert \langle X_{ab}(+{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}, \vec q~) \vert \bar Q Q
\vert M^{(0)}_Q(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \vert^2
\end{equation}
which since
$
\sum_{ab} \int d^3q
\phi^i_{ab}(\vec q~) \phi^j_{ab}(\vec q~)=\delta^{ij}~,
$
gives
\begin{eqnarray}
dP(P_Q \rightarrow {\rm{continuum}})
& \simeq &
{
{2 \theta^2 m_q^2 V^2_{cm} }
\over
\beta^2_{ft}
} \\
& \simeq & {4m_q^2 \over \beta^2_{ft}} \theta^2(w-1)
\label{eq:nrtotal}
\end{eqnarray}
for the flavor $q$. On the other hand, according to Eq. (\ref{eq:mainresult}), the contribution
of flavor $q$ to the loss of elastic rate is
\begin{equation}
dP(P_Q \rightarrow P_Q+V_Q)_{Q \bar q q \bar d} \simeq -{4m_q^2 \over \beta^2_{ft}} \theta^2(w-1)~.
\end{equation}
The two rates match, explicitly demonstrating the connection of $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ to
the nonresonant continuum.
\subsubsection{Production of Exclusive Nonresonant States at Low $w-1$}
\bigskip
It remains to assess the fractional population of individual continuum channels inside
of the total given by Eq. (\ref{eq:nrtotal}). To do this we must calculate
$\vec \phi_{ab}(\vec q~)$, which from its definition is
\begin{equation}
\phi_{ab}^{(n \alpha \beta)}(\vec q~) \delta^3(\vec P~'_{cm}-\vec P_{cm})=
\langle \vec P~'_{cm};ab(\vec q~)
\vert X^{(n \alpha \beta)}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(\vec P_{cm}) \rangle
\end{equation}
for the case $(n \alpha \beta)=(0 [n_w=0, \ell_w=1,i] 0)$.
These calculations are straightforward, but would be quite tedious without the introduction
of several tricks described in Appendix C. Results of the
calculations of $\tau^{(m)}_{1/2}(w)$
and $\tau^{(p)}_{3/2}(w)$ for number of
low-lying nonresonant channels are given in Table I.
\section{Unquenching Heavy Quark Decay: Results}
\bigskip
We now turn to the quantitative evaluation of
$\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ (which is a reflection of total nonresonant production) and then to the
distribution of these decays into exclusive nonresonant channels.
\subsection{The Total Nonresonant Rate}
\bigskip
As shown in Appendix B, the light quark amplitudes
$\eta_{u \bar u}=\eta_{d \bar d}$
can be determined from strong decays to be
\begin{equation}
\eta_{q \bar q} \simeq 0.9 ~{\rm GeV}
\end{equation}
with an uncertainty of a factor of two mainly arising from a strong
dependence on the poorly known quantity $\beta_{pc}$. It follows from Eq. (\ref{eq:candeta}) that
\begin{equation}
c_{q \bar q} \simeq 0.5~.
\end{equation}
Assuming $SU(3)$
symmetry for the contribution to
$\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$, one then obtains from Eq. (\ref{eq:mainresult})
\begin{equation}
\Delta \rho^2_{sea} \simeq {1 \over 4}~,
\end{equation}
corresponding to an increase of $\rho^2$ from the value $0.74 \pm 0.05$ quoted in
ISGW2 to a value near unity. Either value would be in reasonable agreement with measurements
\cite{rho2}. {\it Via} the Bjorken sum rule, such a $\rho^2_{sea}$ would be consistent with the
possibility discussed in the Introduction that $16 \pm 8 \%$ of the inclusive semileptonic
$\bar B$ rate is in nonresonant channels.
This reasonable quantitative correspondence between our calculated
$\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$
and a possible experimental anomaly should not be taken too seriously. The
missing non-$(D+D^*)$ rate attributed to nonresonant production might be due
to an ISGW2 underestimate of excited resonance production \cite{Wolf}, or to an
experimental overestimate of non-$(D+D^*)$ production. Moreover, while it is
a ``canonical estimate", $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ is subject to very
substantial uncertainties: see Table II.
\subsection{The Rate to Low-Lying Exclusive Nonresonant Channels}
\bigskip
Using the amplitudes of Table I and the formulas of Appendix C, one can easily
calculate the {\it fractions} of $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ due to the individual low-mass
nonresonant channels shown in Table III. Note that the nonresonant rate is highly fragmented:
none of the many channels tabulated account for more than $4\%$ of the inclusive
nonresonant rate (and thus no more than about $1\%$ of the total semileptonic rate).
These results are consistent with previous studies
of single low energy pion emission using heavy quark chiral perturbation theory \cite{Qxipt}.
Note also
that the thirty final states considered here account for only about $40\%$ of the nonresonant rate,
so that most of this rate resides in states $ab$ composed of highly excited resonances.
There are several reasons why the results given in
Table III must be interpreted with caution. The most prominent is simply
that they depend roughly on $\tilde \beta_{pc}^{-5}$!
Recalling that $\tilde \beta_{pc}=n^{1/5} \beta_{pc}$, our canonical value for
$\tilde \beta_{pc}$ is $0.4$ GeV, but over the range of $\beta_{pc}$ allowed
by Table II, it varies from its canonical value by $\pm 0.1$ GeV. Although the factor $n^{1/5}$ makes
this range narrower than that of $\beta_{pc}$ itself, it still leaves us
with an uncertainty of more than a factor of two on the basic unit
for production of exclusive nonresonant channels.
The second word of caution concerns large corrections to the $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$ limit
studied here which arise for real $\bar B$ decay. The problem is phase space: in the heavy quark limit,
all final states occur at the $w$ of the underlying quark production process, {\it i.e.}, the
full mass range of the final state spectrum of states is negligible compared to the
heavy quark energies even at low $w-1$. In actual $\bar B \rightarrow X_c \ell \bar \nu_{\ell}$ decays,
each final state $X_c$ will have a Dalitz plot that is a shrinking fraction of the
$b \rightarrow c \ell \bar \nu_{\ell}$ Dalitz plot as $m_{X_c} \rightarrow m_B$. Thus in the
heavy quark limit the loss of rate from the elastic channels $D+D^*$ would be {\it locally
compensated} in the variable $w$. For finite $m_b$ and $m_c$, however, a loss of elastic rate will still
occur {\it via} $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$, but the compensating channels will experience a delayed
turn-on because of their thresholds; indeed, some processes which would have helped to compensate
$\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ will be kinematically forbidden. These
phase space suppressions lead to $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$-type corrections to the inclusive
rate, and therefore also corrections to the accuracy of quark-hadron duality. However, it is
known on general grounds from heavy quark symmetry and the operator product expansion (OPE)
that, as the energy release $m_b-m_c \rightarrow \infty$, the leading
corrections to the inclusive
rate must be of order $\Lambda^2_{QCD}/m^2_Q$ \cite{inclorig,SVonInclusives}.
The resolution of this apparent paradox has been discussed in Ref. \cite{NIonInclusives}:
the OPE has a radius of convergence which does not include the region
in which (significant) hadronic thresholds are turning on, so for real $b \rightarrow c$ transitions
there can be $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$ corrections, and they can be substantial. However,
associated with these $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$ threshold effects, which would diminish the
integrated contribution of individual hadronic channels below the level required for perfect duality, are
$\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$ corrections to the rate for the production of such channels
which {\it enhance} their production once they are above threshold. These counterbalancing effects soften
the breaking of duality: they are the precursors of the perfect cancellation of $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$
effects that must occur as $m_b-m_c \rightarrow \infty$.
How then should one make use of Table III for real $b \rightarrow c$ transitions? The amplitudes
$\tau_{1/2}^{(m)}$ and $\tau_{3/2}^{(p)}$ shown are the leading order predictions
for their respective channels. For the reasons just outlined, we can expect that they will be enhanced
by $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$ corrections which are expected to be of the order of $25-50\%$ \cite{NIonInclusives}.
However, despite this effect, I believe that the dramatically
reduced size of their Dalitz plots (relative to that for the underlying
quark process $b \rightarrow c \ell \bar \nu_{\ell}$)
will reduce the actual population of all nonresonant states well below that expected
from $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$. Indeed, each channel shown in Table III has a continuous
spectrum of masses from its threshold up to masses exceeding $m_B$. Consider, for example,
the $D+\rho$ channel. Its mass is given by $m_{D \rho}(q^2)={\sqrt {m_D^2+q^2}}+{\sqrt {m_{\rho}^2+q^2}}$,
while its dominant $D$-wave production rate
is proportional to $q^4 e^{-q^2/4 \tilde{ \bar \beta}^2}$, where
$2 \tilde{ \bar \beta} \sim 1$ GeV. The production is therefore very weak at low masses where
the available phase space is generous, and peaks at $m_{D \rho} \sim m_B$ where it vanishes.
Given these basic kinematic facts, it is clear that even this simple exclusive
channel will be produced at a rate far less than in the heavy quark limit, and that most
of $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ will be uncompensated. The third column of Table III gives
the phase space factors by which individual channels will be reduced in real
$\bar B \rightarrow X_c \ell \bar \nu_{\ell}$ decays relative to the heavy quark limit;
the fourth column gives a very rough estimate for the {\it net} suppression of each channel
as a product of this phase space factor and a generous guess that,
after $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$ corrections, each channel
has a compensatory increase of $50\%$. Considering that in general
the untabulated channels of yet more highly excited states $ab$ will suffer even greater phase space suppressions, an overall
diminution of the nonresonant rate by at least a factor of four seems likely.
\section{Conclusions}
\bigskip
Although the successes of the valence quark model and the arguments of the large $N_c$ limit
provide indications that sea quarks play a relatively minor role
in hadronic physics, this hope is far from being justified by our current
understanding. Some failures of the quark model
({\it e.g.}, the proton spin crisis) and the known existence of strong real and
virtual decay channel couplings indeed make blithely ignoring the role of $q \bar q$ pairs
both phenomenologically and theoretically untenable.
In this work I have examined the influence of $q \bar q$ pairs on the simplest ``real"
hadrons: heavy quark mesons like the $\bar B$.
This study has led to a number of qualitative insights which I believe
are quite general in nature.
In earlier work on ``unquenching the quark model", the success of the valence
quark model in spectroscopy was shown to have a possible basis in the validity of an adiabatic
approximation. In this approximation, both the confining
flux tube and the many $q \bar q$ pairs it generates remain in their adiabatically
evolving
ground state as the valence quarks move. In this work I have shown that the same approximation
leads to valence quark and therefore resonance dominance of the simplest current matrix
elements: $\bar Q_2 \Gamma Q_1$ matrix elements of heavy quark mesons. The physical picture behind
our results is simple and appealing. According to heavy quark symmetry, at small recoil
the $Q_1 \rightarrow Q_2$ decay of the $Q_1$ ground state $P_{Q_1}$ will lead with unit probability
to $P_{Q_2}$ and $V_{Q_2}$ {\it no matter how complicated the QCD
``brown muck" might be}. This simple observation makes it clear that for
$\bar Q_2 \Gamma Q_1$ matrix elements the issue is not the probability of
$q \bar q$ pairs in $P_{Q_1}$ but rather how rapidly as $w-1$ increases these pairs
fail to overlap with those in $P_{Q_2}$, $V_{Q_2}$, and the $Q_2 \bar d$ excited states.
I have shown explicitly that in the adiabatic limit these overlaps are perfect so
that only valence states (the resonances) are produced. Moreover,
I showed that violations of the adiabatic approximation
can be directly associated with the production of nonresonant states. Thus this study
leads to a way of understanding how the valence quark model can be so successful {\it even though}
hadrons are full of $q \bar q$ pairs.
While they are quantitatively very crude, these calculations also have interesting
consequences for real $\bar B$ semileptonic decays. First of all, they suggest that
$\rho^2_{dyn} \equiv \rho^2-{1 \over 4}$ is composed of two comparable
parts: $\rho^2_{resonant} \simeq {1 \over 2}$ and
$\rho^2_{nonresonant} \simeq {1 \over 4}$, though we have stressed that this
split of $\rho^2_{dyn}$ is very model-dependent. In the heavy quark limit,
Bjorken's sum rule would then lead one to expect (using the central experimental value of the
$(D+D^*)$ fraction) that roughly $24\%$ (with a $50\%$ error) of semileptonic decays
go into resonances (both ordinary $Q \bar d$ mesons and $Q \bar d$ hybrids), and
roughly $12\%$ (with an error of a factor of two) go into nonresonant states. Since the former states
will have most of their strength in the $2.4-3.0$ GeV region, they will suffer,
relative to the heavy quark limit, phase space suppression
factors varying from only $0.75$ to $0.50$ over this range which may be fully compensated by the
$\Lambda_{QCD}/m_Q$ enhancements required by asymptotic duality \cite{SVonInclusives,NIonInclusives}.
In contrast, we have seen that nonresonant states are expected to populate very high masses
peaking in strength near $m_B$ and so to suffer a substantial {\it net} suppression factor
of at least ${1 \over 4}$. From this study I therefore expect that ${\buildrel < \over \sim} 5\%$ of
$\bar B$ semileptonic decays will be nonresonant!
As a corollary of this last observation, I note that if a $12\%$ nonresonant semileptonic
fraction is required for duality
but only a quarter of this is realized, then duality will fail from this effect alone by $\sim 10\%$,
as anticipated in Ref. \cite{NIonInclusives}. There is, however, a minor inconsistency associated with
this conclusion. Experiment requires that $36 \pm 6\%$ of $\bar B$ semileptonic decays
be non-$(D+D^*)$ decays, in contrast to the $\sim 25\%$ we would have estimated from the preceeding.
As mentioned earlier, this could simply mean that the ISGW2 model underpredicts
the production of excited charm mesons \cite{Wolf} or that experiment has overestimated non-$(D+D^*)$ production.
Determining whether this discrepancy is real will require a more quantitative
calculation than this one (and probably additional experimental measurements as well).
Detailed experimental studies of the structure of the hadronic final state in
semileptonic $b \rightarrow c$ decays can therefore answer some fundamental questions about
the role of $q \bar q$ pairs and about duality in strong QCD. A vital feature of these systems
is that duality is underwritten by
Bjorken's sum rule, requiring an exact and local duality
between quark- and hadronic-level decays in the heavy quark limit. In particular,
the experimental determination of the strength and structure of these nonresonant
contributions would immediately test the conclusions reached here that these $q \bar q$ effects
are highly suppressed in real $b \rightarrow c$ decays, that such decays extend to very high masses,
and that they are highly fragmented into many small channels. Independent of the outcome,
examining this problem in Nature's
simplest hadronic system under the action of its simplest
current (a heavy-to-heavy nonsinglet transition) should prove to be an excellent starting point for
eventually understanding the $q \bar q$ sea in all strongly interacting matter. In
particular, given the complexity of QCD, this seems an essential first step before tackling
the problems of duality and nonresonant production in ordinary deep inelastic scattering.
\vfill\eject
{\noindent \bf APPENDIX A: Flux Tubes and A Critique of Nonrelativistic Kinematics}
\bigskip
It is not difficult to make the simplification $\psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)=\psi_{ft}(\vec w)$
of Eq. (\ref{eq:psift})
more flux-tube-like. In the case where $\psi_{ft}$ depends on $\vec w$ and $\vec r$,
Eqs. (\ref{eq:xi4})-(\ref{eq:xift}) become
\begin {eqnarray}
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(w)&=&
{1 \over 2m_{Q}}\langle P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}({\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \vert
\bar Q Q \vert P_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(-{\vec P_{cm} \over 2}) \rangle \\
&=&
\int d^3w d^3r \psi^*_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~) \psi^*_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)
e^{-2i m_q \vec V_{cm} \cdot \vec w}
e^{-i m_d \vec V_{cm} \cdot \vec r}
\psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~) \psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)
\label{eq:xi4wr}
\end {eqnarray}
or, defining
\begin{equation}
\xi^{QM}_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(w)=1-\rho^2_{Q \bar q q \bar d}(w-1)
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^2_{Q \bar q q \bar d}
&=& {1 \over 3}
\int d^3w d^3r (2m_q \vec w + m_d \vec r~)^2\vert \psi_{Q \bar d}(\vec r~) \psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~) \vert^2 \\
&=& {1 \over 3}\langle (2m_q \vec w + m_d \vec r~)^2 \rangle
\label{eq:rhoqbarq}
\end{eqnarray}
which reduces to the simplified results of the text in the appropriate limits.
Now consider a generic example of a more realistic $\psi_{ft}$ that has a flux tube's shape:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{ft}(\vec w, \vec r~)={\beta_{ft} \over \pi^{1/2} }e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta^2_{ft} w^2_{\perp}}t(\vec w \cdot \hat r)
\end{equation}
where $\hat r=\vec r/r$, $\vec w_{\perp}=\vec w - (\vec w \cdot \hat r)\hat r$,
and $t(\vec w \cdot \hat r)$, which depends only on the longitudinal variable $\vec w \cdot \hat r$,
is a normalized tube-like function. ({\it E.g.}, one might have $t={1 \over \sqrt{r}}
\theta (\vec w \cdot \hat r) \theta (r-\vec w \cdot \hat r)$ to create a cylindrical wavefunction
that is gaussian transverse to $\vec r$ and constant between $Q$ and $\bar d$.) With such a wavefunction
\begin{equation}
\rho^2_{Q \bar q q \bar d}={1 \over 3}[4m_q^2\langle w^2_{\perp}\rangle
+ \langle (2m_q \vec w \cdot \hat r + m_d r)^2 \rangle]
\label{eq:pluslongw}
\end{equation}
The first term is as expected intuitively: it is the unchanged $\vec w_{\perp}$ part of the result of the text.
One might also naively interpret the second term as the old $\vec r$ term plus a new longitudinal
contribution due to the assumed spatial distribution of $\vec w \cdot \hat r$ in a tube-like configuration along
$\vec r$.
I believe that the physics is more subtle than this. Consider the origin of
$\rho^2_{wf}$ in the nonrelativistic kinematics of our model. In the $Q \bar d$ sector
(see Eq. (\ref{eq:defR})), $ \vec r_Q = - m_d \vec r/ m_Q$
in the center of mass frame as $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$, while in $Q \bar q q \bar d$
(see Eq. (\ref{eq:defR'})), $\vec r_Q \rightarrow - (2m_q \vec w + m_d \vec r~)/ m_Q $.
Since nonrelativistically
$\rho^2={1 \over 3}m_Q^2 \langle r_Q^2 \rangle$, we see that
Eq. (\ref{eq:rhoQbard}) for $\rho^2_{Q \bar d}$ and Eq. (\ref{eq:rhoqbarq}) for
$\rho^2_{Q \bar q q \bar d}$ are simply consequences of these nonrelativistic relations.
To see the dangers of this approximation when the string tension and its renormalization
are large compared to $m_q$, consider the calculation of the mass of a system of heavy quarks
$Q$ and $\bar d$ at separation $\vec r$ connected by a renormalized flux tube, {\it i.e.},
of the state (\ref{eq:mixedstate}) of the text which has string tension
$b_{N_f}$ since it has the appropriate admixture
of $q \bar q$ pairs. If its mass were determined nonrelativistically one would obtain
\begin{equation}
M^{nr}-m_Q =m_d+{{2m_q c_{q \bar q}^2} \over {1+ c_{q \bar q}^2}}
\end{equation}
{\it i.e.}, the effective mass opposite $Q$ (against which it must recoil to conserve the position of the
center of mass)
would be the probability-weighted masses
of the pure $ \bar d$ state and the $ \bar q q \bar d$ admixture. On adding interactions (both
the diagonal potential $b_0r$ and the off-diagonal perturbation $H_{pc}^{q \bar q}$
which mixes $Q\bar d$ and $Q \bar q q \bar d$), we obtain
the correct answer
\begin{equation}
M^{adiabatic}-m_Q =m_d+b_{N_f}r~~.
\end{equation}
Thus the mass $2m_q$ does not in this circumstance have an
independent reality as indicated by the nonrelativistic kinematics just described:
it is subsumed into the properly renormalized string tension. Indeed, it
is an implicit assumption of the model for the $q \bar q$ pairs described in
the text that the unquenched flux tube also behaves like a relativistic
string: it should support (only) transverse waves moving with the speed of light.
Thus while the $q \bar q$ pairs change the longitudinal distribution of
$\vec r_Q $, {\it this effect is already described in the flux tube
model by the mass $b_{N_f}r$ residing in the flux tube}:
when $r$ increases, not only does $\bar d$ move, but
so does the center of mass of the flux tube. It would therefore be double-counting to include
the effect on $\langle r^2_Q \rangle$ of the $2m_q\vec w \cdot \hat r$ term
of Eq. (\ref{eq:pluslongw}).
I should hasten to add that the nonrelativistic quark model used in this paper does not
{\it explicitly} take this effect into account. To do so would require a
full treatment of the flux tube degrees of freedom ({\it versus} the adiabatic, potential-model
approximation used here). Nevertheless, even the nonrelativistic quark model
has undoubtedly already taken some of this effect
into account implicitly by its choice of such free parameters as $m_d$.
({\it E.g.}, in many applications the constituent quark mass is effectively
$m_d=m^0_d+{1 \over 2}b \langle r \rangle$). In contrast, there is no mechanism
in the quark potential model to take into account transverse displacements
of $Q$ relative to $\vec r$ ~~\cite{NIonTransverse}. These transverse displacements
are the true degrees of freedom of the (quenched and unquenched) flux tubes and the
reaction of $Q$ to them makes a non-potential-model-type transverse contribution to
$\rho^2$.
By renormalizing the string tension from $b_0 \rightarrow b_{N_f} < b_0$,
$q \bar q$ pairs
increase the longitudinal contribution to $\rho^2$
(at least in the nonrelativistic approximation ${1 \over 2}b r << m_d$). However,
this increase is {\it not} compensated by
nonresonant production, since it
is this same string tension $b_{N_f} < b_0$ which controls the structure
and thereby the production of excited resonances. {\it I.e.}, the longitudinal effect of the pairs is real,
but it simply renormalizes resonance physics. The dynamics behind this balancing
act, characteristic of the adiabatic approximation, can be seen by calculating
the contribution of the flux tube to the Isgur-Wise function \cite{NIonTransverse}:
since the flux tube has only transverse internal degrees of freedom, it has no impact on
longitudinal overlap integrals
over the total separation $\vec r$.
Based on the preceding arguments, the transverse contributions to $\langle r^2_Q \rangle$
would also be those of a relativistic string with string tension $b_0$ or $b_{N_f}$ in the quenched and
unquenched flux tubes, respectively. In contrast to the longitudinal contribution to
$\langle r^2_Q \rangle$, the transverse contributions correspond to the reaction of $Q$
to real internal degrees of freedom, and these degrees of freedom (both gluonic and $q \bar q$)
can be excited by the action of the $\bar Q \Gamma Q$ current. When acting on the pure $Q \bar d$ piece
of the state, the current excites hybrid mesons which in the quenched limit exactly compensate for the loss of
rate from the elastic channel due to transverse contributions to $\langle r^2_Q \rangle$~~\cite{NIonTransverse}.
In the $Q \bar q q \bar d$ sector, the current could in principle excite
either of the strings internal to mesons $(Q \bar q)_a$ or $(q \bar d)_b$, or it could
excite the center of mass of the $q \bar q$ pair.
In the quark potential model approximation to this latter process,
which is of course the one of interest for this paper, one
would recover the result shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:pluslongw}) less the longitudinal part of $\vec w$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^2_{Q \bar q q \bar d}&=&{4m_q^2 \over 3}\langle w^2_{\perp}\rangle
+ {m_d^2 \over 3}\langle r^2 \rangle \\
&=&{4m_q^2 \over {3\beta^2_{ft}}} + {m_d^2 \over {3\beta^2_{Q\bar d}}}~.
\label{eq:transverserho}
\end{eqnarray}
The first term of this formula differs from the expression of the text by the factor
${2 \over 3}$ corresponding
to two of the three degrees of freedom of $\vec w$ being active. Note that for this picture to be consistent,
the total transverse contribution to $\langle r^2_Q \rangle$ must be that of a relativistic string
with string tension $b_{N_f}$; the decomposition into $Q \bar d$ and $Q \bar q q \bar d$
components is only useful in identifying the compensating channels required by Bjorken's sum rule.
However, in the renormalized string picture $\langle r^2_Q \rangle$ of course depends
just on $b_{N_f}$, while Eq. (\ref{eq:transverserho}) shows a contribution proportional to $2m_q$.
It would be interesting to examine how the dynamics of pair creation in the flux tube leads to
such a term. I speculate that the mechanism is the ``consumption" of a piece of flux tube
of length $\Delta r \sim 2 m_q/b$ in a nonlocal pair creation process.
In summary, in this Appendix I have described several subtleties in the description of
$q \bar q$ pair creation in the flux tube model, and pointed out some interesting issues
which arise in the physics of the renormalized flux tube.
While I believe these matters are important conceptually and
are worthy of further study, I am convinced that other uncertainties described in the text
are of far greater impact numerically on our results. Given this and the great
convenience of the spherical approximation, I therefore chose this simpler if less basic
framework for the discussion of the text.
\vfill\eject
{\noindent \bf APPENDIX B: Determining $\eta_{q \bar q}$}
\bigskip
Eq. (\ref{eq:Hpc}) defines the action of the pair creation Hamiltonian on $\vert P_{Q \bar d} \rangle$.
This perturbation not only produces pairs to make the eigenstate $\vert P_Q \rangle$ of Eq. (\ref{eq:mixedstate}),
but also leads to strong decays. In particular, the projection of the state (\ref{eq:defP4})
onto the continuum
states $\vert \vec P_{cm};ab(\vec q~) \rangle$ determines the
$P_Q \rightarrow (Q \bar q)_a (q \bar d)_b$ coupling constants.
By heavy quark symmetry \cite{IWspec}, the same dynamics determine the
$P^*_Q \rightarrow (Q \bar q)_a (q \bar d)_b$ coupling constants,
where $P^*_Q$ is the vector partner of the pseudoscalar state $P_Q$. In this Appendix I
use these facts to
determine the strength parameter $\eta_{q \bar q}$ of Eq. (\ref{eq:Hpc}) by comparing to the decays
$P^*_Q \rightarrow P_Q \pi$.
I begin with a practical matter. As $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$, the decays $P^*_Q \rightarrow P_Q \pi$
are forbidden since $P^*_Q$ and $P_Q$ become degenerate heavy quark spin partners. However,
$\Gamma(K^* \rightarrow K \pi)$ is known, and $\Gamma(D^* \rightarrow D \pi)$ can be deduced
if one assumes that the successful phenomenology of magnetic dipole decays can be extended
to $\Gamma(D^* \rightarrow D \gamma)$. (The total width of the $D^*$ is so small
that only decay branching fractions and not decay widths are known. If one takes the
$K^* \rightarrow K \pi$ and $K^* \rightarrow K \gamma$ decays and scales them appropriately
in $m_Q$ assuming that heavy quark scaling works all the way down to $m_s$,
the observed $D^* \rightarrow D \pi$ and
$D^* \rightarrow D \gamma$ branching ratios are explained nearly perfectly. This is
another example of the often-noted fact that in many circumstances a strange quark
behaves like heavy quark.) Since the branching ratio for $D^{*0} \rightarrow D^0 \pi^0$
is well-determined experimentally, I will use the value $\Gamma(D^{*0} \rightarrow D^0 \pi^0)
\simeq 30$ keV deduced in this manner as input ``data".
The calculations themselves are simple. If $g_0 D^{0\dagger}\partial_{\mu} \pi^0 D^{0* \mu}$
is the effective Lagrangian density for the decay leading to $\Gamma(D^{*0} \rightarrow D^0 \pi^0)=
{{g^2q^3} \over {48 \pi m^2_{D^*}}}$, then in the center of mass, with
the pion emitted with momentum $\vec q$ from a $D^*$ with polarization $+1$ along $\hat z$,
\begin{eqnarray}
-{{ig_0 q_+} \over {\sqrt{2} (2 \pi )^{9/2}}} &=& \eta_{q \bar q}\sqrt{1 \over 3}
{{\tilde m_D \tilde m_{\pi}^{1/2} \beta^3_D \beta^{3/2}_{\pi} \beta^{3/2}_{ft}} \over {8 \pi^6}}
\int d^3r \int d^3v \int d^3w \nonumber \\
&&
e^{-{1 \over 2} \beta^2_D(\vec w + {1 \over 2} \vec v)^2
-{1 \over 2} \beta^2_{\pi}(\vec r- \vec w + {1 \over 2} \vec v)^2
-{1 \over 2} \beta^2_{ft} w^2
-{1 \over 2} \beta^2_D r^2}
{1 \over {(2 \pi)^{3/2}}}e^{-i{\vec q \over 2} \cdot (\vec r + \vec w - {1 \over 2} \vec v)}
\psi_{pc}(\vec v)_+
\end{eqnarray}
in which the ${1 \over \sqrt{2}}$ for the pure $\pi^0$ decay via $\eta_{u \bar u}$ has been
explicitly included, $\tilde m_X$ is the ``mock meson" mass given by the sum of the
constituent quark masses, and
$\psi_{pc}(\vec v)_+={\beta^{5/2}_{pc} \over \pi^{3/4}}v_+e^{-{1 \over 2} \beta^2_{pc} v^2}$.
The integrals are straightforward and give
\begin{equation}
g_0=-\eta_{q \bar q}
{
{16 \pi^{3/4} \tilde m_D \tilde m_{\pi}^{1/2}
\beta^3_D \beta^{3/2}_{\pi} \beta^{3/2}_{ft} \beta^{5/2}_{pc}({1 \over 2}-a_{DD} -b_{DD})}
\over
{\sqrt{3}{\beta_v}_{DD}^5 {\beta_y}_{DD}^3 {\beta_w}_{DD}^3 }
}
e^{-{q^2 \over {8\bar \beta_{DD}^2}}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{1 \over {\bar \beta_{DD}^2}}&=&
{1 \over {\beta^2_y}}+
{1 \over {\beta^2_w}} \bigl( {{\beta^2_D+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr)^2+
{1 \over {\beta^2_v}}({1 \over 2}-a-b)^2\\
{\beta_v}_{DD}^5&=&
\beta^2_{pc}
+a^2(\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}+\beta^2_{ft})
+(b^2+{1 \over 4})(\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi})
+a\beta^2_D+
(b-2ab-a)\beta^2_{\pi} \\
{\beta_y}_{DD}^2&=& \beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}
\label{eq:betay} \\
{\beta_w}_{DD}^2&=& \beta^2_D + \beta^2_{ft} +{{\beta^2_{\pi} \beta^2_D} \over {\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \\
a_{DD}&=&-
{\beta^4_D \over {2
[(\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}) (\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}+\beta^2_{ft}) - \beta^4_{\pi}]}}
\\
b_{DD}&=&-
{{\beta^2_{\pi}(2\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{ft}) } \over {2
[(\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}) (\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}+\beta^2_{ft}) - \beta^4_{\pi}]}}~~.
\label{eq:b}
\end{eqnarray}
From the ``measured" $D^{0*} \rightarrow D^0 \pi^0$ width, we can deduce that $g_0 \simeq 11$.
With our canonical parameters it follows that, with $\beta_{pc}$ expressed in GeV,
\begin{equation}
\eta_{q \bar q} \simeq
0.32[{{3+2f} \over f^{1/2}}]^{3/2}[{{\beta_{pc}^2 + 0.06} \over \beta_{pc}}]^{5/2}
\end{equation}
where since $\beta_D \simeq \beta_{\pi} \simeq \beta_{ft}/f^{1/2}$ I have been able
to explicitly display the dependence on $f$ as well as $\beta_{pc}$. We see that for
a variation of $\pm 1$ around the canonical value $f=2$, $\eta_{q \bar q}$ varies
by less than $10 \%$. Thus we conclude that (since $\beta^2_{pc} >> 0.06$ GeV$^2$),
\begin{equation}
\eta_{q \bar q} \simeq 0.9
[{\beta_{pc} \over 0.58~ \rm{GeV}}]^{5/2}~ \rm{GeV}
\end{equation}
{\it i.e.}, $\eta_{q \bar q} \simeq 0.9$ for the canonical value $\beta_{pc}=0.58$ GeV. We also
see from this formula the expected result
that as the pair creation operator becomes more pointlike, $\eta_{q \bar q} \rightarrow \infty$.
\vfill\eject
{\noindent \bf APPENDIX C: Calculating $\tau^{(m)}_{1/2}$ and $\tau^{(p)}_{3/2}$
for Selected Low-lying Exclusive Nonresonant Channels}
\bigskip
As discussed in Ref. \cite{IWonBj}, the semileptonic decays
$\bar B \rightarrow D^{(n)}_{{s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}} \ell \bar \nu_{\ell}$
are governed in the heavy quark limit by generalized Isgur-Wise functions
which determine all of the form factors for the decay of the $\bar B$
with $s_{\ell}^{\pi_{\ell}}={1\over 2}^-$ to both of the states of a heavy quark spin multiplet with
quantum numbers ${s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}$. As described in the text and elsewhere \cite{IWonBj},
\begin{equation}
\rho^2={1\over 4}+\Delta \rho^2_{pert}+\rho^2_{Q\bar d}+\Delta \rho^2_{sea}
\end{equation}
where the ${1\over 4}$ is Bjorken's relativistic correction \cite{Bj},
$\Delta \rho^2_{pert}$ is a perturbative QCD radiative correction, and
$\rho^2_{Q\bar d}$ and $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ are the contributions to the slope of
$\xi(w)$ from the valence and sea quarks, respectively. As we have seen, these latter
two contributions may be related to the rates of decay into inelastic channels by
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^2_{Q\bar d}&=&
\sum_{m={1\over 2}^+ Q \bar d~resonances}\vert \tau^{(m)}_{1/2} \vert^2
+2 \sum_{p={3\over 2}^+ Q \bar d~resonances}\vert \tau^{(p)}_{3/2} \vert^2 \\
\rho^2_{sea}&=&
\sum_{m={1\over 2}^+ continuum}\vert \tau^{(m)}_{1/2} \vert^2
+2 \sum_{p={3\over 2}^+ continuum}\vert \tau^{(p)}_{3/2} \vert^2
\label{eq:tauplustau}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\tau$'s are the appropriate Isgur-Wise functions.
Once the $\tau$'s are specified, all transition form factors to the states of
a heavy quark spin multiplet may be determined from symmetry considerations.
For this reason, it is useful to calculate the $\tau$'s in the simplest possible
setting, namely for the case where $b$ and $c$ are {\it spinless}. This is
possible since the $\tau$'s depend only on the dynamics of the light
degrees of freedom, {\it i.e.}, on the transition
$s_{\ell}^{\pi_{\ell}}={1\over 2}^- \rightarrow {s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}={1\over 2}^+$ or ${3\over 2}^+$.
Another key simplification arises from the dynamics of the pair creation
process. As demonstrated in the text, when
$b(\vec v) \rightarrow c(\vec {v'})$ in a $Q \bar q q \bar d$ state, excitation of the variable $\vec r$
cannot lead to a contribution of order $(w-1)$. Furthermore,
the variable $\vec v$ cannot be excited since this is a $q \bar q$ internal coordinate.
Thus to contribute at order $(w-1)$, $b(\vec v) \rightarrow c(\vec {v'})$ {\it must}
kick the $\vec w$ coordinate into an $\ell_w=1$ state: {\it such a state
is the parent of all nonresonant production to order} $(w-1)$. Thus
$\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ arises entirely from the ``decay" of the lowest $\ell_w=1$ excited
state of $c \bar q q \bar d$ arising from the $b \rightarrow c$ transition from $b \bar q q \bar d$.
With the $q \bar q$ pair in $J^P=0^+$, the decay can thus occur from the six states
$w_+ \uparrow$,
$w_+ \downarrow$,
$w_0 \uparrow$,
$w_0 \downarrow$,
$w_- \uparrow$, and
$w_- \downarrow$,
depending on which component of $\vec w$ is excited by the recoil. Here
$w_+, w_0, w_-$ represent the components of the $\ell_w=1$ state, and
$\uparrow, \downarrow$ represent the spin state of the $\bar d$ spectator quark.
Since the total decay rate of $b \bar q q \bar d \uparrow$ and $b \bar q q \bar d \downarrow$
must be the same, we can simplify if we average rates over the initial $\bar d$ spin
and over directions of $\vec P_{cm}$ (or equivalently, over directions of $\vec w$).
Then since the average over the six states just listed will be the same as the average over
the two $j={1\over 2}^+$ and four $j={3\over 2}^+$ states formed from them, we can
deal with ``parent" states that are states with good angular momenta and which therefore
uniquely feed the ${s'}_{\ell}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}={1\over 2}^+$ and ${3\over 2}^+$ states,
respectively.
Let me provide an example: the production of the $(D+D^*)\pi$
nonresonant states. Since we know that all of $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ arises from
the ``parent" state, the fraction of $\Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ coming from a given channel
can just be obtained as the $jm_j$ average of the square of an overlap between a given $jm_j$ in
$Q \bar q q \bar d$ and the two particle continuum state of interest. Thus from the
$jm_j={1\over 2}{1\over 2}$ state we can extract
$\langle (D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}} \pi (\vec q~) \vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{1\over 2}^+{1\over 2} \rangle$,
which ought to leave the $(D+D^*)\pi$ system in an $S$-wave. Explicitly,
as $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}} \pi (\vec q~) \vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{1\over 2}^+{1\over 2} \rangle
&=&
\int d^3w \int d^3v \int d^3r
{\beta_D^{3/2} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta_D^2(\vec w+ {1 \over 2}\vec v)^2}
{\beta_{\pi}^{3/2} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta_{\pi}^2(\vec r-\vec w+ {1 \over 2}\vec v)^2}
\nonumber \\
&&
{1 \over {(2\pi)^{3/2}}}e^{-i{\vec q \over 2} \cdot (\vec r+ \vec w - {1 \over 2}\vec v)}
{\tilde \beta_{pc}^{5/2} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta_{pc}^2 v^2}
{\beta_{ft}^{5/2} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta_{ft}^2 w^2}
{\beta_B^{3/2} \over \pi^{3/4}}e^{-{1 \over 2}\beta_B^2 r^2}
\nonumber \\
&&
\nonumber \\
&&
\Sigma (\vec w, \vec v)
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Sigma \equiv \langle \uparrow \sqrt{1 \over 2} (\uparrow \downarrow - \downarrow \uparrow) \vert
\sqrt{1 \over 3}
(\uparrow \uparrow v_--[\uparrow \downarrow + \downarrow \uparrow]v_z- \downarrow \downarrow v_+)
\sqrt{2 \over 3}(-w_+\downarrow-w_z\uparrow) \rangle
\label{eq:Dpiintegral}
\end{equation}
is the spin overlap matrix element of the three quarks $\bar q q \bar d$, respectively. We get
\begin{equation}
\langle (D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}} \pi (\vec q~) \vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{1\over 2}^+{1\over 2} \rangle
=-I^{00}_{+-} - I^{00}_{zz}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
I^{00}_{ij} \equiv {1 \over 3}
{
{\beta_D^{3/2}\beta_{\pi}^{3/2}\beta_{ft}^{5/2}\tilde \beta_{pc}^{5/2}\beta_B^{3/2}}
\over
{\pi^{15/4}}
}
\int d^3w \int d^3v \int d^3r
{{v_iw_j} \over {(2\pi)^{3/2}}}e^{-i{\vec q \over 2} \cdot (\vec r+ \vec w - {1 \over 2}\vec v)-{1 \over 2}E^2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
E^2=
\beta_D^2 (\vec w + {1 \over 2}\vec v)^2
+\beta_{\pi}^2 (\vec r - \vec w + {1 \over 2}\vec v)^2
+\beta_{ft}^2 w^2
+\tilde \beta_{pc}^2 v^2
+\beta_B^2 r^2~.
\end{equation}
In these formulas I have distinguished between $\beta_D^2$ and $\beta_B^2$ to allow the ``ancestry"
of terms to be traced, even though $\beta_B=\beta_D$ from heavy
quark symmetry. This integral is easily done, giving
\begin{equation}
I^{00}_{ij}=I^{00} \Bigl[ c^{00} \delta_{ij} + c^{00}_{ij} {{q_iq_j} \over \beta^2_v} \Bigr]
e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}
\end{equation}
where $I^{00}$, $c^{00}_{ij}$, $c^{00}$, and $\tilde{\bar \beta}$ are given below. For the problem at hand, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}} \pi (\vec q~) \vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{1\over 2}^+{1\over 2} \rangle
&=&-\Bigl[3c^{00}+ c^{00}_{ij}{{q_+q_-} \over \beta^2_v} +c^{00}_{ij}{q^2_z \over \beta^2_v} \Bigr]
I^{00}e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}\nonumber \\
&=&-\Bigl[3c^{00} + c^{00}_{ij} {{q^2} \over \beta^2_v} \Bigr]
I^{00} e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2} \nonumber \\
&=&-\sqrt{4 \pi} \Bigl[3c^{00} + c^{00}_{ij} {{q^2} \over \beta^2_v} \Bigr]
I^{00} e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}Y_{00}(\Omega_q)~,
\end{eqnarray}
a pure $S$-wave decay as required, with partial wave amplitude
$A_{1 / 2} \equiv -\sqrt{4 \pi} \Bigl[3c^{00} + c^{00}_{ij} {{q^2} \over \beta^2_v} \Bigr] I^{00}
e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}$.
Note that with $Y_{00}$ factored out, $\vert A_{1 / 2} \vert^2$ is already the probability
for this channel integrated over angles $\Omega_q$, leaving only an integral
$\int dq q^2 \vert A_{1 / 2} \vert^2$ to be done to sum over all
$(D+D^*) \pi $ states with quantum numbers ${1 \over 2}^+ {1 \over 2}$ at any fixed value of $(w-1)$.
Next consider
$\langle (D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}} \pi (\vec q~) \vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2} \rangle$,
which proceeds by replacing $\sqrt{2 \over 3}(-w_+\downarrow-w_z\uparrow) \rangle$ by $-w_+ \uparrow$
in Eq. (\ref{eq:Dpiintegral}). With this change one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}} \pi (\vec q~) \vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2} \rangle
&=&-\sqrt{3 \over 2} I^{00}_{z+} \nonumber \\
&=&-\sqrt{3 \over 2} c^{00}_{ij} {q_zq_+ \over \beta^2_v}I^{00} e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2} \nonumber \\
&=&-\sqrt{1 \over 5}[\sqrt{4 \pi} c^{00}_{ij} {{q^2} \over \beta^2_v}
I^{00}e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}] Y_{21}(\Omega_q)~,
\end{eqnarray}
a pure $D$-wave decay as required. Moreover, since $-\sqrt{1 \over 5}$ is the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient
for coupling $(D+D^*)_{{1 \over 2}^- {1 \over 2}}$ and an $\ell=2$, $m=1$ pion into a ${3 \over 2}{3 \over 2}$
state, we can deduce that decays to this whole angular momentum multiplet
with $(D+D^*) \pi $ in a $D$-wave coupled to ${s'_{\ell}}^{{\pi '}_{\ell}}={3 \over 2}^+$
are controlled by a $D$-wave amplitude
$A_{3 / 2} \equiv -\sqrt{4 \pi} c^{00}_{ij} {{q^2} \over \beta^2_v} I^{00}e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}$.
To complete this pedagogical example, I note that since the
partial wave decay amplitudes are independent
of the magnetic substate $m$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{1 \over 6} \sum_m \vert A_{{1 / 2}} \vert^2 &=& {1 \over 3}\vert A_{{1 / 2}} \vert^2
\label{eq:A1/2rate} \\
{1 \over 6} \sum_m \vert A_{{3 / 2}} \vert^2 &=& {2 \over 3}\vert A_{{3 / 2}} \vert^2 ~~,
\label{eq:A3/2rate}
\end{eqnarray}
where the ${1 \over 6}$ arises from averaging over the six $jm_j$ states.
On comparison with Eq. (\ref{eq:tauplustau}), we see that
$\tau_{1 / 2}=\sqrt{1 \over 3} A_{{1 / 2}} \sqrt{{1 \over 3} \Delta \rho^2_{sea} }$ and
$\tau_{3 / 2}=\sqrt{1 \over 3} A_{{3 / 2}} \sqrt{ {1 \over 3} \Delta \rho^2_{sea} }$. Note that
${1 \over 3} \Delta \rho^2_{sea}$ appears since the
overlap amplitudes $A_{1 / 2}$ and $A_{3 / 2}$ as calculated are for a single flavor,
while the factor $\sqrt{1 \over 3}$ arises as a residue of the angular and spin averaging.
The tricks outlined here are more powerful for more complex decays. I will give one
partial illustration:
$\langle [(D+D^*) \rho]_{{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2}}
\vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2} \rangle$, where the subscripts
on the bracket are total spin quantum numbers, but do not include relative
orbital angular momentum. The overlap integral for this decay
is obtained by replacing the pion spin wavefunction
$\sqrt{1 \over 2}(\uparrow \downarrow- \downarrow \uparrow)$ by $\uparrow \uparrow$,
$\sqrt{2 \over 3}(-w_+ \downarrow-w_z \uparrow)$ by $-w_+ \uparrow$, and $\beta_{\pi}$
by $\beta_{\rho}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:Dpiintegral}) to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle [(D+D^*) \rho]_{{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2}}
\vert c \bar q q \bar d ;{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2} \rangle
&=&-\sqrt{3} I^{00}_{+-} \nonumber \\
&=&-\sqrt{3} [ 2 c^{00} + c^{00}_{ij} {q_+q_- \over \beta^2_v}]I^{00} e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2} \nonumber \\
&=&-\sqrt{4 \over 3}\sqrt{4 \pi}
\Bigl([ 3 c^{00} + c^{00}_{ij} {q^2 \over \beta^2_v} ] Y_{00} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~- c^{00}_{ij} {q^2 \over \beta^2_v} \sqrt{1 \over 5} Y_{20} \Bigr)I^{00}e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
By examining the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for coupling the spin state
$[(D+D^*) \rho]_{{3\over 2}^+{3\over 2}}$ to a relative orbital $S$-wave
or a $D$-wave to get a ${3 \over 2}{3 \over 2}$
state, we can deduce that the $S$- and $D$-wave amplitudes for this decay are
$- \sqrt{4 \over 3}[\sqrt{4 \pi} (3 c^{00} + c^{00}_{ij} {q^2 \over \beta^2_v} )I^{00}e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}]$ and
$\sqrt{4 \over 3}[\sqrt{4 \pi} c^{00}_{ij} {q^2 \over \beta^2_v} I^{00}e^{-q^2/ 8\tilde{\bar \beta}^2}]$,
respectively. One very simple overlap
integral thus gives two partial wave amplitudes simultaneously.
A complete set of results are given in the text in Table II in terms of the
following basic integrals:
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{00}_{ij} &=& I^{00}
\Bigl[c^{00} \delta_{ij} + c^{00}_{ij} {{q_iq_j} \over \tilde \beta^2_v} \Bigr] e^{-{q^2 / {8 \tilde {\bar \beta}^2}}} \\
I^{10}_{ijk} &=& I^{10}
\Bigl[c^{10}_i q_i \delta_{jk} +
c^{10}_j q_j \delta_{ik} +
c^{10}_k q_k \delta_{ij} +
c^{10}_{ijk} {{q_i q_j q_k} \over {\tilde \beta^2_{v~**}}} \Bigr] e^{-{q^2 / {8 \tilde {\bar \beta}_{**}^2}}} \\
I^{01}_{ijk} &=& I^{01}
\Bigl[c^{01}_i q_i \delta_{jk} +
c^{01}_j q_j \delta_{ik} +
c^{01}_k q_k \delta_{ij} +
c^{01}_{ijk} {{q_i q_j q_k} \over {\tilde \beta^2_{v~a}}} \Bigr] e^{-{q^2 / {8 \tilde {\bar \beta}_a^2}}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I^{00}_{ij}$ is specified in terms of
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{00}&=&
{
{2 \beta^{3/2}_D \beta^{3/2}_B \beta^{3/2}_{\pi} \beta^{5/2}_{ft} \tilde \beta^{5/2}_{pc}}
\over
{3 \pi^{3/4} \tilde \beta^5_v \beta^5_w \beta^3_y}
} \\
c^{00}&=& +4a\beta^2_w \\
c^{00}_{ij}&=&\Bigl[({1 \over 2}-a -b)
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr)
-{a \beta^2_w \over \tilde \beta^2_v}({1 \over 2}-a -b)^2\Bigr] \\
\tilde \beta^2_v&=&
\tilde \beta^2_{pc}
+a^2(\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}+\beta^2_{ft})
+b^2(\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}) \nonumber \\
&&+{1 \over 4}(\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi})
+a\beta^2_D+
(b-2ab-a)\beta^2_{\pi} \\
\beta_y^2 &=& \beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi} \\
\beta_w^2 &=& \beta^2_D + \beta^2_{ft} +{{ \beta^2_B \beta^2_{\pi} } \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \\
a &=&-
{{(\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi})(\beta^2_D-\beta^2_{\pi})+\pi^4} \over {2
[(\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}) (\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}+\beta^2_{ft}) - \beta^4_{\pi}]}}
\\
b&=&-
{{\beta^2_{\pi}(2\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{ft}) } \over {2
[(\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}) (\beta^2_D+\beta^2_{\pi}+\beta^2_{ft}) - \beta^4_{\pi}]}} \\
{1 \over { \tilde {\bar \beta}^2}}&=&
{1 \over {\beta^2_y}}+
{1 \over {\beta^2_w}} \bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr)^2+
{1 \over {\tilde \beta^2_v}}({1 \over 2}-a-b)^2~~.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, $I^{10}_{ijk}$ is specified in terms of
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{10}&=& -
{
{4i \beta^{5/2}_{D^{**}} \beta^{3/2}_B \beta^{3/2}_{\pi} \beta^{5/2}_{ft} \tilde \beta^{5/2}_{pc}}
\over
{3 \pi^{3/4} \tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^5 {\beta_w}_{**}^5 {\beta_y}_{**}^3}
} \\
c^{10}_{i}&=&\Bigl[+a_{**}\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr)
-a_{**} ({1 \over 2}+a_{**}) ({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})
{{\beta_w}_{**}^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^2} \Bigr] \\
c^{10}_{j}&=&\Bigl[-({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})
-a_{**} ({1 \over 2}+a_{**}) ({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})
{{\beta_w}_{**}^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^2} \Bigr] \\
c^{10}_{k}&=&\Bigl[+({1 \over 2}+a_{**})
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr)
-a_{**} ({1 \over 2}+a_{**}) ({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})
{{\beta_w}_{**}^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^2} \Bigr] \\
c^{10}_{ijk}&=&+{1 \over 4} \Bigl[({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})
{\tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^2 \over {\beta_w}_{**}^2}
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr)^2 \nonumber \\
&&
-({1 \over 2}+2a_{**})({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})^2
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_{\pi}} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_{\pi}}} \bigr) \nonumber \\
&&+a_{**} ({1 \over 2}+a_{**}) ({1 \over 2}-a_{**} -b_{**})^3
{{\beta_w}_{**}^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^2} \Bigr]
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\tilde {\beta_v}_{**}^2$, ${\beta_y}_{**}^2$, ${\beta_w}_{**}^2$,
$a_{**}$, $b_{**}$, and ${1 \over { \tilde {\bar \beta}_{**}^2}}$
are given by the formulas for the $I^{00}_{ij}$ variables
$\tilde \beta^2_v$, $\beta^2_y$, $\beta^2_w$, $a$, $b$, and ${1 \over { \tilde {\bar \beta}^2}}$,
respectively, with $\beta_D \rightarrow \beta_{D^{**}}$ everywhere.
Finally, $I^{01}_{ijk}$ is specified in terms of
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{01}&=& -
{
{4i \beta^{3/2}_D \beta^{3/2}_B \beta^{5/2}_a \beta^{5/2}_{ft} \tilde \beta^{5/2}_{pc}}
\over
{3 \pi^{3/4} \tilde {\beta_v}_a^5 {\beta_w}_a^5 {\beta_y}_a^3}
} \\
c^{01}_{i}&=&\Bigl[+ {a_a {\beta_w}_a^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_a^2}
-{{a_a \beta^2_B} \over {{\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}}}
\bigl({{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_a} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}} \bigr)
-a_a ({1 \over 2}-a_a+b_a) ({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a) {{\beta_w}_a^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_a^2} \Bigr] \\
c^{01}_{j}&=&\Bigl[+{{\beta^2_B} \over {{\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}}} ({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a)
-a_a ({1 \over 2}-a_a+b_a) ({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a) {{\beta_w}_a^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_a^2} \Bigr] \\
c^{01}_{k}&=&\Bigl[+\bigl({{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_a} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}} \bigr)({1 \over 2}-a_a+b_a)
-a_a ({1 \over 2}-a_a+b_a) ({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a) {{\beta_w}_a^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_a^2} \Bigr] \\
c^{01}_{ijk}&=&+{1 \over 4} \Bigl[
+({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a)
{\tilde {\beta_v}_a^2 \over {\beta_y}_a^2}
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_a} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}} \bigr)
-{a_a {\beta_w}_a^2 \over {\beta_y}_a^2}({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a)^2 \nonumber \\
&&
-{\tilde {\beta_v}_a^2 \over {\beta_w}_a^2}
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_a} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}} \bigr)^2
{{\beta^2_B} \over {{\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}}} ({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a) \nonumber \\
&&
+{{ a_a \beta^2_B} \over {{\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}}}
\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_a} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}} \bigr) ({1 \over 2}-a_a-b_a)^2 \nonumber \\
&&
-\bigl( {{\beta^2_B+2 \beta^2_a} \over {\beta^2_B+\beta^2_a}} \bigr)
({1 \over 2}-a_a+b_a)({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a)^2 \nonumber \\
&&
+{a_a {\beta_w}_a^2 \over \tilde {\beta_v}_a^2}({1 \over 2}-a_a+b_a)({1 \over 2}-a_a -b_a)^3
\Bigr]
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\tilde {\beta_v}_a^2$, ${\beta_y}_a^2$, ${\beta_w}_a^2$,
$a_a$, $b_a$, and ${1 \over { \tilde {\bar \beta}_a^2}}$
are given by the formulas for the $I^{00}_{ij}$ variables
$\tilde \beta^2_v$, $\beta^2_y$, $\beta^2_w$, $a$, $b$, and ${1 \over { \tilde {\bar \beta}^2}}$,
respectively, with $\beta_{\pi} \rightarrow \beta_a$ everywhere.
\vfill\eject
{\centerline {\bf REFERENCES}}
|
\section{Dark Matter and Cosmology}
The two pillars of standard cosmology are the Einstein equations
\beq
{\rm R}_{\mu\nu} - {1\over 2} {\cal R} {\rm g}_{\mu\nu} =
8 \pi {\rm G} {\rm T}_{\mu\nu} + {\rm \Lambda} {\rm g}_{\mu\nu} \, ,
\label{eq:einstein}
\eeq
\noindent
(where ${\rm R}_{\mu \nu}$ is the curvature (Ricci) tensor, $\cal R$ is its
trace, ${\rm T}_{\mu \nu}$ is the stress-energy tensor, ${\rm \Lambda}$ the
cosmological constant) and the Robertson-Walker metric
\beq
ds^2 = dt^2 - {\rm R}^2(t) \left({ \frac{dr^2}{1-k r^2} + r^2 d{\theta}^2 +
r^2 \sin^2 \theta \, d{\phi}^2} \right) \, ,
\label{eq:rw}
\eeq
\noindent
where $R = R(t)$ is the cosmic scale factor and $t,r,\theta,\phi$ are the
comoving coordinates \cite{weinberg,kt,peebles,roos,kolb}.
We recall that Eq. (\ref{eq:rw})
follows from the assumption that the distribution of matter
and radiation in the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous.
When the
coordinates are appropriately rescaled, the values
$k = +1, 0, -1$ define the space curvature to be positive, zero
and negative, respectively.
Useful standard quantities for the description of the expanding
Universe are the Hubble parameter (expansion rate of the Universe)
$H = \dot{\rm R}/R$ and the deceleration parameter
$q = - \ddot{\rm R} \cdot {\rm R}$/$\dot{\rm R}^2$,
whose values at present epoch are denoted as ${\rm H}_0$ and ${\rm q}_0$.
By combining Eqs. (\ref{eq:einstein}) -- (\ref{eq:rw}), one obtains the
Friedmann equation
\beq
{\rm \Omega}_m + {\rm \Omega}_{\rm \Lambda} - k/({\rm H}^2 {\rm R}^2) = 1\, ,
\label{eq:friedmann}
\eeq
\noindent
where ${\rm \Omega}_m$ is the ratio of the average matter--energy density $\rho$
to the critical density $\rho_c = 3 {\rm H}^2/(8 \pi G)$,
$\Omega_m = \rho/\rho_c$, and ${\rm \Omega}_{\rm \Lambda} =
{\rm \Lambda} /(3 {\rm H}^2)$. The critical density is given by
$\rho_c = 1.9 \cdot 10^{-29}\, h^2$ g\ cm$^{-3}$, when the Hubble
constant is parametrised as follows:
$h = {\rm H}_0/(100$ km\ s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$).
{}From Eqs. (\ref{eq:einstein}) -- (\ref{eq:rw}) it also follows that at
present time, when the radiation contribution to $\Omega$ can be set
to zero, the value of the deceleration parameter is given by
\beq
q_0 = \frac{1} {2} {\Omega}_m - {\Omega}_{\Lambda}\, .
\label{eq:q}
\eeq
The features of the evolution of our Universe depend on the actual
values to be assigned to the cosmological parameters previously
defined. In what follows we briefly summarize some of the main
observational data about these parameters.
\section{Age of the Universe and Expansion Rate}
The evaluation of
the present age of the Universe, $t_0$, depends on the expansion rate
and on the various components of $\Omega$;
therefore measurements of $t_0$ and
of the Hubble constant provide information on the size of
$\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ (see, for instance, Refs.
\cite{kt,freedman}).
A recent determination of $t_0$ provides the value:
$t_0 = 11.5 \pm 1.3$ Gyr \cite{cdkk}, with a $95\%$ C.L. lower
bound of 9.5 Gyr. Recent measurements of the Hubble constant by the Hubble
Space Telescope Key project
give the following range \cite{freedman,madore}:
${\rm H}_0 = 73 \pm 6 (stat) \pm 8 (syst)$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
In view of the still persisting sizeable spread in the $h$ values, due to a host
of independent measurements (for a review, see for instance
\cite{freedman})
in the following we will, conservatively, consider a rather wide range:
$0.5 \leq h \leq 0.9$.
If, for sake of illustration, we take $h \simeq 0.7$,
it is easy to show that $t_0 \sim 11.5$ Gyr would require either
$\Omega_m \lsim 0.3$ or $\Omega_m \sim 0.5$, according to whether or not
we allow for a non-vanishing cosmological constant, such that
$\Omega_{\Lambda} = 1 - \Omega_m$.
\section{Observational Evidence for Dark Matter}
The parameter $\Omega_m$ may be derived from astronomical
determinations of the
average mass-to-light ratio $M/L$ for various astrophysical objects
(see, for instance, Ref. \cite{sap} for an updated review)
\beq
\Omega_m = \frac{\rm M}{\rm L} \frac{\it L}{\rho_c}\, ,
\label{eq:ml}
\eeq
\noindent
where $L$ is the luminosity density:
${\it L} = 1.6 \cdot 10^8\, h\, {\rm L}_{\odot}$ Mpc$^{-3}$. Using
$\rho_c = 2.8 \cdot 10^{11}\, h^2\, {\rm M}_{\odot}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, one gets
\beq
\Omega_m = \frac{h^{-1}}{1500}\, \frac{{\rm M}/{\rm L}}
{{\rm M}_{\odot}/{\rm L}_{\odot}} \, .
\label{eq:aa}
\eeq
{}From the $M/L$ ratio measured in stars,
$M/L \sim (3-9) {\rm M}_{\odot}/{\rm L}_{\odot}$ we obtain
\beq
0.002 \;h^{-1} \leq \Omega_{vis} \leq 0.006 \; h^{-1} \, .
\label{eq:bb}
\eeq
\subsection{Rotational curves of spiral galaxies}
Presence of dark matter in single galaxies is apparent from the
flatness of the plot of the rotational velocities versus the
galactocentric radius, well beyond the distribution of the visible
matter. {}From these measurements one derives
$M/L \simeq 70 \, {\rm M}_{\odot}/{\rm L}_{\odot} (R_{halo}/100$ kpc).
Then we obtain
\beq
\Omega_{halo} \sim 0.05\, h\, R_{halo}/100\, \mbox{{\rm kpc}}\, ,
\eeq
\noindent
a result which, compared to the range (\ref{eq:bb}) for $\Omega_{vis}$, is
indicative of the presence of dark matter at the
level of single galaxies.
\subsection{Clusters of galaxies}
Existence of dark matter at the level of clusters of galaxies may be
established by a number of methods: X-ray emission by hot gas in
intra cluster plasma, measurements of velocity dispersion and
strong gravitational lensing.
We report here some results derived from
measurements of the X-ray emission \cite{wf}. For rich clusters
of galaxies one finds
$M/L = (300 \pm 100)\,h \,{\rm M}_{\odot}/{\rm L}_{\odot}$, which
gives
\beq
\Omega_{cluster} \simeq 0.2 \pm 0.07 \, .
\label{eq:cc}
\eeq
\noindent
The baryonic content $\rm \Omega_b$ is established to be: $\sim 6\;h^{-3/2}\%$
for gas and $ \gsim 4\%$ for stars; then
\beq
\frac{\Omega_b}{\Omega_{cluster}} \gsim 0.04 + 0.06 h^{-3/2} \, .
\label{eq:dd}
\eeq
On the other hand, the Big Bang nucleosynthesis provides the following
estimate for $\Omega_b$ \cite{sap,nucl}:
\begin{equation}
0.009 \lsim \Omega_b h^2 \lsim 0.02 \, ,
\label{eq:ob}
\end{equation}
or, taking $0.5 \leq h \leq 0.9$,
$0.01 \lsim {\rm \Omega_b} \lsim 0.08$.
Combining this result with Eq.(\ref{eq:dd}) we obtain
\beq
{\Omega}_{cluster} \lsim 0.2 - 0.4 \, .
\label{eq:ee}
\eeq
\subsection{Large-scale Velocity Flows}
Distribution of matter over large scales may be inferred from the
peculiar motion of the gravitationally--induced inflow.
Let us consider the case of the Local Supercluster, centered near the
Virgo cluster; we stay on the edge of this cluster, at a distance of
R = 12 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The radial inward peculiar velocity averaged over
the surface is given by \cite{peebles2}
\beq
\bar v = \frac{1}{3} {\rm H}_0 \, {\rm R} \delta_m {\Omega}^{0.6} \, .
\label{eq:xx}
\eeq
\noindent
where ${\Omega}^{0.6}$ represents the factor due to expansion and
$\delta_m$ denotes the mass contrast, related to the contrast in
galaxy counts ($\delta_g$) by the relation
$\delta_m = \delta_g/b$, $b$ being the
bias factor. Using the observational values \cite{peebles2}:
$\bar v = 200 \pm 25$ km s$^{-1}$, $\delta_g = 2.3 \pm 0.7$,
and taking $b \simeq 1$, one obtains
\beq
{\Omega}_m \simeq 0.1_{-0.05}^{+0.1}\, .
\eeq
\subsection{A few first conclusions}
{}From the previous evaluations for $\Omega_{vis}$ and
$\Omega_m$, and from the range for $\rm \Omega_b$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:ob}) we derive
the following important points:
\begin{itemize}
\item a large amount of matter in the Universe is not visible;
\item some of this dark matter is baryonic;
\item a significant amount of dark matter is \underline{non}-- baryonic.
\end{itemize}
As usual we divide particle dark matter into two categories:
Hot Dark Matter (HDM) and Cold Dark Matter (CDM), according to whether
the particles are relativistic or non-relativistic at their decoupling
from the primeval plasma.
\section{Singling out different contributions to $\rm \Omega$}
We briefly report now some important observational results and analyses
which provide further clues toward a determination of the various components
to $\rm \Omega$. The two main issues are: what, if any, is the size
of $\rm \Omega_{\Lambda}$ and what is $\Omega_m$ made of?
\subsection{Formation of cosmological structures}
A standard method for testing different dark matter models is to
compare the power spectrum of the density fluctuations $P(k)$
with measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation (CMBR) anisotropy and measurements of the
two-point correlation function in galaxy surveys
\cite{kt,peebles,roos,kolb}.
We recall that $P(k)$ is the Fourier transform of the correlation
function between the density contrasts at two different points in
space. It is customary to assume for $P(k)$
a power law, i.e.
$P(k) \propto k^n$. The Harrison--Zel'dovich spectrum corresponds
to $n = 1$. In the past, typically, the best performing cosmological
models turned out to fall into the following categories:
\begin{itemize}
\item HCDM model characterized by $\rm \Omega = 1$ and the following
composition:
$\rm \Omega_b \simeq 0.1$, $\rm \Omega_{\nu} \simeq 0.2$,
$\rm \Omega_{CDM} \simeq 0.7$; $h \simeq 0.5$, where
$\rm \Omega_b$, $\rm \Omega_{\nu}$ and $\rm \Omega_{CDM}$ are
the contribution due to baryons, neutrinos (as HDM particles)
and to CDM particles, respectively.
\item $\rm \Lambda$CDM model with $\rm \Omega = 1$ and
$\rm \Omega_{CDM} \simeq 0.3$,
$\rm \Omega_{\rm \Lambda} \simeq 0.7$; $h \simeq $ 0.7 -- 0.8.
\item TCDM model ($\equiv$ tilted CDM model) with a power spectrum
$P(k) \propto k^{0.8}$ and $\rm \Omega = 1 = \rm \Omega_{CDM} = 1$;
$h \simeq 0.5$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Evidence for $\rm \Omega_{\rm \Lambda} \neq 0$ ?}
Recent measurements of high-redshift supernovae of type Ia
\cite{perl1,perl2,reiss} point to
an important contribution to
$\rm \Omega$ due to $\rm \Lambda$, with a relatively small contribution from
$\Omega_m$.
These data appear to be complementary to those derived from
measurements of the CMBR \cite{new}. The joint use of these two sets of data,
together with some other observational data,
singles out the following ranges:
$\Omega_m = 0.24 \pm 0.10$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.62 \pm 0.16$
\cite{lineweaver}.
These data and analyses are of the utmost interest for their
potential implications, although a number of points need further
clarification \cite{peebles}.
One further hint for a rather low value of $\rm \Omega_m$ is
provided by the time evolution of the number density of clusters.
In Ref.\cite{neta} observational data on cluster abundance in the
redshift range $0 \lsim z \lsim 1$ is used to derive the estimate
$\rm \Omega_m \simeq 0.2^{+0.15}_{-0.1}$.
Though a cautionary attitude is in order here, it is important to
remark that all these different ways of determining
$\rm \Omega_m$ point to a relative small value for
this quantity: $\rm \Omega_m \lsim$ 0.3 -- 0.4.
This feature, if confirmed by further observational data, has
profound implications for the phenomenology related to DM
particle candidates, as will be illustrated in the following.
\section{Particle candidates for dark matter}
\subsection{Baryons}
As was already noticed in Sect. III, some contribution to DM is
provided by baryons. This conclusion is drawn from the fact
that the Big Bang nucleosynthesis provides the estimate
$0.009 \lsim \Omega_b h^2 \lsim 0.02$, which, together with
Eq. (\ref{eq:bb}), implies ${\rm \Omega_b} > {\rm \Omega_{vis}}$.
Direct search for non-luminous baryonic dark matter, under
the form of microlensing objects, has been undertaken
since the seminal paper of Ref.\cite{pac}. Recent results are reviewed
in \cite{sap,spiro,stubbs}. The main features of the data may be summarized
as follows. The EROS Collaboration \cite{eros} excludes that microlensing
objects of masses in the range $(5\cdot10^{-8} - 10^{-2})\, M_{\odot}$ may
make up more than 20\% of the halo density, whereas the
MACHO Collaboration \cite{macho} delimits a likelihood contour (at
95\% C.L.) for masses $\sim (10^{-1} - 1) \, M_{\odot}$ with a best-fit
value for the halo fraction around 0.5. For further details see, for instance,
Refs. \cite{sap,spiro,stubbs}.
For a critical view of the microlensing events, see Ref.\cite{FFG}.
An interesting scenario related to
baryonic dark matter is the one depicted
in Ref.\cite{jetzer}.
\subsection{Non-baryonic DM candidates}
Particle physics offers a large variety of particles, which would
have decoupled from the primeval plasma at the time (freeze--out time),
when the
interaction rate became smaller than the cosmic expansion rate;
these particles would then be floating around in our
Universe as relics.
These fossil particles would or would not significantly
contribute to the average cosmic density depending on their actual
number density and mass. The most obvious example is provided by
light fossil neutrinos, whose relic abundance may be easily
evaluated (see, for instance Ref.\cite{kt}) and turns out to be
\beq
{\rm \Omega}_{\nu} h^2 = \frac {\sum m_{\nu}} {93 \, \mbox{\rm eV}}\, ,
\label{eq:neu}
\eeq
\noindent
where the sum is over the neutrino flavours (for each flavour,
neutrino and antineutrino are counted together).
Therefore
the relevance of these fossil neutrinos for the Universe matter
density depends on whether their mass is of order of a few
eV or much smaller (provided neutrinos are massive at all).
Possible indications for non--vanishing neutrino masses are from:
1) solar neutrinos \cite{solar,smy}, 2) atmospheric neutrinos
\cite{sk,macro,habig}, and 3) the LSND experiment \cite{lsnd}.
All these data refer to oscillation measurements, and then are
not sensitive to individual neutrino masses, but only to
differences in their squares. Typically, atmospheric neutrino
experiments give
$\Delta m^2 \simeq (2 \div 6) \times 10^{-3} \mbox{{eV}}^2$;
solar neutrino experiments
can be explained either by a $\Delta m^2 \simeq 10^{-5} \mbox{{eV}}^2$,
in case of matter--enhanced oscillations, or by a
$\Delta m^2 \simeq 10^{-10} \mbox{{eV}}^2$, in case of vacuum oscillations;
LSND data suggest
$0.2 \,\mbox{{eV}}^2 \lsim \Delta m^2 \lsim 2 \,\mbox{{eV}}^2$.
These results may be
compatible with a sizeable value of relic abundance,
$\rm \Omega_{\nu} \sim 0.2$, such as preferred by some calculations of
cosmological structures. However, if taken at their face values, they only
imply ${\rm \Omega_{\nu}} \gsim 0.02 \, (0.5/h)^2$ \cite {prim}.
A different candidate is the axion, whose motivation in particle physics
is related to the strong CP-problem in QCD \cite{peccei}. A discussion
of this candidate is beyond the scope of the present report; for a
comprehensive review on its possible cosmological relevance and on the
experimental efforts for detecting it as a relic particle, see for instance
Ref. \cite{axion}.
Among the particle candidates for CDM the most favorite one is certainly
the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP), under the condition that it is
weakly interacting. This candidate is discussed in the
following section.
\section{Supersymmetric dark matter particles}
In order to be a dark matter candidate a particle has to be weakly
interacting and stable (or, at least, long lived on cosmological time--scales).
A very interesting perspective for such a candidate is offered, in the framework
of
supersymmetric theories with R-parity conservation, by the lightest susy
particle (provided this is indeed weakly interacting).
Different candidates have been considered: the neutralino \cite{neutralino}
or the sneutrino\cite{snu} in gravity mediated models, the gravitino\cite{gravitino}
or messenger fields\cite{messenger} in gauge mediated theories, the axino\cite{axino},
stable non--topological solitons (Q--balls)\cite{qballs},
heavy non--thermal relics\cite{zillas} or others.
Among the different candidates, the most promising one turns out to be
the neutralino, since its relic abundance may be sizeable,
at the level required to explain the CDM content of the
Universe and, at the same time, its detection rates
may be accessible to experimental searches of different kinds.
The phenomenology of neutralino dark matter has been studied extensively
in the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM)
\cite{susy}.
This model incorporates the same gauge group as the Standard Model
and the supersymmetric extension of its particle content. The
Higgs sector is slightly modified as compared to that of the Standard
Model: the MSSM requires
two Higgs doublets $H_1$ and $H_2$ in order to give mass both to down-- and
up--type quarks and to cancel anomalies. After electroweak symmetry
breaking,
the physical Higgs fields consist of two
charged particles and three neutral ones: two scalar fields ($h$ and $H$) and
one pseudoscalar ($A$). The Higgs sector is specified at the tree level by
two independent parameters:
the mass of one of the physical Higgs fields and the ratio of the two vacuum
expectation values, usually defined as $\tan\beta =\, <H_2> / <H_1>$.
The supersymmetric sector of the model introduces some other free parameters:
the mass parameters $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$ for the supersymmetric partners
of gauge fields (gauginos), the Higgs--mixing parameter $\mu$ and, in general,
all the masses of the scalar partners of the fermions
(sfermions) and all the trilinear couplings which enter in the
superpotential.
In the MSSM it is generally assumed that the gaugino masses are related
by expressions induced by grand--unification. Specifically, the two parameters
which are relevant for neutralino phenomenology are linked by:
$M_1= (5/3) \tan^2 \theta_W M_2$. The other usual assumptions are that
all slepton mass parameters are taken as degenerate to a common
value $m_0$ and that all the trilinear couplings are vanishing
except the ones of the third family which are set to a common
value $A$. In summary, the free parameters of the model
are six: $M_2$, $\mu$, $\tan\beta$, $m_A$, $m_0$ and $A$.
The neutralinos are four mass--eigenstates defined as
linear superpositions of the
two neutral gauginos ($\tilde \gamma$ and $\tilde Z$) and the two
neutral higgsinos ($\tilde H_1$ and $\tilde H_2$)
\begin{equation}
\chi = a_1 \tilde \gamma + a_2 \tilde Z + a_3 \tilde H_1 + a_4 \tilde H_2\;.
\end{equation}
\noindent
The lowest--mass eigenstate may play the role of the lightest supersymmetric
particle in the MSSM, and may then constitute the dark matter candidate
in this model. It will be called the neutralino tout--court and its mass
denoted by $m_\chi$.
To classify the nature of the neutralino it is useful to define a parameter
$P \equiv a_1^2 + a_2^2$; the neutralino is called a {\it gaugino},
when $P > 0.9$, a {\it higgsino} when $P < 0.1$ and
{\it mixed} when $0.1 \leq P \leq 0.9$.
The low--energy MSSM scheme is a phenomenological approach, whose
basic idea is to impose as few model--dependent restrictions as possible.
At a more fundamental level, it is natural to implement this
phenomenological scheme within the supergravity (SUGRA) framework
\cite{sugra}. One
attractive feature of the ensuing model is the connection between
soft supersymmetry breaking and electroweak
symmetry breaking, which would then be induced radiatively.
Usually, the low--energy phenomenology of SUGRA theories
constitutes a subset of the susy configurations which are
considered in the MSSM. A typical characteristic of
SUGRA models is in fact the presence of relatively strong
correlations among the low--energy parameters, correlation which
is absent in the MSSM.
In this report we will discuss neutralino dark matter phenomenology
in the less constrained MSSM model. Results for SUGRA schemes
can be found in the papers listed in Ref.\cite{sugra_dm}
\subsection{Neutralino relic abundance}
Neutralinos decouple from the hot plasma in the early
Universe when they are no longer relativistic. Their
present abundance is calculated by solving the Boltzmann
equation for the evolution of the density of particle
species\cite{kt} and can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\Omega_\chi h^2 = {\cal C} \,
\frac{g_*^{1/2}(T_f)}{{g_*}_S (T_f)} \,
\frac{1}{\langle \sigma_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize ann}} v_r
\rangle_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize int}}} \,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal C} = \frac{s_0}{0.264\, \rho_c\, M_P} = 8.7 \cdot 10^{-11} \,
\mbox{\rm GeV}^{-2} \, .
\end{equation}
In the previous Eqs., $g_*(T_f)$ and ${g_*}_S(T_f)$ denote the
effective number of degrees of freedom for the energy
density and for the entropy density, respectively,
evaluated at the freeze--out temperature $T_f$;
$\langle \sigma_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize ann}} v_r
\rangle_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize int}}$ is the
neutralino pair annihilation times the pair
relative velocity, averaged over the neutralino
thermal density distribution, integrated from the
freeze--out temperature down to the present temperature;
$s_0$ denotes the present entropy density,
$\rho_c$ is the critical density and $M_P$ is the Planck mass.
The critical quantity to be evaluated is the neutralino
annihilation cross section, which, depending on the
neutralino mass, can get contributions from the following
final states :
i) fermion--antifermion pair, ii) pair of neutral Higgs bosons,
iii) pair of charged Higgs bosons,
iv) one Higgs boson-one gauge boson, v) pair of gauge bosons.
The diagrams contributing to the final state i) are
Higgs--exchange Z--exchange diagrams in the s--channel,
sfermion--exchange diagrams in the t--channel.
For the other final states, the contributions come from
Higgs and Z--diagrams in the s--channel, and either
neutralinos or charginos exchange in the t--channel,
depending on the electric charges of the final particles
\cite{noi_omega,omegah2}.
When the mass of the neutralino is close to the mass of
another supersymmetric particle, the process of
co--annihilation \cite{coann,suede_coann} can be present.
In this case, the calculation of the annihilation cross
section and of its thermal average has to take into account
a large number competing interactions among the neutralino and
its close--mass particles. In some special instances the relic
abundance may be affected by co--annihilation effects by a
sizeable amount\cite{suede_coann}.
In Fig. 1 we show $\Omega_\chi h^2$ as a function of the
neutralino mass $m_\chi$ \cite{noi_omega}.
We present here, as well as in the following, all the results
in terms of scatter plots
which are obtained by varying the supersymmetric parameters
inside wide ranges.
Naturally, the parameter space is constrained by experimental
limits on Higgs bosons and supersymmetric particles searches
(for recent updates, see \cite{LEP}) and by measurements
of rare processes, whose theoretical predictions are quite
sensitive to supersymmetric contributions. At present,
the most important is the decay
$b \rightarrow s + \gamma$\cite{bsg_exp,bsg_theo}.
The scatter plot of Fig. 1 is obtained by varying
the supersymmetric parameters in the following ranges:
$20\;\mbox{GeV} \leq M_2 \leq 500\;\mbox{GeV},\;
20\;\mbox{GeV} \leq |\mu| \leq 500\;\mbox{GeV},\;
80\;\mbox{GeV} \leq m_A \leq 1000\;\mbox{GeV},\;
100\;\mbox{GeV} \leq m_0 \leq 1000\;\mbox{GeV},\;
-3 \leq {\rm A} \leq +3,\;
1 \leq \tan \beta \leq 50$.
The figure shows only those configurations which provide
a value for the relic abundance lower than a cosmological
upper bound which has been conservatively set as
$\Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 0.7$. The susy configurations
which entail larger values of $\Omega_\chi h^2$ are
excluded by the lower limit on the age of the Universe
\cite{cdkk}. This constraint is rather restrictive
on the susy parameter space.
\subsection{Detection of relic neutralinos}
Relic neutralinos would act as CDM during the process
of galaxy formation. It is therefore conceivable
that they may constitute all or part
of the dark matter halo. These neutralinos
would be clustered in the Galaxy and hence
possess a matter density distribution and a
velocity distribution which depend on the
dynamics of the Galaxy formation and evolution\cite{BT}.
Many different models have been discussed in the
literature for the {\em matter density distribution}
$\rho(\vec r)$ (see for instance Refs. \cite{nfw1,nfw2,kkbp}).
This field is in rapid expansion, due to the high resolution simulations
now at hand to investigate the structure of single galaxies \cite{moore}.
In particular, these studies are expected to
pin down the nature of the cuspy behaviour which appears to occur
near the galactic center. Another very
interesting possibility which is currently being investigated
is that the halo could present a clumpy
distribution of dark matter together
with or in alternative to a smooth distribution.
The uncertainties in the shape profile, combined with
experimental uncertainties and the possibility
that some fraction of the dark halo is made of
baryonic dark matter in the form of MACHOS,
implies that the local value of the matter density
$\rho_l = \rho(\vec r_\odot)$ is somewhat uncertain.
At present, its most conservative range of variability
can be set as \cite{turner_rhol}:
0.1 GeV cm$^{-3}$ $\leq \rho_l \leq 0.7$ GeV cm$^{-3}$.
The quantity $\rho_l$ refers to the total dark matter
density of the galactic halo. the neutralino local
density is, in general, a fraction of it, i.e.
$\rho_\chi = \xi \rho_l$, with $\xi \leq 1$.
No exact way to evaluate the
quantity $\xi$ is currently available.
A usual procedure is to consider the galactic halo
as composed entirely of neutralinos if, on the
average in the Universe, neutralinos are abundant
enough to explain all the CDM which is observed
at least on the galactic scale. This happens when
$\Omega_\chi h^2$ is larger than a value
$(\Omega h^2)_{\rm min}$ derived from astrophysical
observations. In this case it is possible to
set $\xi = 1$. If, on the contrary,
$\Omega_\chi h^2 < (\Omega h^2)_{\rm min}$, neutralinos
are not able to explain all the CDM, even the
one which is needed at the galactic scale,
and therefore also locally in our Galaxy we expect them to
give only a fractional contribution $\xi$ to
$\rho_l$. In this case, the simplest choice is to set:
$\xi = \Omega_\chi h^2 / (\Omega h^2)_{\rm min} $.
The quantity $ (\Omega h^2)_{\rm min}$ is estimated
to lie in the range
$0.01 \lsim (\Omega h^2)_{\rm min} \leq 0.2$.
The {\em velocity distribution} $f(\vec v)$ of dark matter is
usually assumed to be a Maxwellian distribution \cite{BT}
(as seen from the galactic rest frame), with a
velocity dispersion
$v_{\rm rms}$ which is directly related to the
asymptotic flat rotational velocity $v_\infty$ as:
$v_{\rm rms} = \sqrt{3/2}v_\infty$. In our Galaxy,
the rotational velocity appears to be already flat
at the local position, and therefore we set
$v_{\infty} = v_{\odot}$. The experimental determination
of the local rotational velocity is:
$v_{\odot} = 230 \pm 50$ Km s$^{-1}$
(90 \% C.L.)\cite{koch}.
The distribution is also truncated by an escape velocity
$v_{\rm esc}$ which falls in the range:
$v_{\rm esc} = 450 \div 650$ Km s$^{-1}$ (90 \% C.L.)\cite{leonard,cud}.
Modifications to the standard Maxwell--Boltzmann form have been examined
\cite{BT,evans}, but the problem of determining the correct
form of the distribution of the velocities in the
halo has no clear and simple solution at present, both
theoretically and observationally. Also the possibility that
the halo could possess a bulk rotation has been considered in the
literature\cite{fv_rot}.
Due to the possibility that neutralinos are
present in the halo of our Galaxy,
it is of great interest, both
for astrophysics and particle physics, to search for
techniques capable of detecting these
dark halo particles. Several methods have been proposed
and in the following we will briefly review the ones
which, at present, appear to be more promising.
\subsection{Direct detection of relic neutralinos}
The most direct possibility to detect dark matter particles is
to look for their scattering with the nuclei of
a low--background detector\cite{witten}. The interaction of slow
halo neutralinos of mass $m_\chi \gsim 25$ GeV with a detector
produces the recoil of a nucleus with energy $E_R$ of the order of
few to tens keV. The recoil energy can be measured by means of
various experimental techniques with different nuclear species,
like Ge, NaI, Xe, CaF$_2$, TeO$_2$\cite{taup_direct}.
The relevant quantity to be calculated and compared
with the experimental measurements is the differential detection rate
\begin{equation}
S_0(E_R) \equiv
\frac {dR}{dE_R}=N_{T}\frac{\rho_{\chi}}{m_{\chi}}
\int \,d \vec{v}\,f(\vec v)\,v
\frac{d\sigma}{dE_{R}}(v,E_{R}) \label{rate}
\label{eq:diffrate0}
\end{equation}
where $N_T$ is the number of the target nuclei per unit of mass,
$\rho_\chi$ is the local neutralino matter density,
$\vec v$ and $f(\vec v)$ denote the neutralino
velocity and velocity distribution function in the Earth frame
($v = |\vec v|$). The nuclear recoil energy is given by
$E_R={{m_{\rm red}^2}}v^2(1-\cos \theta^*)/{m_N}$,
where $\theta^*$ is the scattering
angle in the neutralino--nucleus center--of--mass frame,
$m_N$ is the nuclear mass and $m_{\rm red}$ is the neutralino--nucleus
reduced mass. Finally, $d\sigma/dE_R$ is the neutralino--nucleus
differential cross section, which has a coherent contribution
due to Higgs-- and squark--exchange, and a spin dependent one
which originates from the exchange of the Z boson and squarks.
The coherent cross section is usually largely dominant over the
spin--dependent one.
Eq.(\ref{eq:diffrate0}) refers to the situation of a monoatomic
detector, like the Ge detectors. For more general situations, like
for instance the case of NaI, the generalization is straightforward.
{}From those experimental data on the nuclear recoil spectrum which do not
provide a signal--to--background discrimination, upper limits to the
neutralino--nucleus cross section as a function of the
neutralino mass may be set by employing Eq.(\ref{eq:diffrate0}) \cite{bdmsbi}.
In the case of coherent interaction, Fig. 2
shows, as a solid line, the present most stringent upper
limit\cite{DAMA_uplim} on the
quantity $\xi \sigma^{(\rm nucleon)}_{\rm scalar}$ vs.
$m_\chi$, where $\sigma^{(\rm nucleon)}_{\rm scalar}$ denotes
the scalar elastic cross section of a neutralino off a nucleon.
The astrophysical parameters are chosen as:
$\rho_l = 0.3$ GeV cm$^{-3}$, $v_0 = 220$ Km s$^{-1}$,
$v_{\rm esc} = 550$ Km s$^{-1}$ and
$ (\Omega h^2)_{\rm min} = 0.01$.
In this plot, we also show a scatter plot of
the same quantity calculated in the MSSM\cite{noi_diretta,diretta_theo}.
The susy configurations
have been varied in the ranges quoted in Sect. 6.1.
We stress that the cosmological bound $\Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 0.7$
has been applied \cite{note_damour}.
In the case of direct detection, a typical signature consists
in the annual modulation of the detection rate\cite{ann_mod_th}.
During the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun,
the change of direction of the relic particle velocities
with respect to the detector induces a time dependence in the
differential detection rate, i.e.
$S(E_R,t) = S_0 (E_R) + S_m (E_R) \cos [\omega (t-t_0)]$,
where $\omega = 2\pi/365$ days and $t_0 = 153$ days
(June 2$^{\rm nd}$). $S_0 (E_r)$ is the average
(unmodulated) differential rate defined in
Eq.(\ref{eq:diffrate0})and $S_m (E_R)$ is the
modulation amplitude of the rate.
The relative importance of $S_m (E_R)$ with respect to $S_0 (E_R)$
for a given detector, depends both on the mass of the dark matter
particle and on the value of the recoil energy where the effect is looked
at. Typical values of $S_m (E_R)/S_0 (E_R)$
for a NaI detector range from a few percent up to $\sim$ 15\%,
for neutralino masses of the order of 20--80 GeV and recoil energies
below 8--10 KeV.
The search for the annual modulation effect is currently undertaken by
the DAMA/ NaI Collaboration\cite{DAMA_longrep}.
The analysis of their data over two
years of data--taking
provides the indication of a modulated
signal \cite{DAMA}. This result
can be shown as the closed contour in the
$\xi \sigma^{(\rm nucleon)}_{\rm scalar}$ vs. $m_\chi$
plane displayed in Fig. 2. The region inside the contour is compatible
with a modulation signal at 2--$\sigma$ level.
The contour takes into account also the uncertainties in
astrophysical velocities, as discussed in \cite{bellietal}.
Fig. 2 shows that there exist susy configurations which would be able to
explain such an effect. In the papers of
Refs.\cite{bellietal,noi_DAMA}
it has been proved that some of these configurations are
explorable at accelerators and/or by WIMP indirect experiments and that the
relevant relic neutralinos might behave as major components of cold dark
matter. For an analysis of these configurations in a SUGRA scheme, see
also Ref.\cite{an}.
\subsection{Indirect detection: neutrino fluxes from Earth and Sun}
Other ways of detecting dark matter neutralinos
rely on the possibility to detect the products of neutralino annihilations.
One perspective is to observe a neutrino signal coming from celestial
bodies, namely Earth and Sun, where the neutralinos may have been
captured and accumulated during the lifetime of the macroscopic
body. The sequence of the physical processes which could produce these
signals are: i) capture of relic neutralinos by the macroscopic
bodies; ii) subsequent accumulation of these
particles in a region around the centre of these celestial objects;
iii) pair annihilation of the accumulated neutralinos which would
generate, by decay of the particles produced in the various
annihilation final states, an output of high--energy neutrinos.
Since the process of annihilation takes place inside a medium
(i.e., the interior of the Earth or the Sun), the annihilation
process is perturbed as compared to the annihilation in
vacuum. This effect can be effectively taken into
account\cite{ritz-seckel} by
neglecting the contributions of the light quarks directly
produced in the annihilation process or in
the hadronization of heavy quarks and gluons,
because these light particles stop inside the medium
(Sun or Earth) before their decay.
For the case of the Sun,
also the energy loss of the heavy hadrons
in the solar medium and the energy loss of neutrino
themselves have to be considered\cite{ritz-seckel}.
The differential neutrino flux is then calculated as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN_\nu}{dE_\nu} =
\frac{\Gamma_A}{4\pi d^2} \sum_{F,f}
B^{(F)}_{\chi f}\frac{dN_{f \nu}}{dE_\nu}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_A$ denotes the annihilation rate,
$d$ is the distance of the detector from the source (i.e. the
center of the Earth or the Sun), $F$ denotes the
neutralino pair annihilation final states,
$B^{(F)}_{\chi f}$ denotes the branching ratios into
heavy quarks, $\tau$ lepton and gluons in the channel $F$.
The spectra $dN_{f \nu}/dE_{\nu}$ are the differential
distributions of the neutrinos generated by the $\tau$ and
by hadronization of quarks
and gluons and the subsequent semileptonic decays of the
produced hadrons. A detailed calculation of these spectra
is usually performed by means of a Montecarlo
simulation\cite{noi_nuflux}.
The spectra due to heavier final states,
i.e. Higgs bosons, gauge bosons and t
quark, can be computed analytically by following their
decay chain down to the production of a b quark, c quark
or a tau lepton, where the result of the Montecarlo
simulation can be applied\cite{noi_nuflux,altri_nuflux}.
The neutrino flux may be detected in a neutrino telescope
by measuring the muons which are produced
by $\nu_\mu$ and ${\bar \nu}_\mu$ interactions in the
rock around the detector and then traverse it upwardly.
Therefore, the signal consists of a flux of up--going
muons, which is computed as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d N_\mu}{d E_\mu}
= N_A \int^\infty_{E_\mu^{\rm th}} d E_\nu
\int_0^\infty dX \int_{E_\mu}^{E_\nu}
d {E'_\mu }\,\,
P_{\rm surv}(E_\mu,E'_\mu; X)\,\,
\frac{d \sigma_\nu (E_\nu,E'_\mu)}{d E'_\mu} \,\,
\frac{d N_\nu}{d E_\nu}\, ,
\label{upmu_flux}
\end{equation}
where $X$ is the muon range in the rock,
$d \sigma_\nu (E_\nu,E'_\mu) / d E'_\mu$ is
the charged current cross--section for the
production of a muon of energy $ E'_\mu$ from
a neutrino of energy $E_\nu$ and
$P_{\rm surv}(E_\mu,E'_\mu; X)$ is the survival
probability that a muon of initial energy $E'_\mu$
will have a final energy $E_\mu$ after propagating
along a path--length $X$ inside the rock which
surrounds the detector. The function
$P_{\rm surv}(E_\mu,E'_\mu; X)$ therefore takes
into account the energy losses of muons in the rock.
In Eq.(\ref{upmu_flux}), $E_\mu^{\rm th}$ is
the detector threshold energy, which for current
neutrino telescopes like MACRO and Baksan is
of about 1-2 GeV, and this is quite suitable for
neutralino indirect detection,
especially for neutralinos lighter than about 100 GeV.
Large--area neutrino telescopes with higher threshold energies
(above a few tens of GeV)
are more suitable for heavier relic particles.
Experimentally, one searches for a
statistically significant excess of up--going
muons above the muon flux originated
from atmospheric neutrinos. The different angular
behaviour of the signal with respect to the
atmospheric neutrino background, which has a rather
flat distribution as a function of the zenith angle,
is the handle for the signal--to--background discrimination.
Clearly, the flux from the Sun can be pointed at
directly towards the direction of the Sun. In
the case of the flux from the Earth, the process
of accumulation of neutralinos
induces a rather peaked distribution of the
neutrino source around the Earth's center.
Indeed, the angular distribution is
\begin{equation}
G(\theta) \simeq 4 m_\chi \alpha
\exp (-2 m_\chi \alpha \sin^2 \theta)
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the zenith angle and
$\alpha = 1.76$ GeV$^{-1}$. This means that
for neutralinos (which are heavier than $\sim$ 25 GeV) the
signal is produced inside a region whose
angular extension is less than about 10 degrees.
The experimental searches at neutrino telescopes
have found no muon excess so far and therefore upper limits on the
muon flux have been set. The solid line in
Fig. 3a is the
current most stringent experimental upper limit
from the MACRO Collaboration\cite{MACRO,taup_direct}
for the neutrino flux from the center of the Earth. Fig. 3b
refers to the flux from the Sun.
Again, superimposed to the experimental limits,
we show in Fig. 3a (Earth) and Fig. 3b (Sun)
the susy scatter plot for the
up--going muon signal $\Phi_\mu^{\rm Earth}$
and $\Phi_\mu^{\rm Sun}$.
The susy configurations have been varied in the ranges
quoted in Sect. 6.1. The astrophysical parameters are
$\rho_l = 0.3$ GeV cm$^{-3}$, $v_0 = 220$ Km s$^{-1}$,
$v_{\rm esc} = 550$ Km s$^{-1}$ and the cosmological
bound $\Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 0.7$ has been applied.
\subsection{Indirect detection: antimatter and gamma rays}
The annihilation process of dark matter neutralinos may take
place also directly in the galactic halo. In this case, many
different signals other than neutrinos are possible.
These signals, at variance with the signals previously discussed,
which depend only on local galactic properties,
depend directly on the matter distribution of neutralinos over the whole
Galaxy. Moreover, the propagation
inside the Galaxy of the particles which constitute the signal
is perturbed by the Galaxy itself, like, for instance, interactions
with the interstellar medium or, in the case of charged particles,
diffusion in random magnetic fields.
One of the most interesting possibility is the production
of antimatter from neutralino annihilation in the halo.
The fluxes have been calculated for production of antiprotons,
antideuteron and positrons.
{\em Antiprotons}\cite{noi_pbar,others_pbar} and
{\em Antideuterons}\cite{dbar} can be produced by
the decay and hadronization of the final state particles
of the annihilation process. The differential rate per unit
volume and unit time for the production
of $ \bar p$'s from neutralino pair annihilation is defined as
\begin{equation}
q_{\bar p}^{\rm susy}(T_{\bar p}) =
\, <\sigma_{\rm ann} v>
\left( \frac{ \rho_\chi (\vec r)}{m_\chi} \right)^2\,
\sum_{F,h}
B^{(F)}_{\chi h} \frac{dN^{h}_{\bar p}}{dT_{\bar p}} \, ,
\label{eq:source}
\end{equation}
where $<\sigma_{\rm ann} v>$ denotes the average over the galactic velocity
distribution function of neutralino pair annihilation cross section
$\sigma_{\rm ann}$ multiplied by the relative velocity $v$ of the annihilating
particles, $T_{\bar p}$ is the antiproton kinetic energy and
$B^{(F)}_{\chi h}$ is the branching ratio for the production of
quarks or gluons $h$ due to the decay of the particles produced by
neutralino annihilation into the final state $F$.
Finally, $dN^h_{\bar p}/dT_{\bar p}$ is the differential energy distribution
of the antiprotons generated by hadronization of quarks and gluons.
Notice that the rate depends on the square of the
mass distribution function of neutralinos in the galactic halo
$\rho_\chi (\vec r)$. The rate of production of $\bar D$ is clearly
analogous to Eq.(\ref{eq:source}).
After being produced, antimatter propagates inside the Galaxy
and it experiences both diffusion in the galactic magnetic field
and energy losses, due to ionization, scattering, collision
and others. The propagation of antiprotons in the galactic
medium is properly calculated in a diffusion model where
the Galaxy is described as composed of two zones, one for
the disk and the other for the halo. The diffusion
equation which governs the behaviour of antiprotons is
\begin{equation}
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \left( K \; \vec{\nabla} \, \mbox{$\psi_{\bar{\rm
p}}$}\right) \; - \;
2 h \delta(z) \, \Gamma_{\bar{\rm p}} \, \mbox{$\psi_{\bar{\rm p}}$}\; + \;
2 h \delta(z) \, \mbox{$q_{\bar{\rm p}}^{\rm susy}$}(r) \; - \;
2 h \delta(z) \, \frac{\partial}{\partial E} \left\{ b(E)
\mbox{$\psi_{\bar{\rm p}}$}\right\}
\; = \; 0 \;\; ,
\label{DIFFUSION_PBAR_DISK}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{\bar p}$ denotes the antiproton density,
$K$ is the diffusion coefficient, $h$ is the height
of the galactic disk and $\Gamma_{\bar{\rm p}}$
is the collision probability with the
interstellar medium and $b(E)$ describes
energy losses.
An analogous equation holds for the antideuterons.
Solution of the diffusion equations gives the antiproton
(or antideuterons) flux at the heliosphere boundaries
(interstellar flux) as
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\bar{\rm p}} ( \odot , T_{\bar{\rm p}} ) \,\, = \,\,
<\sigma_{\rm ann} v> \,
\frac{v_{\bar p}}{4 \pi} \,
\left ( \frac{ \rho_l}{m_\chi} \right )^2 \,
\psi_{\bar{\rm p}}^{\rm eff} ( \odot , T_{\bar{\rm p}} )
\cdot \sum_{F,h} B^{(F)}_{\chi h} \frac{dN^{h}_{\bar p}}{dT_{\bar p}}\, ,
\label{SUSY_ANALYSIS}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{\bar{\rm p}}^{\rm eff} ( \odot , T_{\bar{\rm p}} ) $
is obtained by solving Eq.(\ref{DIFFUSION_PBAR_DISK}).
Antimatter subsequently enters the heliosphere where it
propagates against the solar wind before arriving at the Earth.
The effect induced by the solar wind (solar modulation) is
quite important at low kinetic energies, and introduces a time
dependence into the calculation, since it is correlated
with the 11 year solar cycle.
Both antiprotons and antideuterons can be
produced also by the interaction of primary cosmic rays on
the interstellar medium. This secondary antimatter fluxes
constitute a background for the susy signal. The background
fluxes have a different energy behaviour as compared to the
the ones of susy origin. In particular, the low energy tail
of the energy spectrum is the most interesting place to
look at, since the signals have a somewhat flat behaviour,
while the secondary fluxes are depressed by
kinematical reasons \cite{secondary}. This effect is stronger for
antideuterons than for antiprotons. Therefore,
the antideuteron flux presents some advantages
of discrimination over background with respect to
the antiproton flux, even if its smallness makes
the detection harder to be achieved.
Fig. 4 show the antiproton flux\cite{noi_pbar} $\Phi_{\bar p}$
vs. the neutralino mass for the susy configurations
introduced in Sect. 6.1. The flux is calculated for
a $\bar p$ kinetic energy $T_{\bar p} = 0.24$ GeV, to
conform to the first BESS energy bin, and for a solar
modulation phase close to the BESS data--taking periods.
The horizontal
line is the present upper limit derived from the
BESS 95 and BESS 97 data\cite{BESS97}. We notice that antiproton
measurement are already able to exclude some
susy configurations which would imply a too large
$\bar p$ flux at low kinetic energies.
Fig. 5 shows the antideuteron flux\cite{dbar} $\Phi_{\bar D}$
vs. the neutralino mass for the same susy models.
The flux is calculated for a $\bar D$ kinetic energy
$T_{\bar D} = 0.24$ GeV/nucleon, at the maximum
of solar activity. The horizontal line
is the sensitivity level which could be achieved by
the AMS detector during the flight on space station.
{\em Positrons}\cite{suede_positron} are produced again from the decay chain of
the neutralino annihilation products. It is also possible
to produce directly a pair of monocromatic electron--positron
pair. The branching ratio for this process is usually very
small, but some susy models can present a production rate
strong enough to be at the level of the detector
sensitivity\cite{suede_positron}.
The calculation of the positron flux is analogous to
the one for antiprotons or antideuterons, with the inclusion
of additional energy loss mechanisms:
inverse Compton scattering on starlight and cosmic microwave
background, and synchrotron radiation emission in the galactic
magnetic field. The IS positron flux is then affected by the
solar wind before coming to the Earth where it can be detected.
Fig. 6, taken from Ref.\cite{suede_positron},
shows a scatter plot of the positron flux $\Phi_{e+}$
integrated in the energy range 8.9 -- 14.8 GeV, to
conform to one of the HEAT data bins.
The susy parameters have been varied in the ranges:
$0\;\mbox{GeV} \leq |M_2| \leq 5000\;\mbox{GeV},\;
0\;\mbox{GeV} \leq |\mu| \leq 5000\;\mbox{GeV},\;
0\;\mbox{GeV} \leq m_A \leq 10000\;\mbox{GeV},\;
100\;\mbox{GeV} \leq m_0 \leq 30000\;\mbox{GeV},\;
-3 \leq {\rm A} \leq +3,\; 1 \leq \tan \beta \leq 60$.
Only configuration with $0.025 \leq \Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 1$ are
shown on the plot. The horizontal dashed line denotes the value
of the background positrons of secondary origin calculated
in Ref.\cite{moskalenko}. The horizontal band represents the HEAT 94
data\cite{HEAT}.
The last possibility we consider here is the production of
{\em diffuse gamma rays} or a {\em gamma line}
(see Refs.\cite{gamma,gamma_bbm,line_bba,bub,suede_clump,gamma_annihil}
and references quoted therein).
Diffuse photons are produced mainly through the decay of neutral
pions originated from the hadronization of the
neutralino annihilation products. A monochromatic gamma line, instead,
is produced through the loop--processes
$\chi \chi \longrightarrow \gamma \gamma$ and
$\chi \chi \longrightarrow Z \gamma$.
In this case, the gamma line would constitute a particularly
nice signature, since it is practically background free.
In both cases, the fluxes are usually rather low and,
in order to have fluxes at the level of the detector
sensitivities, some matter over-density is needed, like
for example a singular dark matter halo\cite{gamma_bbm,bub}
or a clumpy matter distribution\cite{suede_clump}.
Fig. 7, taken from Ref.\cite{suede_clump},
shows a scatter plot of the gamma ray flux
$\Phi_{cont, \gamma}$ integrated above $E_\gamma = 1$ GeV.
The susy parameters have been varied in the same
ranges defined above for the positron flux.
Only configurations with $0.025 \leq \Omega_\chi h^2 \leq 0.5$ are
shown on the plot. The horizontal line denotes the integrated
gamma ray flux measured by EGRET\cite{EGRET}.
Fig. 8 from Ref. \cite{bub} shows the perspectives of a number of Air
Cherenkov Telescopes for the measurements of the expected $\gamma$--ray
line.
\section{Conclusions}
As we have seen above, the question of dark matter in the Universe presents a
large number of intriguing facets of relevance for cosmology, astrophysics and
particle physics. It represents a field in a very fast expansion, because
of an impressive development in experimental activities as well as in
theoretical investigations. Let us mention just some of the most promising
avenues: a) Further observations and analyses of high--$z$ Supernovae, of the
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and of the time evolution of the number
density of clusters are expected to provide more conclusive information on
$\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. b) New numerical simulations of cosmological
structures
should give a unique information about the (hot/cold) composition of dark
matter
and about crucial details on the dark matter density profile in single
galaxies. c) Further accumulation of data in WIMP direct detection are
expected to play a fundamental role in the process of the
identification of dark matter
particle candidates. Present experimental results have already allowed the
pinning down of a sector of the supersymmetric parameter space, part of which
can be explored at accelerator and by WIMP indirect searches.
It has been proved that the relevant relic
neutralinos might behave as major components of cold dark matter.
No doubt that the connection of particle physics with the dark matter problem
in the Universe is one of the most exciting and far--reaching field in
astroparticle physics.
\bigskip
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\bf Acknowledgments}
\end{center}
This work was supported by DGICYT under grant number
PB95--1077 and by the TMR network grant ERBFMRXCT960090 of
the European Union.
\bigskip
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Any laboratory on the Earth simultaneously experiences both acceleration and
gravity. Einstein's equivalence principle states that, neglecting curvature
effects, the acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable. The success of
General Relativity is a testament to the accuracy of this statement in the
classical regime. The equivalence principle has also been tested in quantum
mechanical phenomena. First, Colella et al.\@~\cite{ref-colella} performed
their celebrated neutron interferometry experiment, observing a
gravitationally-induced phase shift. Using similar apparatus, Bonse and
Wroblewski~\cite{ref-bonse} found the same phase shift when their
interferometer was uniformly accelerated. Together, these experiments provided
some confirmation of the equivalence principle in quantum mechanics.
These two neutron interferometry experiments did not measure any spin-dependent
effects, leaving open the question of whether spin may be affected differently
by acceleration and uniform gravitation. Varj\'{u} and Ryder~\cite{ref-varju}
have suggested a particular spin effect that may be able to distinguish between
the two. They compared two Dirac (spin 1/2) Hamiltonians. One was the
Hamiltonian for a particle in a Schwartzchild gravitational field, drawing on
earlier calculations by Fischbach, et al.\@~\cite{ref-fischbach}. The other
Hamiltonian represented a Dirac particle subjected to a uniform acceleration,
as found by M.~S.~Altschul~\cite{ref-maltschul} and later by Hehl and
Ni~\cite{ref-hehl}. An apparent difference between these Hamiltonians calls
into question whether the equivalence principle holds for spin effects.
We will show that that an additional accelerational effect could eliminate the
difference between the two Hamiltonians, restoring the equivalence principle.
However, it is natural that this effect has not yet been observed, since it
acts on very long length scales.
\section{Comparison of Hamiltonians}
In comparing uniform gravitation and acceleration, we will evaluate the
Hamiltonians to first order. For the acceleration, that means to first order in
${\bf a}$, the acceleration vector. For the gravitational Hamiltonian, we will
work to first order in ${\bf g}$, where $g_{i}=-\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
x^{i}}c^{2}$. Here, $\Phi=\frac{GM}{c^{2}r}$, so ${\bf g}=-\frac{\Phi c^{2}}
{r^{2}}{\bf x}$ is just the normal gravity vector. Each of these Hamiltonians
may be found by using three successive Foldy-Wouthuysen
transformations~\cite{ref-foldy}.
The gravitational Hamiltonian found by Varj\'{u} and Ryder takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&\beta mc^{2}-\beta m{\bf g}\cdot {\bf x}+\frac{\beta}{2m}p^{2}-\frac{\beta}
{2mc^{2}}{\bf p}\cdot({\bf g}\cdot {\bf x}){\bf p}\nonumber \\
& &+\frac{\hbar\beta}{2mc^{2}}\mbox{{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot({\bf g}\times
{\bf p})-\frac{\beta}{mc^{2}}({\bf p}\cdot {\bf g})({\bf x}\cdot {\bf p}).
\label{eq-ghamil}
\end{eqnarray}
The accelerational Hamiltonian has been found in two different (and both
flawed) ways. The result was
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&\beta mc^{2}+\beta m{\bf a}\cdot {\bf x}+\frac{\beta}{2m}p^{2}+\frac{\beta}
{2mc^{2}}{\bf p}\cdot({\bf a}\cdot {\bf x}){\bf p}\nonumber \\
& &+\frac{\hbar\beta}{4mc^{2}}\mbox{{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot({\bf a}\times
{\bf p}).
\label{eq-ahamil}
\end{eqnarray}
The equivalence principle indicates that these two Hamiltonians should be
identical when we set ${\bf a}=-{\bf g}$, except for tidal terms in
(\ref{eq-ghamil}). On initial inspection, this does not appear to be the case.
There are two differences. The last term of (\ref{eq-ghamil}) is entirely
absent from (\ref{eq-ahamil}). Although only first order in ${\bf g}$, this
term is actually a tidal term, as Varj\'{u} and Ryder demonstrated, so its
absence from (\ref{eq-ahamil}) is expected.
The other difference between the Hamiltonians less easily dismissed. While
(\ref{eq-ghamil}) includes the term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-gterm}
\frac{\beta\hbar}{2mc^{2}} \mbox{{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot({\bf g}\times
{\bf p}),
\end{equation}
(\ref{eq-ahamil}) contains
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-aterm}
\frac{\beta\hbar}{4mc^{2}} \mbox{{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot({\bf a}\times
{\bf p}).
\end{equation}
When we equate ${\bf a}=-{\bf g}$, these two terms differ by a factor of $-2$.
It appears that this difference could allow an observer to distinguish between
the acceleration and the gravitation. However, our closer analysis indicates
that this may not be the case.
\section{Anomalous Acceleration Moment}
The Hamiltonian (\ref{eq-ahamil}) was first derived by purely electromagnetic
means, for a charged particle in a uniform electric field. Then
(\ref{eq-aterm}) enters as a charge-dependent term, vanishing for a neutral
particle. The behavior of (\ref{eq-aterm}) in this regard is the same as that
of the spin magnetic moment term in a uniform magnetic field ${\bf B}$.
However, we know that the spin magnetic moment is actually an additional
parameter of the Dirac Hamiltonian; it is not zero for neutral particles with
internal structure. Since ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf B}$ have the same
three-dimensional vector group structure, there should be an analogous
parameter in the accelerational Hamiltonian.
In fact, when we looks at the infinitesimal generator for an acceleration, we
may identify this new parameter. As shown in~\cite{ref-maltschul}, the
generator has the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-chisimple}
\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}=\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}_{\Gamma^{0}}+
\frac{\beta\hbar}{4c^{2}}\,\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\times\mbox
{{\boldmath $\nabla$}}_{p}+f_{\chi}.
\end{equation}
For small values of ${\bf a}$ this generates the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq-ahamil})
from the free particle Hamiltonian $H_{0}$ by $H=H_{0}+[{\bf a}\cdot
\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}},H_{0}]$. Under this prescription, the first term of
{\boldmath $\chi$} generates the ``classical'' potential energy $\beta m
{\bf a\cdot x}$, and $f_{\chi}$ commutes with $H_{0}$. The second term,
containing {\boldmath $\sigma$}, is the one of interest. We will call this term
$\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$. It is $\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$ that generates
the problematic term (\ref{eq-aterm}).
From the form of (\ref{eq-chisimple}), it is clear that there is a free
parameter. The coefficient of {\boldmath $\chi'$} may be freely adjusted
without affecting any lower-order terms in the Hamiltonian. An ``anomalous
acceleration moment,'' $\mu_{a}$ may be introduced. The presence of $\mu_{a}$
changes the generator according to
\begin{equation}
\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'=(1+\mu_{a})\frac{\beta\hbar}{4c^{2}}\,
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\times\mbox{{\boldmath $\nabla$}}_{p}.
\end{equation}
The variation of $\mu_{a}$ creates a one-parameter family of
representations of the acceleration group.
It remains to consider for what particles this anomalous contribution may be
nonzero and significant. For charged particles, the contribution is certainly
not significant. Attempts to accelerate such particles uniformly are prevented
by the emission of electromagnetic radiation and the induced radiative reaction
force~\cite{ref-jackson}. For neutral particles, this problem does not appear,
so we shall consider neutrons.
From the pure Dirac standpoint, the neutron should have no magnetic moment.
However, there is a neutron magnetic moment caused by QCD. Similarly, there
may be an nonzero anomalous acceleration moment for the neutron. In fact, it is
expected to be nonzero, for the following reason. The value $\mu_{a}=0$ is
required by the conditions of Lorentz invariance and charge
conservation~\cite{ref-jaffe}. However, these conditions do not hold under
acceleration. Since a charge density causes acceleration, the charge and
acceleration operators do not commute. More specifically, the quark operators
$\psi_{q}^{\dag}$ that compose a neutron do not commute with acceleration, so
the quark content of an accelerated neutron is not well-defined. We may
estimate the effective commutator from the fact that a free quark would induce
a force $F\approx 10^{22}$~GeV/cm~\cite{ref-rolnick} on every
differently-colored quark in the universe. This yields an order of magnitude of
\begin{equation}
|[a,\psi_{q}^{\dag}]| \sim\frac{2}{3}\frac{F}{m_{q}}\approx 10^{36}\,
{\rm cm\cdot s^{-2}},
\end{equation}
since the quark mass $m_{q}$ is a few MeV\,$\cdot\,c^{-2}$ for the $u$ and
$d$ quarks. The lowest-order opportunity for terms stemming from this
commutator to enter the Hamiltonian is through $\mu_{a}$.
This noncommutation is what interferes with Hehl and Ni's derivation of the
accelerational Hamiltonian, in which they simply replace the partial
derivatives in the Dirac equation with covariant derivatives. Although
Varj\'{u} and Ryder use this same substitution to find the gravitational
Hamiltonian, the noncommutation of ${\bf g}$ with the quark operators lies in
the realm of quantum gravity, and so should be negligible. So the existence of
$\mu_{a}$ allows for the restoration of the equivalence principle. In fact,
the equivalence principle provides a specific prediction of its value,
$\mu_{a}=-3$.
\section{Length Scale for the Acceleration Moment}
It is important to investigate the dynamical effects caused by $\mu_{a}$. We
shall begin this process by examining the length scale on which
$\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$ operates. The order of magnitude of $\mu_{a}$
will probably not deviate too much from unity, since it is a dimensionless
parameter of nuclear structure. This is certainly true if $\mu_{a}$ takes the
value indicated by the equivalence principle.
To get a length scale from $\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$, we must insert the
quantum-mechanical prescription that $i\hbar\mbox{{\boldmath $\nabla$}}_{p}=
{\bf x}$, to get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-chiwithx}
\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'=(1+\mu_{a})\frac{\beta}{4ic^{2}}\,
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\times{\bf x}.
\end{equation}
The $i$ disappears when we take $\exp(i{\bf a}\cdot\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}})
\approx 1+i{\bf a}\cdot\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}$. The terms multiplying
${\bf x}$ in $\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$ give us a length scale for the
action of this effect in the Hamiltonian. Although the generator is only
correct for infinitesimal accelerations, it should give the right dependence
for the length scale. We drop $\beta$ and {\boldmath $\sigma$}, since they only
take the values $\pm 1$. This leaves
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{|1+\mu_{a}|}{4c^{2}}\,{\bf x}.
\end{displaymath}
Since the original dimensionless quantity for generating the Hamiltonian was
${\bf a}\cdot\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}$, the length scale must depend on
$a=|{\bf a}|$. The final expression for determining the length scale is then
\begin{equation}
{\bf a}\cdot\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'\sim\frac{|1+\mu_{a}|}{4c^{2}}\,{\bf
|x||a|}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the characteristic length scale for the accelerated neutron is
\begin{equation}
x_{a}=\frac{4c^{2}}{|1+\mu_{a}|a}.
\end{equation}
In cgs units, this has the numerical value of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-scale}
x_{a}=\frac{3.6\times 10^{21}\, {\rm cm}}{|1+\mu_{a}|a}.
\end{equation}
For reasonable values of $a$ and $|1+\mu_{a}|$, the scale of $x_{a}$is
astrophysical. A natural place to look for this effect would be the solar wind,
since the solar wind contains many neutrons and it undergoes continuous
acceleration. The gravitational acceleration at the surface of the sun is
$a_{\odot}=GM_{\odot}/R_{\odot}^{2}=2.7\times 10^{4}$~cm\,$\cdot\,$s$^{-2}$. If
$|1+\mu_{a}|=2$, this indicates a length of $x_{a}=6.6\times 10^{16}$~cm or
0.036~LY. This is a substantial distance. Moreover, this is not the flight
distance of the neutrons from the sun. Instead, it represents their retardation
by the sun's gravitational attraction. The actual flight distance would be even
larger, and the sun's gravitational acceleration is certainly not uniform over
the distance. Thus, it is almost certainly not possible to observe any effect
on the solar wind neutrons.
Since the length scale due to the sun's gravitational acceleration is too
large, it is natural to consider situations in which $a$ is substantially
greater. In particular, we will look at the acceleration at the surface of
a neutron star, with mass $1.5M_{\odot}$ and radius $10^{6}$ cm. For this body,
$a_{N\- S}=2.0\times 10^{14}$~cm\,$\cdot$\,s$^{-2}$. In this case, the value of
$x_{a}$ is $9.1\times 10^{6}$~cm, substantially smaller. However, this is
still too large for the gravitational field to be nearly uniform. In any case,
it is unlikely that particles at a neutron star's surface would be free from
far stronger interactions, so the effect is almost certainly not significant
in this case, either.
These calculated length scales indicate that the term of the Hamiltonian
containing $\mu_{a}$ does not have a sizeable effect except at very long
distances or very high resolutions. Thus, it is natural that $\mu_{a}$ has not
yet been observed in any experiment. Moreover, this term of the Hamiltonian
probably has no direct astrophysical implications.
\section{Acceleration Moment Effects Allowed by Symmetry}
\label{sec-symm}
At this point, it is not at all clear what sort of effects will occur on the
length scale $x_{a}$. Fischbach et al.\ identify the term (\ref{eq-gterm}) as
a standard spin-orbit coupling term, since
\begin{equation}
\mbox{{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot({\bf g}\times{\bf p})=-\frac{\Phi c^{2}}
{r^{2}}\,\mbox{{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot({\bf x}\times{\bf p})=-\frac{2\Phi
c^{2}}{\hbar r^{2}}\,{\bf L\cdot S}.
\end{equation}
This is correct in general, but it is not useful in the approximation of a
uniform gravitational field ${\bf a}=-{\bf g}$, since the meaningful behavior
of ${\bf L= x\times p}$ relies on ${\bf x}$ not remaining constant. We shall
therefore work only with (\ref{eq-aterm}), which is clearly not a simple
${\bf L\cdot S}$ interaction. In fact, we shall find that the simple precession
characteristic of ${\bf L\cdot S}$ interactions does not occur in this problem.
Our arguments will be qualitative, based on the symmetries of the situation, so
the numerical difference between (\ref{eq-aterm}) and (\ref{eq-gterm}) is not
significant.
As noted in~\cite{ref-maltschul}, $\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$ does not affect
the space-time trajectory of a neutron. However, $\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$
may affect the spin vector, similar to the effect of a magnetic field,
${\bf B}$. If we express the direction of the spin vector as $(\theta,\phi)$
and apply the magnetic field ${\bf B}$ along the $z$-axis, $\phi$ precesses.
However, the acceleration vector ${\bf a}$ possess a higher symmetry than
${\bf B}$, making the situation more complex.
The symmetry point group of ${\bf B}$ is $SO(2)$, since the physics are
unchanged by rotations about the $z$-axis. The acceleration ${\bf a}$ exhibits
the same properties. However, the magnetic field is an axial vector, changing
sign under reflection. Acceleration is a vector, so its symmetry point group is
$O(2$).
We will consider the action of a known acceleration ${\bf a}$, suitably
parameterized. The operation of the acceleration on the spin vector
$(\theta,\phi)$ must commute with the elements of $O(2)$. This means that
$\phi$ must remain constant, since no rotation about the $z$-axis commutes
with the reflections in $O(2)$. So the only rotations allowed are in the polar
angle $\theta$. These rotations may not take $\theta$ to 0 or $\pi$, since
$\phi$ is indeterminate at these poles, so the transformation would not be
invertible. If $\theta$ is the only coordinate changing, it can not oscillate,
since it is restricted to the interval $(0,\pi)$, and the transformation
induces a rotation of definite direction at each point of this interval.
Changes in $\theta$ must rotate the spin vector either toward or away from the
$z$-axis, the direction of acceleration. Although the rate of this rotation may
vary, it must satisfy
\begin{equation}
\dot{\theta}|_{\theta=\theta_{0}}=\dot{\theta}|_{\theta=\pi-\theta_{0}}
\label{eq-theta}
\end{equation}
in order to be consistent with the action of the inverse transformation. The
inverse, which would correspond to acceleration along the $-z$-axis, inverts
$\dot{\theta}$. Symmetry dictates that if, at the angle $\theta_{0}$, the
regular rotation was toward the $z$-axis, the inverse rotation at the angle
$\pi-\theta_{0}$ must be toward the $-z$-axis at the same rate. Since the
inverse transformation just reverses the rotation direction, the regular
rotation at $\pi-\theta_{0}$ is the same as it is at $\theta_{0}$.
Although we have not demonstrated this fact, it seems likely that the range of
rotation of $\theta$ is the entire range $(0,\pi)$, with the sign of $\dot
{\theta}$ the same everywhere. This would result in the spin vector
continuously rotating towards or away from the direction of the acceleration,
with the angular frequency symmetric about $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ and gradually
decreasing as $\theta$ approaches the pole.
\section{Conclusions}
The existence of $\mu_{a}$ does not ensure the validity of the equivalence
principle. $\mbox{{\boldmath $\chi$}}'$ itself gives us no indication of the
magnitude of the ``anomalous acceleration moment.'' However, $\mu_{a}$ does
provide a convenient method for restoring the equivalence principle, if
$\mu_{a}=-3$. This specific prediction gives us another avenue for analysis of
both $\mu_{a}$ and the equivalence principle. The particular value of $\mu_{a}$
is a property of the quark operators under acceleration. By examining the
problem from the QCD standpoint, it may be possible to determine $\mu_{a}$
directly, either confirming or rejecting the equivalence principle.
If $\mu_{a}$ exists for the neutron, it almost certainly exists for the other
neutral baryons. Whether it has an analogue for other neutral particles is not
as clear. For higher-spin mesons, such as the $\rho(770)^{0}$, with spin 1,
there may well be other ``anomalous acceleration moments.'' To see how such
moments would enter the Hamiltonian, it is necessary to examine the
acceleration generators for these particles.
\acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Martin S. Altschul for his extensive and useful
comments.
|
\section{Introduction.}
In particle physics fields are given mass by assuming the existence of
Higgs scalar fields. There are a number of unsatisfactory aspects to this
procedure, for example: the Higgs scalar has not been experimentally found,
also it is required to have a mass term of the wrong sign. An alternative
procedure has been suggested, Roberts (1989) \cite{bi:mdr89} in which fluids
rather than scalar fields are responsible for vector fields acquiring mass.
The motivation for using fluids is a principle \cite{bi:mdr89} which states
that there is only one concept of mass in physics; furthermore this concept
of mass must be ultimately of gravitational origin. The picture envisaged
can be thought of as occurring in four steps or stages,
these words have unwanted temporal connotations so that
we refer instead to four basic ingredients. The first ingredient is that the
vector field is taken to exist, and it is assumed to have a
{\bf primitive stress}.
The second ingredient is that the vector field has statistical
properties which produce an {\bf effective fluid} that couples to the
primitive stress.
The third ingredient is that the coupling between the fluid and the
primitive stress produces a {\bf mass term}. The fourth ingredient
is that the
{\bf gravitational origin} of this is in some as yet undiscovered relationship
between statistical mechanics and gravitational theory. Those of a more
prosaic disposition can simply regard fluids as an alternative technical means
for inducing mass, perhaps with application in the theory of superfluids,
Isreal (1981) \cite{bi:isreal}.
Scalar fields and fluids can be equated in several ways as shown for example
in \cite{bi:mdr89}. Usually fluids exhibit more freedom as they are
parameterised by $p, \mu, V_a$ however static scalar fields are equivalent
to fluids with imaginary vector $V_a$ so that there are sometimes different
qualitative properties, an example of this is the asymptotic properties,
Roberts (1998) \cite{bi:mdr98}of the space-time.
The technical methods in \cite{bi:mdr98},
uses what in section \ref{sec:II} is called the "already interacting" fluid.
Here the technical procedure is to replace derivatives
in the velocity decomposition of the fluid tangent vector $V_a$ by vector
covariant derivatives. The resulting "covariantly interacting" fluid can
be reduced to scalar electrodynamics, and then the standard symmetry breaking
procedure applied. The covariantly interacting fluid generalizes scalar
electrodynamics and the extra degrees of freedom provide the scope for other
symmetry breaking mechanisms to be used. One mentioned here requires that
only quantities of thermodynamic importance be retained in the mass breaking
term, these thermodynamic quantities can then be fixed at a critical value
such as the Bose condensation value. The drawback of this approach in its
present form is that it necessitates the introduction of an ad hoc time
interval; here this is taken to be the Planck time. It is found that the
induced mass is negligible, i.e. well beneath the experimental limit of
$10^{-50}Kg.$ \cite{bi:GN}. It is of interest to know if it could be
demonstrated that the photon mass is exactly zero. The Proca equation
\cite{bi:IZ} p.135 necessitates $m^2\nabla_aA^a=0$, so that the existence
of photon mass fixes the gauge. The Bohm-Aharonov effect \cite{bi:BH}
shows that the gauge must be chosen such that $A_a$ is continuous;
it might be possible to devise a geometric configuration in which the
continuity of $A_a$ requires a different gauge
choice from $\nabla_aA^a=0$, thus giving $m=0$ from $m^2\nabla_aA^a=0$.
In this paper section \ref{sec:II} briefly introduces the standard
scalar electrodynamic symmetry breaking,
section \ref{sec:III} introduces the velocity decomposition for the
velocity tangent to a fluid, section \ref{sec:IV}
applies the vector covariant derivative to this,
section \ref{sec:V} mentions some possible ways in which
the resulting fluid could break symmetry. The conventions used are:
signature $-+++$, $";"$ signifies Christoffel covariant derivative,
symmetrization is denoted by round brackets,
e.g. $T_{(ab)}=(T_{ab}+T_{ba})/2$, anti-symmetrization is denoted
by square brackets, e.g. $T_{[ab]}=(T_{ab}-T_{ba})/2$.
\section{Scalar Electrodynamics.}
\label{sec:II}
The scalar electrodynamic Lagrangian \cite{bi:higgs},
\cite{bi:IZ}p.68, \cite{bi:HE}p.699 is
\begin{equation}
L_{sel}=-D_a\psi D^a\bar{\psi}-V(\psi\bar{ps})-\frac{1}{4}F^2,
\label{eq:2.1}
\end{equation}} %\indent
where the covariant derivative is
\begin{equation}
D_a\psi=\partial_a\psi+ieA_a,
\label{eq:2.2}
\end{equation}} %\indent
and $D_a\bar{\psi}=\bar{D_a\psi}$.
The variation of the corresponding action with respect to
$A_a, \psi$, and $\bar{ps}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta I}{\delta A_c}&=&F^{ab}_{..;b}
+ie(\psi D^a\bar{\psi}-\bar{ps}D^a\psi)\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \psi}&=&(D_aD^a-V')\bar{\psi},~~~V'=\frac{dV}{d(\psi\bar{\psi})},
\label{eq:2.3}
\end{eqnarray}
and its complex conjugate. Variations of the metric give the stress
\begin{equation}
T_{ab}=2D_{(a}\psi D_{b)}\bar{\psi}+F_{ac}F^{~c}_{b.}+g_{ab}L.
\label{eq:2.4}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The complex scalar field can be put in "polar" form by defining
\begin{equation}
\psi= exp(i\nu),
\label{eq:2.5}
\end{equation}} %\indent
giving the Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
L=\rho^2_a+({\mathcal D}_a\nu)^2-V(\rho^2)-\frac{1}{4}F^2,
\label{eq:2.6}
\end{equation}} %\indent
where
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal D}_a\nu=\rho(\nu_a+eA_a).
\label{eq:2.7}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The variations of the corresponding action with respect to
$A_a ,\rho$, and $\nu$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta I}{\delta A_a}&=&F^{ab}_{..;b}+2e\rho{\mathcal D}^a\nu,\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \rho}&=&2\left(\Box+(\nu_a+eA_a)^2+V'\right),\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \nu}&=&2\left(\Box\nu+eA^a_{,a;a}\right).
\label{eq:2.8}
\end{eqnarray}
Variation of the metric gives the stress
\begin{equation}
T_{ab}=2\rho_a\rho_b
+2{\mathcal D}_a\nu{\mathcal D}_b\nu+F_{ac}F^{~c}_{b.}
+g_{ab}L.
\label{eq:2.9}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Defining
\begin{equation}
B_a=A_a+\nu_a/e,
\label{eq:2.10}
\end{equation}} %\indent
$\nu$ is absorbed to give Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
L=\rho^2_a+\rho^2e^2B_a^2-V(\rho^2)-\frac{1}{4}F^2,
\label{eq:2.11}
\end{equation}} %\indent
which does not contain $\nu$; equation \ref{eq:2.10}
is a gauge transformation when there are no discontinuities
in $\nu$ i.e. $\nu_{;[ab]}=0$.
The requirement that the corresponding quantum theory is renormizable
restricts the potential to the form
\begin{equation}
V(\rho^2)=m^2\rho^2+\lambda\rho^4.
\label{eq:2.12}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The ground state is when there is a minimum, for $m^2,\lambda>0$ this is $\rho=0$,
but for $m^2<0,\lambda>0$ this is
\begin{equation}
\rho^2=\frac{-m^2}{2\lambda}=a^2,
\label{eq:2.13}
\end{equation}} %\indent
thus the vacuum energy is
\begin{equation}
<0|\rho|0>=a.
\label{eq:2.14}
\end{equation}} %\indent
To transform the Lagrangian \ref{eq:2.11} to take this into account substitute
\begin{equation}
\rho\rightarrow\rho'=\rho+a,
\label{eq:2.15}
\end{equation}} %\indent
to give
\begin{equation}
L=\rho_a^2+(\rho+a)^2e^2B_a^2-V\left((\rho+a)^2\right)-\frac{1}{4}F^2.
\label{eq:2.16}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Now apparently the vector field has a mass $m$ from the $a^2e^2B_a^2$
term it is given by $m=ae$. The cross term $2a\rho e^2B_a^2$ is ignored.
\section{Velocity Potentials.}
\label{sec:III}
A Newtonian $3$-vector, can be decomposed: $\nu=\nabla\phi+\alpha\nabla\beta$,
\cite{bi:clebsch} where $\phi, \alpha$, and $\beta$ are the Clebsch potentials.
A particular case of Paff's theorem shows that a $4$-vector can be decomposed:
$V_a=AB_a+CD_a$ where $A, B, C$, and $D$ are the potentials.
The work of
\cite{bi:lin}
\cite{bi:SW}
\cite{bi:schutz70}
\cite{bi:schmid1}
\cite{bi:schmid2}
shows that a non-minimal decomposition
\begin{equation}
V_a=h^{-1}(\phi_a+\alpha\beta_a-\theta S_a),~~~V_aV^a_.=-1
\label{eq:3.1}
\end{equation}} %\indent
is more useful, because for an isentropic fluid all the potentials have
evolution equations. $\theta$ is the thermasy of van Dantzig
\cite{bi:vand}eq.4.9 it is usually defined by
\begin{equation}
d\theta=-kT~d\tau,
\label{eq:3.2}
\end{equation}} %\indent
where $T$ is the temperature; also $h$ is the enthalpy and $S$ is the entropy.
The three other potentials do not have a thermodynamic interpretation.
A current vector can be defined by
\begin{equation}
W_a=hV_a,
\label{eq:3.3}
\end{equation}} %\indent
c.f.\cite{bi:HE}p.69, because $W^a_{.;a}=0$ it is not conserved.
The Christoffel derivative of $W_a$ can be in the usual manner
\cite{bi:HE}p.82-3
\begin{equation}
W_{a;b}=\omega_{ab}+\sigma_{ab}+\frac{1}{3}\Theta h_{ab}-\dot{W}_aW_b,
\label{eq:3.4}
\end{equation}} %\indent
and then defining the vorticity tensor, vorticity vector, expansion tensor,
expansion scalar, shear tensor, and acceleration vector in the usual
manner, it is found that only the vorticity tensor, expansion scalar,
and acceleration vector show any simplification, they are
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega _{ab}&\equiv&h^{~c}_{a.}h^{~a}_{b.}W_{[c;d]}
=h^{~c}_{a.}h^{~a}_{b.}(\alpha_{[d}\beta_{c]}-\theta_{[d}S_{c]}),\nonumber\\
\Theta&\equiv&W^a_{.;a}
=\Box\phi+\alpha\Box\beta-\theta\Box S+\alpha^a\beta_a-\theta^aS_a,\nonumber\\
\dot{W}_a&\equiv&V^bW_{a;b}
=-TS_a+V^a(\phi_{ab}+\alpha\beta_{ab}-\theta S_{ab}),
\label{eq:3.5}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, where the projection tensor is given by
\begin{equation}
h_{ab}=g_{ab}-V_aV_b,
\label{eq:3.6}
\end{equation}} %\indent
and the evolution equations \ref{eq:3.13} have been used in deriving the
equation for the acceleration $\dot{W}_a$.
The evolution equations can be derived from a Lagrangian; to do this
it is necessary to assume both the equation
\begin{equation}
nh=p+\mu,
\label{eq:3.7}
\end{equation}} %\indent
where $n$ is the particle number, $p$ is the pressure, and $\mu$
is the density, and also the first law of thermodynamics in the form
\begin{equation}
dp=n~dh-nT~dS.
\label{eq:3.8}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Usually \cite{bi:hargreaves} the the Lagrangian of a fluid is taken to be
the pressure, this is done here; but occasionally.
e.g.\cite{bi:HE}p.69, other quantities are used. The action is
\begin{equation}
I=\int\sqrt{-g}p~dx.
\label{eq:3.9}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Using \ref{eq:3.8} and then \ref{eq:3.1} shows that variations in the
pressure depend on the velocity potentials. The variations are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta I}{\delta g^{ab}}&=&-nhV_aV_b,\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta\phi}&=&-\sqrt{-g}(nV^a)_{;a},\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta\alpha}&=&-\sqrt{-g}n\beta^aV_a,\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta\beta}&=&-\sqrt{-g}(n\alpha V^a)_{;a},\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta\theta}&=&+\sqrt{-g}nS^aV_a,\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta S}&=&-\sqrt{-g}[(n\theta V^a)+nT].
\label{eq:3.10}
\end{eqnarray}
The first of these variations give the stress
\begin{equation}
T_{ab}=(p+\mu)V_aV_b+pg_{ab}.
\label{eq:3.11}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The absolute derivative is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot{X}_{ab\ldots}=\frac{D}{d\tau}X_{ab\ldots}=V^cX_{ab\ldots;c},
\label{eq:3.12}
\end{equation}} %\indent
then the requirement that the second of the variations
\ref{eq:3.10} vanishes is
\begin{equation}
\dot{n}+nV^a_{.;a}=0,
\label{eq:3.13}
\end{equation}} %\indent
and this is just the conservation of particle number \cite{bi:stewart}eq.2.3.
Using this the vanishing of the remaining variations gives
\begin{equation}
\dot{\alpha}=\dot{\beta}=\dot{S}=0,~~~\dot{\theta}= -T.
\label{eq:3.14}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The third of these shows that the fluid is isentropic, the fourth is just
\ref{eq:3.2} in another forms.
Using \ref{eq:3.1} and \ref{eq:3.14} shows that
\begin{equation}
\dot{\phi}=-h.
\label{eq:3.15}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The Bianchi identities give the fluid conservation equations
\begin{eqnarray}
-V_aT^{ab}_{..;b}&=&\dot{\mu}+(p+\mu)V^a_{.;a},\nonumber\\
h_{ab}T^{bc}_{..;c}&=&(p+\mu)V^bV_{a;b}+h^{~b}_{a.}p_{;b},
\label{eq:3.16}
\end{eqnarray}
where the projection tensor is given by \ref{eq:3.5}; these equations do not
immediately occur as a result of varying the Lagrangian, but only by applying
the Bianchi identities to \ref{eq:3.11}. The first law of thermodynamics
has been assumed \ref{eq:3.5}. In the present case the second law is obeyed
as an equality as in \ref{eq:3.14} $\dot{S}=0$. The situation is more
complex in the next section.
Anticipating some of the problems and how to approach them - In particle
physics there is not always invariance under time and space reflections.
The above involves no inequalities: there are no assumed energy inequalities,
and the fluid is isentropic (in equilibrium with $\dot{S}=0$) rather than
$\dot{S}>0$. Recall that a vector is future pointing iff $V_t>0$;
for \ref{eq:3.1} $hV_t=\phi_t+\alpha\beta_t-\theta S_t$; ignoring $\phi, \alpha$,
and $\beta$, $V_a$ is past pointing when $\theta S_t >0$.
This can be reversed by either defining a new vector $V'_a=-V_a$ or
a new time coordinate $t'=-t$.
\section{The "Covariantly Interacting" Fluid.}
\label{sec:IV}
There are several ways, four of which are mentioned here, of introducing
an interacting fluid and vector field, with the intention of breaking the
vector fields symmetries. In the first method a "plasma interacting" fluid
is produced by generalizing the treatment of \cite{bi:SW}$\verb+#+$7.
In the second method, the fluid is "already interacting",
the stress \ref{eq:3.10} is directly equated
with the stress calculated from \ref{eq:2.11};
this gives $-2(\rho_a\rho_b+\rho^2e^2B_aB_b)=(\mu+p)V_aV_b$
and it is impossible to proceed with one real fluid; this method is similar
to the method discussed in \cite{bi:mdr89}.
The third method is the "traditionally
interacting" fluid \cite{bi:HE}p.70, this is produced by adding a term
$L_I=-\frac{1}{2}V_aA^a$ to the Lagrangian;
this method is of no use for present purposes as there is
only a single term $A_a$ in the Lagrangian and stress,
and for symmetry breaking products $A_a A_B$ are required.
The fourth method is the "covariantly interacting" fluid;
this is a produced by simply applying the covariant
derivative \ref{eq:2.2} to the vector \ref{eq:3.1} to produce
\begin{equation}
V_a=h^{-1}\left(\phi_a+\alpha\beta_a-\theta S_a+ie(\phi+\alpha\beta-\theta S)A_a\right).
\label{eq:4.1}
\end{equation}} %\indent
It is required that
\begin{equation}
-1=g^{ab}_{..}V_{(a}\bar{V}_{b)},
\label{eq:4.2}
\end{equation}} %\indent
and also that the projection tensor is
\begin{equation}
h_{ab}=g_{ab}-V_{(a}\bar{V}_{b)},
\label{eq:4.3}
\end{equation}} %\indent
this ensures that most quantities are real. After using $W_a=hV_a$,
\ref{eq:4.2} becomes
\begin{equation}
h=-g^{ab}_{..}W_{(a}\bar{V}_{b)},
\label{eq:4.4}
\end{equation}} %\indent
then via the first law of thermodynamics \ref{eq:3.7} the pressure and
the Lagrangian are real; however the expansion, shear, \ldots etc.
are complex, this can be verified by direct computation or by noting
from \ref{eq:3.4} that as $W_a$ is complex the quantities involved
in this decomposition should also be complex.
The evolution equations are derived in a similar manner to the derivation
in the last section. The action is taken to be \ref{eq:3.9}
and the first law of thermodynamics is assumed with the enthalpy $h$
now given by \ref{eq:4.4}. The variations of the action are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\delta I}{\delta g^{ab}_{..}}&=&-nhV_{(a}\bar{V}_{b)},\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta A^a_.}&=&-n\sqrt{-g}\frac{e'^2}{h^2}A_a,
~~~e'^2=e^2(\phi+\alpha\beta-\theta S),\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \phi}&=&-\sqrt{-g}[(n\Re(V^a_.))+e'^2A_a^2n],\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \alpha}&=&-n\sqrt{-g}[\beta_a\Re(V^a_.)+e'^2A_a^2\beta],\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \beta}&=&-\sqrt{-g}[(n\alpha\Re(V^a_.)_{;a}
+e'^2A_a^2n\alpha],\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta \theta}&=&+n\sqrt{-g}[S_a\Re(V^a_.)+e'^2A_a^2S],\nonumber\\
\frac{\delta I}{\delta S}&=&+\sqrt{-g}[(n\theta\Re(V^a_.))_{;a}+e'^2A_a^2\theta n-nT],
\label{eq:4.5}
\end{eqnarray}
\ref{eq:4.4} and the vanishing of these give
\begin{equation}
-h=[\phi_a\Re(V^a_.)+e'^2A_a^2\phi].
\label{eq:4.6}
\end{equation}} %\indent
The stress and Maxwell equation are
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{ab}&=&(p+\mu)V_{(a}\bar{V}_{b)}+p~g_{ab},\nonumber\\
F^{ab}_{..}&+&\frac{e}{h^2}(\phi+\alpha\beta-\theta S)A^a_.= 0.
\label{eq:4.7}
\end{eqnarray}
Introducing the notation
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{X}_{ab\ldots}&=&\frac{DX_{ab\ldots}}{d\tau}
=\Re(V^c_.)X_{ab\ldots;c},\nonumber\\
\hat{X}_{ab\ldots}&=&\left(\frac{D}{d\tau}+e'^2A_a^2\right)X_{ab\ldots},\nonumber\\
\label{eq:4.8}
\end{eqnarray}
\ref{eq:4.6} and the vanishing of the variations \ref{eq:4.5}
can be written in the simple form
\begin{equation}
\dot{\alpha}=\hat{\beta}=\hat{S}=0,~~~\hat{\phi}=-h,~~~\dot{\theta}=T,~~~\hat{n}=n\Theta\ne0.
\label{eq:4.9}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Changing the sign and index of the last term produces the changes in the table.
The fluid has $n\ne=0$ implying that particle number is not conserved, this
appears unavoidable. Our choice has $\theta=T$ so that the standard expression
for thermasy is recovered; also $\hat{S}=0$ implies that the second law of
thermodynamics is obeyed when $\theta S>\phi+\alpha\beta$.\newpage
Table: The Choice for the Thermodynamic Term in the Velocity Vector.
\begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||} \hline\hline
$ -\theta_a S $ & $ +\theta S_a $ & $ +\theta_a S $ & $ -\theta S_a$\\ \hline
$\hat{\phi}=ST-h$ & $ \hat{\phi}=-h$& $\hat{\phi}=ST-h$ & $\hat{\phi}=-h$\\
$ \dot{S}=0 $ & $ \hat{S}=0 $ & $\dot{S}=0 $ & $\hat{S}=0$\\
$ \hat{\theta}=-T $ & $ \dot{\theta}=-T$& $\hat{\theta}=-T$ & $\dot{\phi}=-T$\\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\section{Symmetry Breaking.}
\label{sec:V}
The straightforward way of proceeding to break symmetry is to note that
the covariantly interacting fluid of the previous section contains scalar
electrodynamics as a special case. There are several choices of the
parameters by which scalar electrodynamics can be recovered, an example is
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\beta=\theta=S=\partial_a h=0,~~~\phi=\sqrt{2}h\psi,~~~p=l_{sel},~~~\mu=1-p,
\label{eq:5.1}
\end{equation}} %\indent
in the gauge ref{eq:2.10}. Thus the standard way of breaking symmetry
can then be applied, with the aesthetic difference the fundamental
cause of breaking is a fluid not a field.
There is the possibility of other velocity potentials such as $\alpha$
being non-vanishing operators leading to modifications of the standard
treatment; the velocity potentials themselves have been subject
to quantization for a fluid coupled to gravity in the ADM formalism, see
for example
\cite{bi:schutz71}
\cite{bi:DM}
\cite{bi:LR}.
The Proca equation \cite{bi:IZ}p.135 is
\begin{equation}
F^{ab}_{..}+m^2eA^a_.=0,
\label{eq:5.2}
\end{equation}} %\indent
comparing with (\ref{eq:4.8}, the covariantly interacting fluid has a mass
\begin{equation}
m^2=h^{-2}(\phi+\alpha\beta-\theta S)^2.
\label{eq:5.3}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Choosing only to retain thermodynamic quantities $m^2=h^{-2}\theta^2S^2$, and the
thermasy $\theta$ needs to be evaluated. The tempreture can be taken to be
independent of the proper time $\tau$, but the mass in \ref{eq:5.3}
still depends on proper time; to proceed it is necessary to introduce
an artificial time interval and the Plank time is chosen, thus
\begin{equation}
-\theta= k\int^{ta_{PL}}_0~T~d\tau
= kT\int^{\tau_{PL}}_0~d\tau
=kT~|^{\tau_{PL}}_0
=\sqrt{\frac{G\hbar}{c^5}}kT.
\label{eq:5.4}
\end{equation}} %\indent
Restoring constants and substituting into \ref{eq:5.3} gives
\begin{equation}
m=\sqrt{\frac{c\hbar}{G}}k\frac{TS}{h}\ap3.10^{-31}\frac{TS}{h}~ Kg.
\label{eq:5.5}
\end{equation}} %\indent
For $m$ to be constant it is necessary to evaluate $TS/h$ at the critical point
and the Bose condensation point is a choice. This choice terms out to give
zero mass because Bose condensation requires that the lowest state has zero
kinetic energy, as there is no extra energy there is no extra heat content
and hence no entropy, there is no disorder because all the particles are in
the same state, c.f.\cite{bi:kahanna}p.78,
no entropy implies that there is no induced mass.
The Bose condensation point is also unsatisfactory choice because
strictly speaking $N/V$ is not required to have a given value for radiation in
a cavity for a vector fields, c.f.\cite{bi:jackson}prob.16.2.
|
\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
\textwidth 170mm
\textheight 230mm
\topmargin -15mm
\oddsidemargin -0.60 cm
\evensidemargin -0.60 cm
\parindent 1 true cm
\newcommand{\lbl}[1]{\label{eq:#1}}
\newcommand{ \rf}[1]{(\ref{eq:#1})}
\newcommand{\vs}[1]{\rule[- #1 mm]{0mm}{#1 mm}}
\newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt
\def\mathsurround=0pt{\mathsurround=0pt}
\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
\newif\ifdtup
\def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
\vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
\else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
\def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
\halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
\tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
\crcr#1\crcr}}
\def{\widehat m}{{\widehat m}}
\newcommand{\vs{2}\begin{equation}}{\vs{2}\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\\[2mm]\end{equation}}{\\[2mm]\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}}}{%
\mathrel{%
\setbox0=\hbox{$<$}
\raise0.6ex\copy0\kern-\wd0
\lower0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}
}}
\newcommand{\stackrel{\displaystyle >}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}}}{%
\mathrel{%
\setbox0=\hbox{$>$}
\raise0.6ex\copy0\kern-\wd0
\lower0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}
}}
\defM_\pi{M_\pi}
\defF_\pi{F_\pi}
\newcommand{\cpm}[1]{[#1]_\pm}
\newcommand{\cp}[1]{[#1]_+}
\newcommand{\cm}[1]{[#1]_-}
\newcommand{\alpha}{\alpha}
\newcommand{\beta}{\beta}
\newcommand{\gamma}{\gamma}
\newcommand{\delta}{\delta}
\newcommand{\rho}{\rho}
\newcommand{\sigma}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\tau}{\tau}
\newcommand{\eta}{\eta}
\newcommand{\NP}[1]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\RMP}[1]{Rev.\ of Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PL}[1]{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\NC}[1]{Nuovo Cimento {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\AN}[1]{Ann. Phys. {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\CMP}[1]{Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PR}[1]{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PRev}[1]{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\PRL}[1]{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\MPL}[1]{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\BLMS}[1]{Bull.\ London Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf #1}}
\begin{document}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{subsection}{0}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
CPT-98/P.3716\\
LU TP 98/23\\
ZU-TH 21/98\\
\today\\
\end{flushright}
\begin{center}
\begin{bf}
{\Large \bf Low--energy photon--photon fusion into three pions \\[0.5cm]
in Generalized Chiral Perturbation
Theory \footnote{Work supported in part by TMR, EC--Contract No.
ERBFMRX--CT980169} } \\[2cm]
\end{bf}
{\large Ll. Ametller$^a$, J. Kambor$^b$, M. Knecht$^c$ and P. Talavera$^{d}$}
\\[1cm]
$^a$ Dept. de F{\'\i}sica i Enginyeria Nuclear,
UPC, E-$08034$ Barcelona, Spain.\\[.1cm]
$^b$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
Universit\"at Z\"urich,
CH-8057 Z\"urich, Switzerland.\\[.1cm]
$^c$ Centre de physique Th\'eorique, CNRS--Luminy,
Case 90
F--13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France.\\[.1cm]
$^d$ Dept. of Theoretical Physics, University of Lund, S\"olvegatan 14A,
S-22362 Lund, Sweden. \\[3cm]
{\bf PACS:}~11.30.Rd, 12.39.Fe, 13.75.-n, 14.70.Bh, 13.60.Le\\[0.2mm]
{\bf Keywords:} \begin{minipage}[t]{9.5cm} Chiral Symmetry,
Chiral Perturbation Theory, Scattering at low energy,
Photon-photon Physics, Meson production.\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\vfill
\begin{abstract}
The processes $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ and
$\gamma\gamma\to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ are considered in Generalized
Chiral Perturbation theory, in view of their potential sensitivity to the mechanism of spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry and to various counterterms.
The amplitudes are computed up to order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$.
The event production rates are estimated for the Daphne $\phi$--Factory
and for a future
$\tau$--Charm Factory.
\end{abstract}
\vfill
\end{titlepage}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\section{\bf Introduction}
In the limit where the masses of the lightest quark flavours $u,d$ and $s$ are set to zero, the QCD lagrangian becomes invariant under a chiral
$SU(3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}\times SU(3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize R}}$ global symmetry. This symmetry is not reproduced by the hadronic spectrum, and must therefore be spontaneously broken towards the diagonal $SU(3)_{\rm V}$ subgroup. Actually, this spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry can be shown to follow from very general properties of QCD \cite{VaWi,tHo,Presk}. However, besides the existence of eight massless pseudoscalar states coupling to the eight conserved axial currents, nothing is known from ``first principles'' about the actual mechanism of spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry. The widespread belief in that matter is that it proceeds through the formation of a strong quark--antiquark condensate, $<{\bar q}q>\sim
-(250\,{\mbox MeV})^3$, where $<{\bar q}q>$ denotes the single flavour
quark--antiquark condensate in the $SU(2)$ chiral limit,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
<{\bar q}q> \,=\, <{\bar u}u>\vert_{m_u=m_d=0}\,=\, <{\bar d}d>\vert_{m_u=m_d=0}\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
In particular, this means that once the light quark masses $m_u$, $m_d$ and $m_s$ are turned on, the mass of the pion is assumed to be dominated by the contribution linear in quark masses \cite{gor},
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
-\frac{2{\widehat m} <{\bar q}q>}{F^2M_{\pi}^2}\sim 1\ ,\ \ {\widehat m} \,=\,\frac{m_u + m_d}{2}\ ,\lbl{stdcond}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where $F$ stands for the pion decay constant $F_\pi$ (the normalization we use corresponds to the numerical value $F_\pi$ = 92.4 MeV \cite{PDG}) in the same two--flavour chiral limit,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
F = F_{\pi}\vert_{m_u=m_d=0}.
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
However, our present theoretical knowledge of non--perturbative aspects in QCD does not exclude a picture where the condensate would be much smaller, say $<{\bar q}q>\sim -(100\,{\mbox MeV})^3$, or even vanishing. How the latter possibility may arise in QCD has been discussed recently~\cite{stern98,stern97} in terms of spectral properties of the Dirac operator. On the other hand, it has also
been suggested \cite{KKS98} that a strictly vanishing condensate in the chiral limit could be excluded by an inequality \cite{comellas95} between the correlator $<A_{\mu}(x)A^{\mu}(0)>$ of two axial currents and the two--point function $<P(x)P(0)>$ of the pseudoscalar quark bilinear density $P(x)\equiv ({\bar q}i\gamma_5q)(x)$. This inequality, however, has only been established so far for bare quantities, {\it i.e.} in the presence of an ultraviolet cut--off $\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize UV}}$. As the cut--off is removed, the pseudoscalar density $P(x)$ needs to be renormalized, whereas the (partially) conserved axial current $A_{\mu}(x)$ remains unaffected. Stricktly speaking, the claim of Ref.~\cite{KKS98} is that $<{\bar q}q>(\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize UV}})\neq 0$ for finite $\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize UV}}$, which does not, {\it a priori}, exclude the possibility of a vanishing condensate in the limit $\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize UV}}\to\infty$ \cite{stern98}. Finally, Ref!
.~\cite{kneur} provides an example of a different approach which, within a variational framework, leads to a non--vanishing, but nevertheless small, value of $<{\bar q}q>$.
Clearly, in order to settle the question of the mechanism of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking on a purely theoretical level, a major breakthrough in our understanding of non--perturbative aspects of confining gauge theories is required. Instead, one may try a phenomenological approach, and look for experimental observables which could provide the relevant information. In this respect, low--energy $\pi$--$\pi$ scattering in the S--wave has been put forward as a process particularly sensitive to the size of the condensate \cite{pionscat,pipipaper1} (for recent discussions, see {\it e.g.} \cite{pionrev,stern97}).
This can be most conveniently seen in the framework of the effective lagrangian \cite{weinberg78,GL1,GL2}. In order to incorporate the possibility of a small condensate, the usual counting has however to be modified. As explained in
Refs.~\cite{pionscat,gchpt}, a consistent expansion scheme, usually refered to as Generalized Chiral Perturbation Theory (GChPT), is obtained by taking (from now on, we restrict ourselves to the case of two massless flavours only),
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
m_u,m_d\sim{\cal O}({\mbox p})\ ,\ \ B\sim{\cal O}({\mbox p})\ ,\lbl{gencount}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
with p being a generic momentum, much smaller than the typical hadronic scale $\Lambda_H\sim 1\,{\mbox GeV}$, and
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
B\equiv -\frac{<{\bar q}q>}{F^2}\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
With this counting, the effective lagrangian at lowest order, which consists of all chiral invariant terms of order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^2)$, reads
\cite{pionscat}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(2)}&=&{1\over 4}F^2
\left\{\langle D_\mu U^+D^\mu U\rangle +2B\langle U^+\chi+\chi^+U\rangle
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\qquad + A\langle (U^+\chi)^2+(\chi^+U)^2\rangle
+ Z^P\langle U^+\chi-\chi^+U\rangle ^2 \lbl{L2}\\
&&\qquad +\left. h_0\langle \chi^+\chi\rangle
+ h_1({\mbox{det}}\chi + {\mbox{det}}\chi^+)\right\}\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The matrix $U$ collects the pion fields (throughout, we adopt the Condon and
Shortley phase convention),
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
U\,=\, e^{i\phi/F}\ ,\ \ \phi = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi^0 & -\sqrt{2}\pi^+\\
\sqrt{2}\pi^- & -\pi^0
\end{array}\right)\ .\lbl{Ufield}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The notation is as in Refs.~\cite{GL1,GL2}, except that $\chi$, the quantity
that contains the scalar and pseudoscalar sources, is defined without the
usual factor $2B$,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\chi={s}+i{ p}={\cal M}+\cdots \ ,\, {\cal M}={\mbox{diag}}(m_u,m_d)
\ .\lbl{chi}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The covariant derivative contains the external vector and axial sources,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
D_{\mu}U\ =\ \partial_{\mu}U-i[v_{\mu},U]-i\{a_{\mu},U\}\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
This is to be contrasted with Standard Chiral Perturbation Theory (SChPT)~\cite{GL1,GL2}, which assumes a large condensate, and hence the counting rule
$m_u,m_d\sim{\cal O}({\mbox p}^2)$, $B\sim\Lambda_H$, so that only the first two terms on the right--hand side of Eq.~\rf{L2} are taken into account at leading order. It easily follows from~\rf{L2} that the lowest order expression of the pion mass is now given by \footnote{We neglect the mass difference $m_u -m_d$ and set $m_u=m_d={\widehat m}$.}
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
M_{\pi}^2\,=\,2{\widehat m} B \,+\, 4{\widehat m}^2A \,+\,\cdots\ ,\lbl{Mpilead}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where the ellipsis stands for higher order corrections.
At the same level of approximation in the chiral expansion, the $\pi$--$\pi$ scattering amplitude can be written as~\cite{pionscat}
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
A(s\vert t,u)\,=\,\beta\frac{(s-\frac{4}{3}M_{\pi}^2)}{F^2}\,+\,
\alpha\frac{M_{\pi}^2}{3F^2}\,+\,\cdots\ ,\lbl{Amplead}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
with
$\beta=1+{\cal O}({\widehat m})$, while at this order the parameter $\alpha$ is directly related to the $<{\bar q}q>$ condensate through
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\alpha = 4 - 3\bigg({{2{\widehat m} B}\over{M_\pi^2}}\bigg)\,+\,{\cal O}({\widehat m})\ .
\lbl{alphalead}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The case~\rf{stdcond} of a strong condensate corresponds to $\alpha =1$, whereas the extreme limit where the condensate would vanish yields $\alpha = 4$.
Notice that the above expression for $A(s\vert t,u)$ is not affected
by the additional terms in \rf{L2} and reproduces the result first obtained by Weinberg~\cite{wein66}, $A(s\vert t,u)\,=\,(s-2{\widehat m} B)/F^2\,+\,\cdots$. The difference between the standard case and deviations from it lies here only in the leading--order expression~\rf{Mpilead} of the pion mass and its relation to the condensate. Higher orders in the chiral expansion will modify the simple expression \rf{Amplead}, but the correlation between low--energy $\pi$--$\pi$ scattering and the value of the ratio $2{\widehat m} B/M_{\pi}^2$ subsists, and can be studied in a controled way within the generalized chiral expansion \cite{pipipaper1}. Available data on low--energy $\pi$--$\pi$ phases, which are dominated by the Geneva--Saclay $K_{\ell 4}$ experiment~\cite{ross77}, do however not possess the required accuracy in order to distinguish between the different alternatives at present. Forthcoming experiments, such as new $K_{\ell 4}$ experiments, conducted by the BNL865 collaboration \cite{b!
nl865} or planed at the Daphne $\phi$--factory \cite{daphne}, and the DIRAC experiment at CERN
\cite{dirac}, represent promissing prospects in this direction.
In order to create a (hopefully convergent) set of evidences {\it pro} or {\it contra} a specific picture of spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry, it remains however important to explore other possibilities, and to find other processes which, at the theoretical level, can be shown to exhibit a reasonably strong dependence on the value of the condensate. The present work was motivated by the above consideration and the following observation. A straightforward re--analysis in GChPT of the existing SChPT calculations~\cite{adler,bos,pere96} at lowest order shows that the two amplitudes for the production of three pions in low--energy photon--photon collisions involve the parameter $\alpha$ already at tree level.
In the case of $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, the amplitude reads
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^{N} =
{{e^2}\over{4\pi^2F_\pi^3}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}k_\mu\epsilon_\nu k_\alpha'\epsilon_\beta'
\,{{\alpha M_\pi^2}\over{s-M_\pi^2}}\,+\,\cdots\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
while for $\gamma\gamma\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^{C} &=&
{{e^2}\over{4\pi^2F_\pi^3}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}k^\mu\epsilon^\nu k'^\alpha\epsilon'^\beta\,\bigg(1-{{(p_++p_-)^2-M_\pi^2+{1\over 3}(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2}\over
{s-M_\pi^2}}\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&&
+{{e^2}\over{4\pi^2F_\pi^3}}
\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} k'^\mu \epsilon'^\nu
p_0^{\alpha} \Bigl(-\epsilon^\beta+ {\epsilon \cdot p_{-}\over
k\cdot p_{-}}p_+^{\beta} + {\epsilon \cdot p_{+}\over
k\cdot p_{+}}p_-^{\beta}\Bigr)
\nonumber\\
&&
+{{e^2}\over{4\pi^2F_\pi^3}}
\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} k^\mu \epsilon^\nu
p_0^{\alpha} \Bigl(-\epsilon'^\beta + {\epsilon' \cdot p_{-}\over
k'\cdot p_{-}}p_+^{\beta}
+ {\epsilon' \cdot p_{+}\over
k'\cdot p_{+}}
p_-^\beta\Bigr)\,+\,\cdots\ .
\end{eqnarray}
In these expressions, $k$ and $k'$ ( $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon'$) denote the momenta (polarizations) of the two photons, while $p_+$, $p_-$ and $p_0$ are the pion momenta. The ellipses stand for higher order corrections which will be considered later. Diagrammatically, the origin of the dependence on $\alpha$ lies in the presence of one--pion reducible contributions to the two amplitudes, see Fig.~1 below.
\indent
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1.gg3pi.ps,height=3.5cm}}
\noindent
{\bf Figure 1} : {\it The lowest order contributions to the $\gamma\gamma\to\pi\pi\pi$ amplitudes. The $\alpha$--dependence in ${\cal A}^{N}$ and ${\cal A}^{C}$ comes from the vertex for (virtual) $\pi$--$\pi$ scattering in the first graph, which is the only one to contribute in the case of the neutral amplitude.}
\indent
\noindent
Therefore, the leading--order neutral amplitude ${\cal A}^N$ increases as the condensate decreases. For a strictly vanishing condensate ($\alpha =4$), the cross section at low energies is thus enhanced by a factor 16 as compared to the standard case of a strong condensate ($\alpha =1$) ! In the charged case, the situation is less favourable. At threshold, the average over the photon polarizations of the modulus squared of the amplitude is still proportional to the square of
$\alpha$,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{1\over 4}\sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize pol}}\vert{\cal A}^C
\vert^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize thr}}
={1\over 4}\,\bigg({{e^2}\over{4\pi^2F_\pi^3}}\bigg)^2\,
{{9M_\pi^4}\over 128}\,\alpha^2\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
but the sensitivity on $\alpha$ of the corresponding total {\it cross section} $\sigma^{C}(s,\alpha)$ rapidly decreases with increasing energy. For instance, the ratio $\sigma^C(s,\alpha=3)/\sigma^C(s,\alpha=1)$ is equal to 4.48 at $\sqrt{s}=450$ MeV, {\it i.e.} just above threshold, but drops to 1.68 at $\sqrt{s}=500$ MeV and becomes less than 1.10 at $\sqrt{s}\stackrel{\displaystyle >}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}} 600$ MeV. For the case $\alpha =2$,
the corresponding ratio is equal to 2.21 at $\sqrt{s}=450$ MeV, but the effect is less
than 25\% at $\sqrt{s}=500$ MeV, while it barely reaches a few percent at
$\sqrt{s}\stackrel{\displaystyle >}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}} 600$. Thus, the interference between the two kinematical structures contributing to the amplitude
${\cal A}^C$, which is responsible, at low energies, for the suppression of the cross section in the charged channel as compared to the cross section in the neutral channel~\cite{pere96}, also washes out the dependence on the value of the $<{\bar q}q>$ condensate as soon as one leaves the threshold region. Considering definite polarization configurations for the two photons does not improve the situation~: For parallel polarizations of the two photons, the part of ${\cal A}^C$ which is sensitive to $\alpha$ does not contribute to the cross section, whereas for polarizations taken along orthogonal axes, the same interference effect is again fully at work. Furthermore, both cross sections rapidly rise above threshold, so that the effect of higher orders also needs to be investigated. The purpose of this paper is precisely to investigate these higher order effects at the one--loop level in GChPT. In fact, at next--to--leading order new tensorial structures appear both in the neut!
ral and in the charged amplitude \cite{pere96}, whereas the pion loops provide additional sources of dependence with respect to $\alpha$, so that their behaviour with respect to changes in the value of the condensate could be modified to some extent.
Accordingly, the rest of the paper is organized as follows~: The general kinematical structure of the two amplitudes ${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$, as well as their properties under isospin symmetry, are the subject of Section 2. The construction and the renormalization of the effective lagrangian of GChPT at
order one--loop in the two--flavour case are treated in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to the actual calculation of the two amplitudes to one--loop precision. The counterterms which are involved in these expressions and several numerical results are discussed in Section 5. A summary and conclusions are presented in Section 6. Details on the evaluation of some counterterms have been gathered in
an Appendix.
\indent
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Kinematics and Isospin Symmetry}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The amplitudes ${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$ for the processes
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma(k)\ \gamma(k')\ &\to & \pi^0(p_1)\ \pi^0(p_2)\ \pi^0(p_3)\ ,
\nonumber\\
\gamma(k)\ \gamma(k')\ &\to & \pi^+(p_+)\ \pi^-(p_-)\ \pi^0(p_0)\ ,\lbl{proc}
\end{eqnarray}
are obtained from the matrix elements
\begin{eqnarray}
<\,\pi^0(p_1)\pi^0(p_2)\pi^0(p_3)\,{\mbox{out}}\,\vert\,
\gamma(k,\epsilon)\gamma(k',\epsilon')\,{\mbox{in}}\,>&=&
i(2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_f-P_i){\cal A}^N\ ,\nonumber\\
<\,\pi^+(p_+)\pi^-(p_-)\pi^0(p_0)\,{\mbox{out}}\,\vert\,
\gamma(k,\epsilon)\gamma(k',\epsilon')\,{\mbox{in}}\,>&=&
i(2\pi)^4\delta^4(P_f-P_i){\cal A}^C\ , \lbl{mat}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\cal A}^N(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_1,p_2,p_3)
\,=\,
\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad
ie^2\epsilon_{\mu}(k)\epsilon_{\nu}'(k')
\int d^4x e^{-ik\cdot x}
<\,\pi^0(p_1)\pi^0(p_2)\pi^0(p_3)\,{\mbox out}\,\vert\,
T\{j^{\mu}(x)j^{\nu}(0)\}\,\vert\,\Omega\,>\ ,
\nonumber\\
&&
{\cal A}^C(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)
\,=\,
\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad
ie^2\epsilon_{\mu}(k)\epsilon_{\nu}'(k')
\int d^4x e^{-ik\cdot x}
<\,\pi^+(p_+)\pi^-(p_-)\pi^0(p_0)\,{\mbox out}\,\vert\,
T\{j^{\mu}(x)j^{\nu}(0)\}\,\vert\,\Omega\,>\ .\lbl{red}
\end{eqnarray}
In the above expressions, $j_{\mu}(x)$ denotes the electromagnetic
current, with its usual decomposition into an isotriplet and an isosinglet component, $j_{\mu}=j_{\mu}^3+j_{\mu}^0$, while $\vert\,\Omega\,>$ stands for the QCD vacuum with massive light quarks, but in the absence of electromagnetism (radiative corrections to the two processes \rf{proc} are not considered here). Since we also neglect isospin breaking effects due to $m_u\neq m_d$, Bose symmetry and G--parity constrain the three final pions to be in an $I=1$ total isospin state. Thus the matrix elements in
Eq. \rf{red} only involve the $I=1$ component of the product of the two
electromagnetic currents,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
T\big\{j_{\mu}(x)j_{\nu}(0)\big\}_{I=1}\ =
\ T\big\{j^3_{\mu}(x)j^0_{\nu}(0)+j^0_{\mu}(x)j^3_{\nu}(0)\big\}\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
Therefore, isospin invariance relates the two amplitudes ${\cal A}^C$ and ${\cal A}^N$ in a simple way. With the Condon and Shortley phase convention adopted in Eq.~\rf{Ufield}, this relation reads
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
-{\cal A}^N(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_1,p_2,p_3)\ =\
{\cal A}^C(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_1,p_2,p_3)+ {\mbox{cyclic}}\,(p_1,p_2,p_3)\ ,
\lbl{iso}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where ``${\mbox{cyclic}}\,(p_1,p_2,p_3)$'' indicates that the contributions arising from cyclic permutations over the pion momenta $p_1, p_2$ and $p_3$ have to be added.
Up to permutations of the momenta and polarizations of the photons, and/or permutations of the momenta of the charged pions, the amplitude ${\cal A}^C$ may be decomposed into six independent Lorentz invariant amplitudes
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal A}^C(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-) \ =
\ {\cal A}^C_1(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)\,
t_1(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon')\nonumber\\
&&\quad
+\ \sum_{i=2,3}\,\bigg[{\cal A}^C_i(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)\,
t_i(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)\ +
\ { k \choose \epsilon } \leftrightarrow
{ k' \choose \epsilon' } \bigg]\lbl{decomp}\\
&&\quad
+\ \sum_{i=4,5,6}\,\bigg\{\bigg[{\cal A}^C_i(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)\,
t_i(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)\ +
\ { k \choose \epsilon } \leftrightarrow
{ k' \choose \epsilon' } \bigg] +
\bigg[p_{+} \leftrightarrow p_{-} \bigg]\bigg\}
\ ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with ($p_{ij}\equiv p_i+p_j$, $i,j=+,-,0$)
\begin{eqnarray}
& & t_1(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon')=
\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} k^\mu \epsilon^\nu
k'^\alpha \epsilon'^\beta, \nonumber \\
& & t_2(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)=\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} k'^\mu \epsilon'^\nu
p_{0}^\alpha \Bigl(-\epsilon^\beta+ {\epsilon \cdot p_{-}\over
k\cdot p_{-}}p_{+}^{\beta} + {\epsilon \cdot p_{+}\over
k\cdot p_{+}}p_{-}^{\beta}\Bigr), \nonumber \\
& & t_3(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)=\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
\Bigl(-\epsilon^\mu +{\epsilon \cdot p_{+-} \over k\cdot p_{+-}}k^\mu\Bigr)
k'^\nu p_{0}^\alpha
\epsilon'^\beta,
\nonumber \\
& & t_4(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)=\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
\Bigl(-\epsilon^\mu +{\epsilon \cdot p_{+0} \over k\cdot p_{+0}}k^\mu\Bigr)
k'^\nu p_{-}^\alpha
\epsilon'^\beta,
\nonumber \\
& & t_5(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-)=\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
k'^\mu p_{+}^\nu p_{-}^\alpha \epsilon'^\beta \Bigl({\epsilon \cdot p_{+0}
\over k \cdot p_{+0}} - {\epsilon \cdot p_{+} \over k \cdot p_{+}}\Bigr),
\nonumber \\
& &t_6(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon';p_0,p_+,p_-) =\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
\Bigl(-\epsilon^\mu +{\epsilon \cdot p_{+} \over k\cdot
p_{+}}k^\mu \Bigr) k'^\nu p_{-}^\alpha \epsilon'^\beta\ .
\end{eqnarray}
In the sequel, we shall compute the amplitudes ${\cal A}^C$ and ${\cal A}^N$ within the framework of generalized chiral perturbation theory up to order one--loop. At this level of accuracy of the chiral expansion, the amplitude ${\cal A}^N$ does not yet receive its full structure as implied by Eqs. \rf{decomp} and \rf{iso}. Rather, it takes the simpler form ($p_{ij}\equiv p_i+p_j$, $i,j=1,2,3$)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal A}^N(k,\epsilon;k'\epsilon';p_1,p_2,p_3) \ =
\ {\cal A}^N_1(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)\,
t_1(k,\epsilon;k',\epsilon')
\nonumber\\
&&\quad
+\ \bigg[{\cal A}^N_2(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)
\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
\Bigl(\epsilon'^\mu -{\epsilon' \cdot p_{12} \over k'\cdot p_{12}}k'^\mu\Bigr)
p_{12}^{\nu}\epsilon^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\,+\,{\mbox{cyclic}}\,(p_1,p_2,p_3)\bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&\quad +
\ \bigg[{ k \choose \epsilon } \leftrightarrow
{ k' \choose \epsilon' } \bigg]\ +\ \cdots\ ,\lbl{Aneu}
\end{eqnarray}
where the ellipsis stands for higher order terms in the chiral expansion. In order that \rf{Aneu} follows from \rf{iso} and \rf{decomp}, it is {\it sufficient} that the one--loop charged amplitudes ${\cal A}_i^C$ satisfy the following conditions~:
\begin{description}
\item[i)]
${\cal A}_2^C(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)-{\cal A}_5^C(k,k';p_+,p_-,p_0)$ is entirely symmetric under permutations of the pion momenta $p_+, p_-, p_0$;
\item[ii)]
$k\cdot p_0\,\big[{\cal A}_5^C(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)+
{\cal A}_6^C(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)\big]\ =$
$\qquad\ k\cdot p_+
\,\big[{\cal A}_5^C(k,k';p_+,p_0,p_-)+
{\cal A}_6^C(k,k';p_+,p_0,p_-)\big]$;
\item[iii)]
${\cal A}_5^C(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)\ =\ {\cal A}_5^C(k,k';p_+,p_0,p_-)$.
\end{description}
Furthermore, the two neutral amplitudes have then the following expressions in
terms of the charged ones~:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^N_1(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3) &=&
-{\cal A}^C_1(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)\nonumber\\
&&+\ \bigg[\,{1\over 3}{\cal A}^C_2(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)+
{\cal A}^C_3(k,k';p_3,p_1,p_2)\nonumber\\
&&+{\cal A}^C_4(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)+
{\cal A}^C_4(k,k';p_2,p_1,p_3)\nonumber\\
&&+{\cal A}^C_6(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)+
{\cal A}^C_6(k,k';p_2,p_1,p_3)\nonumber\\
&&+{2\over 3}{\cal A}^C_5(k,k';p_2,p_3,p_1)\,\bigg]\ +
\ \bigg[{ k \choose \epsilon } \leftrightarrow
{ k' \choose \epsilon'} \bigg]\nonumber\\
&&+\ {\mbox{cyclic}}\,(p_1,p_2,p_3)\ ,\lbl{iso1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
-{\cal A}^N_2(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3) &=&
\big[
{\cal A}^C_4(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)+{\cal A}^C_6(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)\big]+
\big[\,p_1\leftrightarrow p_2\,\big]\nonumber\\
&&+
{\cal A}^C_3(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)+{\cal A}^C_5(k,k';p_2,p_1,p_3)\ .\lbl{iso2}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{The Effective Lagrangian in GChPT}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Before proceeding with the calculation of the amplitudes ${\cal A}^C$ and ${\cal A}^N$ in the next section, we first discuss the structure of the low--energy generating functional in the case of two light flavours that we need for our subsequent calculation. Since most of the results of this section are not available from the existing literature, we discuss them in some detail.
The structure of the effective lagrangian ${\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ is independent of the underlying mechanism of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. It consists of an infinite tower of chiral invariant contributions
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}} = \sum_{(k,l)}\,{\cal L}_{(k,l)}\ ,\lbl{Leff}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where ${\cal L}_{(k,l)}$ contains $k$ powers of covariant derivatives and $l$ powers of the scalar or pseudoscalar sources. In the chiral limit, these terms behave as
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{(k,l)}\sim\left({{\mbox p}\over{\Lambda_H}}\right)^k
\left({{m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}}\over{\Lambda_H}}\right)^l\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
with $m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}=m_u,m_d$, and p stands for a typical external momentum.
The standard approach not only assumes
$m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}\ll\Lambda_H$, but also
$m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}\ll B/2A$,
such as to enforce the dominance of the term linear in
$m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}$ in the
expression of the pion mass~\rf{Mpilead}. This allows to reorganize the double
expansion \rf{Leff} as~\cite{GL1,GL2}
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}} =
{\cal L}^{(2)}+{\cal L}^{(4)}+{\cal L}^{(6)}+\cdots\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where ${\cal L}^{(d)}=\sum\,{\cal L}_{(k,l)}$ with $k+2l=d$.
The generalized framework considers the possibility that the condensate could be much smaller than usually believed, so that for the actual values of the quark masses one could have $m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}\sim B/2A$ and still
$m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}\ll\Lambda_H$. This leads to a different
reorganization of the double expansion \rf{Leff}, namely
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}} =
{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(2)}+{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(3)}+{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(4)}
+{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(5)}+{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(6)}+\cdots\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where now, according to \rf{gencount}, ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(d)}=\sum\,B^n{\cal L}_{(k,l)}$ with $k+l+n=d$ \cite{pionscat,gchpt}.
The leading order of the generalized expansion is described by ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(2)}$, which in the two flavour case was given in Section 1, Eq.~\rf{L2}. For our purposes, we need only to consider the situation without axial source, and with the vector source restricted to the (classical) photon field $A_{\mu}$,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
a_{\mu}\ =\ 0\ ,\ \ v_{\mu}\ =\ eA_{\mu}Q\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where $Q$ stands for the charge matrix of the two light quark flavours $u$ and $d$,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
Q\ =\ \left( \begin{array}{cc}
{2\over 3} & 0\\
0 & -{1\over 3}\end{array}\right)\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
In GChPT, the next--to--leading--order corrections are of order
${\cal O}({\mbox p}^3)$, and still occur before the loop corrections. They are
embodied in ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(3)}={\cal L}_{(2,1)}+{\cal L}_{(0,3)}$,
which reads~\footnote{~The superscript (2) is meant to distinguish the low energy constants $\xi^{(2)}$, $\rho_i^{(2)}$ from the similar ones that occur in the expression of ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(3)}$ in the three flavour case
\cite{pionscat,gchpt}.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal L}^{(3)}&=&{1\over 4}F^2
\left\{\xi^{(2)}\langle D_\mu U^+D^\mu U(\chi^+U+U^+\chi)\rangle
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\qquad + \rho_1^{(2)}\langle (\chi^+U)^3+(U^+\chi)^3\rangle
+\rho_2^{(2)}\langle (\chi^+U+U^+\chi)\chi^+\chi\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\qquad + \rho_3^{(2)}\langle\chi^+U-U^+\chi\rangle
\langle(\chi^+U)^2-(U^+\chi)^2\rangle\lbl{L3} \\
&&\qquad + \rho_4^{(2)}\langle(\chi^+U)^2
+(U^+\chi)^2\rangle
\langle\chi^+U+U^+\chi\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\qquad \left. + \rho_5^{(2)}\langle\chi^+\chi\rangle
\langle\chi^+U+U^+\chi\rangle
\right\}\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
>From order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$ onward, the contributions to
${\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ come with either even or odd intrinsic
parity, ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(d)} = {\tilde{\cal L}}^{(d)}_+
+{\tilde{\cal L}}^{(d)}_-$ for $d\ge 4$, or
${\cal L}_{(k,l)}={\cal L}_{(k,l)}^{+}+{\cal L}_{(k,l)}^{-}$ for $k\ge 4$.
The tree--level contributions at order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$ in the {\it even intrinsic parity sector} are contained in
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\tilde{\cal L}^{(4)}_+={\cal L}_{(4,0)}^{+}+{\cal L}_{(2,2)}+{\cal L}_{(0,4)}+
B^2{\cal L}'_{(0,2)} + B{\cal L}'_{(2,1)} + B{\cal L}'_{(0,3)}\ .
\lbl{L4}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The part without explicit chiral symmetry breaking, ${\cal L}_{(4,0)}^{+}$,
is described by the same low--energy constants
$l_1$, $l_2$, $l_5$, $l_6$ and $h_2$ as in the standard case \cite{GL1},
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{(4,0)}^{+} &=& {{l_1}\over 4}\,\langle\,D^{\mu}U^+D_{\mu}U\,
\rangle^2\,+\,{{l_2}\over 4}\,\langle\,D^{\mu}U^+D^{\nu}U\,
\rangle\,\langle\,D_{\mu}U^+D_{\nu}U\,\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+\,l_5\,\langle
\,F^{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}_{\mu\nu}UF^{{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}\,\mu\nu}U^+
\,\rangle
\,+\,{{il_6}\over 2}\,\langle
\,F^{\mbox{\scriptsize R}}_{\mu\nu}d^{\mu}Ud^{\nu}U^+
+ F^{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}_{\mu\nu}d^{\mu}U^+d^{\nu}U\,\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
-\,(2h_2+\frac{1}{2}l_5)\,\langle
\,F^{\mbox{\scriptsize R}}_{\mu\nu}F^{{\mbox{\scriptsize R}}\,\mu\nu}
+F^{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}_{\mu\nu}F^{{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}\,\mu\nu}
\,\rangle\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The part with two powers of momenta and two powers of quark masses is given
by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{(2,2)}&=& {1\over{4}}F^2\bigg\{
a_1 \langle D_{\mu}U^+D^{\mu}U (\chi^+\chi + U^+\chi\chi^+U)\rangle
\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + a_2 \langle D_{\mu}U^+U\chi^+D^{\mu}UU^+\chi\rangle \nonumber\\
& &\qquad + a_3 \langle D_{\mu}U^+U(\chi^+D^{\mu}\chi-D^{\mu}\chi^+\chi) +
D_{\mu}UU^+(\chi D^{\mu}\chi^+ - D^{\mu}\chi\chi^+)\rangle
\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + b_1 \langle D_{\mu}U^+D^{\mu}U (\chi^+U\chi^+U +
U^+\chi U^+\chi)\rangle \nonumber\\
& &\qquad + b_2 \langle D_{\mu}U^+\chi D^{\mu}U^+\chi +
\chi^+D_{\mu}U\chi^+D^{\mu}U\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + b_3 \langle
U^+D_{\mu}\chi U^+D^{\mu}\chi+D_{\mu}\chi^+UD^{\mu}\chi^+U\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + c_1 \langle D_{\mu}U^+\chi +\chi^+ D_{\mu}U\rangle
\langle D^{\mu}U^+\chi +\chi^+ D^{\mu}U\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + c_2 \langle D_{\mu}\chi^+U + U^+ D_{\mu}\chi\rangle
\langle D^{\mu}U^+\chi +\chi^+ D^{\mu}U\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + c_3 \langle D_{\mu}\chi^+U + U^+ D_{\mu}\chi\rangle
\langle D^{\mu}\chi^+U + U^+D^{\mu}\chi\rangle \lbl{L22}\\
& &\qquad + c_4 \langle D_{\mu}U^+\chi -\chi^+ D_{\mu}U\rangle
\langle D^{\mu}U^+\chi -\chi^+ D^{\mu}U\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + c_5 \langle D_{\mu}\chi^+U - U^+D_{\mu}\chi\rangle
\langle D^{\mu}\chi^+U - U^+D^{\mu}\chi\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad + h_3 \langle D_{\mu}\chi^+D^{\mu}\chi^+\rangle
\bigg\} \ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the tree--level contributions which behave as ${\cal O}
(m_{\mbox{\scriptsize quark}}^4)$ in
the chiral limit are contained in ${\cal L}_{(0,4)}$, which reads
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{(0,4)} &=& {1\over{4}}F^2\bigg\{
e_1 \langle (\chi^+U)^4 + (U^+\chi)^4 \rangle \nonumber\\
& &\qquad
+ e_2 \langle \chi^+\chi(\chi^+U\chi^+U+U^+\chi U^+\chi) \rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad
+ e_3 \langle \chi^+\chi U^+\chi\chi^+ U \rangle \nonumber\\
& &\qquad
+ f_1 \langle (\chi^+U)^2 + (U^+\chi)^2 \rangle^2\nonumber\\
& &\qquad
+ f_2 \langle (\chi^+U)^3 + (U^+\chi)^3 \rangle\langle \chi^+U + U^+\chi\rangle
\nonumber\\
& &\qquad
+ f_3 \langle \chi^+\chi(\chi^+U + U^+\chi)\rangle
\langle\chi^+U + U^+\chi\rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad
+ f_4 \langle (\chi^+U)^2 + (U^+\chi)^2 \rangle
\langle \chi^+U + U^+\chi\rangle^2
\nonumber\\
& &\qquad +
f_5 \langle (\chi^+U)^3 - (U^+\chi)^3 \rangle\langle \chi^+U - U^+\chi\rangle
\nonumber\\
& &\qquad +
h_4 \langle\chi^+\chi\chi^+\chi \rangle\nonumber\\
& &\qquad +
h_5 \langle\chi^+\chi \rangle ({\mbox{det}}\chi +
{\mbox{det}}\chi^+ )\nonumber\\
& &\qquad +
h_6 ({\mbox{det}}\chi + {\mbox{det}}\chi^+ )^2 \nonumber\\
& &\qquad +
h_7 ({\mbox{det}}\chi - {\mbox{det}}\chi^+ )^2
\bigg\} \ . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that in the
standard framework the contributions from ${\cal L}_{(2,2)}$ and from ${\cal L}_{(0,4)}$would count as order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ and
order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^8)$, respectively~\footnote{~The standard
${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ effective lagrangian ${\cal
L}^{(6)}={\cal L}_{(6,0)}+{\cal L}_{(4,1)}+{\cal L}_{(2,2)}+{\cal L}_{(0,3)}$
has been worked out in Ref. \cite{FS} for the case of three light flavours,
and very recently, for both two and three light flavours, in
Ref.~\cite{bijnensetal}.}.
Next, we turn to the {\it odd intrinsic parity sector}. There, the first contribution starts at order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$, and since it is entirely fixed by the short distance properties of QCD, there is no difference between the standard and the generalized case, ${\cal L}^{(4)}_-={\tilde{\cal L}}^{(4)}_-=
{\cal L}_{(4,0)}^-$. In the two flavour case, ${\cal L}_{(4,0)}^-$ vanishes in the absence of external sources. In the presence of an electromagnetic field, it reads
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{(4,0)}^-&=&
{e\over{16\pi^2}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}A_{\mu}\langle
Q\big(\partial_\nu U\partial_\alpha U^+\partial_\beta UU^+-
\partial_\nu U^+\partial_\alpha U\partial_\beta U^+U\big)\rangle
\\
&&
-{{ie^2}\over{8\pi^2}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\partial_\mu A_\nu A_\alpha
\langle Q^2\partial_\beta UU^++Q^2U^+\partial_\beta U
-{1\over 2}QUQ\partial_\beta U^+ +{1\over 2}QU^+Q\partial_\beta U\rangle\ .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The computation of the amplitudes ${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$ to one loop also involves the counterterms from ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(5)}_-={\cal L}_{(4,1)}^-$ and from ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(6)}_-={\cal L}_{(6,0)}^-+{\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$. In the standard case, both ${\cal L}_{(4,1)}^-$ and ${\cal L}_{(6,0)}^-$ count as order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$, and have been discussed before in the literature \footnote{For a review, see \cite{bijnensrev}.}
\cite{Issl,AkAl,FS}. Borrowing from the last and most recent of these references, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{(4,1)}^- &=& {1\over{4\pi^2}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\bigg\{
iA_{4} \langle\cm{\chi}\cp{G^{\mu\nu}}\cp{G^{\alpha\beta}}\rangle
+ iA_{6} \langle\cm{\chi}\rangle\langle\cp{G^{\mu\nu}}\cp{G^{\alpha\beta}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+ A_{12} \langle\cm{D^\mu U}\cm{D^\nu U}(\cm{\chi}\cp{G^{\alpha\beta}} +
\cp{G^{\alpha\beta}}\cm{\chi})\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+ A_{13} \langle\cm{D^\mu U}\cm{\chi}\cm{D^\nu U}\cp{G^{\alpha\beta}}\rangle
\,\cdots\bigg\}\ ,\lbl{L41-}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{(6,0)}^- &=& {1\over{4\pi^2}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\bigg\{
iA_{2} \langle\cm{D^\mu U}(\cp{D^\nu G^{\gamma\alpha}}\cp{{G_\gamma}^\beta} -
\cp{G^{\gamma\alpha}}\cp{D^\nu {G_\gamma}^\beta})\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+ iA_{3} \langle\cm{D^\mu U}(\cp{D_\gamma G^{\gamma\nu}}\cp{G^{\alpha\beta}} -
\cp{G^{\gamma\nu}}\cp{D_\gamma G^{\alpha\beta}}
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-\cp{D_\gamma G^{\alpha\beta}}\cp{G^{\gamma\nu}} + \cp{G^{\alpha\beta}}\cp{D_\gamma G^{\gamma\nu}})
\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+ A_{7} \langle\cm{D^\alpha D^\gamma U}(\cm{D_\gamma U}\cm{D^\beta U}\cp{G^{\mu\nu}}
-\cp{G^{\mu\nu}}\cm{D^\beta U}\cm{D_\gamma U})\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+ A_{8} \langle\cm{D^\alpha D^\gamma U}(\cm{D^\beta U}\cm{D_\gamma U}\cp{G^{\mu\nu}} -
\cp{G^{\mu\nu}}\cm{D_\gamma U}\cm{D^\beta U})\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
+\ \cdots\bigg\}\ .
\lbl{L60-}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Here, we have only listed those terms that will actually contribute to
the processes under study, when the mass--shell conditions for the momenta and polarizations of the photons
are taken into account. We have however kept the numbering of the low-energy constants introduced in \cite{FS}, but we have, for convenience, changed their normalization by an overall factor $1/4\pi^2$. The notation is otherwise as in \cite{FS}, except for the fact that the source $\chi$ does not contain the factor $2B$, see Eq. \rf{chi}.
The last piece we need for a full one--loop computation of the amplitudes \rf{red} is ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$. It counts as order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^8)$ in the {\it standard} case, and is not available from the existing literature. These contributions, which are order ${\cal O}({\widehat m}^2)$ corrections to
${\cal L}_{(4,0)}^-$, are expected to be small in the two--flavour chiral expansion, and will be parametrized appropriately in the one--loop expressions of the amplitudes ${\cal A}^C$ and ${\cal A}^N$ given in the next section. The determination of the combinations of low--energy constants that enter these amplitudes will be discussed in Section 5 below.
When studying a given process one also needs to take into account contributions from pion loops, which produce divergences that are eliminated by a renormalization of the low--energy constants of the effective lagrangian. We have computed this divergent part of the one--loop generating functional in the even intrinsic parity sector using standard heat--kernel techniques, and we have then performed the corresponding renormalization of the low--energy constants in the same dimensional renormalization scheme as described in \cite{GL1,GL2}.
Thus the low--energy constants display a logarithmic scale dependence ($X(\mu )$ denotes
generically any of these renormalized low-energy constants)
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
X(\mu )= X(\mu ') + {{\Gamma_X}\over{(4\pi )^2}}\,\cdot\ln({\mu '}/\mu )\ .
\lbl{scale}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The full list of the resulting $\beta$--function coefficients $\Gamma_X$ is given in Table 1 below.\footnote{~These results have also been established independently by L.~Girlanda, private communication to M.K. and \cite{girl98}. The renormalization of the ${\cal L}_{(4,0)}^+$ counterterms has, of course, already been obtained before in \cite{GL1}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|ccc|c}
$X$ & $F^2\cdot\Gamma_X$&$\qquad\qquad$&$X$ & $F^2\cdot\Gamma_X$&
$\qquad\qquad$&$X$ & $\Gamma_X$\\ \cline{1-2} \cline{4-5}\cline{7-8}
$A$ & $3B^2$ & & $\xi^{(2)}$ & $4B$& &$l_1$ & ${1\over 3}$\\ \cline{4-5}
$Z^P$ & $-{3\over 2}B^2$ & &$\rho_1^{(2)}$ & $-4B(A+Z^P)$ & &$l_2$ &${2\over 3}$
\\ \cline{1-2}
$h_0$ & $0$ & &$\rho_2^{(2)}$ & $-4B(A-3Z^P)$ & &$l_5$ & $-{1\over 6}$\\
$h_1$ & $6B^2$ & &$\rho_3^{(2)}$ & $2B(A+3Z^P)$ & &$l_6$ & $-{1\over 3}$\\
\cline{7-8}
& & &$\rho_4^{(2)}$ & $2B(3A+Z^P)$& &$h_2$ & ${1\over 12}$\\
& & &$\rho_5^{(2)}$ & $4B(A-2Z^P)$& &
\end{tabular}
\vskip 0.5 true cm
{\bf Table 1a:} {\it Scale dependence of the low energy constants
of ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(2)}$, ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(3)}$ and of ${{\cal L}}_{(4,0)}^{+}$.}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|c}
$X$ & $F^2\cdot\Gamma_X$ & & $X$ & $F^2\cdot\Gamma_X$\\
\cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
$a_1$ & $-2Z^P$ &$\qquad$ &$e_1$ & $-4A^2-22(Z^P)^2-20AZ^P$\\
$a_2$ & $-12Z^P$ &$\qquad$ &$e_2$ & $-4A^2-16(Z^P)^2-12AZ^P$\\
$a_3$ & $0$ &$\qquad$ &$e_3$ & $-12A^2-64(Z^P)^2-48AZ^P$\\
\cline{1-2}\cline{4-5}
$b_1$ & $6(A+Z^P)$ &$\qquad$ &$f_1$ & $3A^2+15(Z^P)^2+12AZ^P$\\
$b_2$ & $-2(A+Z^P)$&$\qquad$ &$f_2$ & $2A^2+8(Z^P)^2+10AZ^P$\\
$b_3$ & $0$ &$\qquad$ &$f_3$ & $4A^2+24(Z^P)^2+20AZ^P$\\ \cline{1-2}
$c_1$ & $2(A+2Z^P)$&$\qquad$ &$f_4$ & $-6(Z^P+A)Z^P$\\
$c_2$ & $0$ &$\qquad$ &$f_5$ & $2A^2+8(Z^P)^2+10AZ^P$\\ \cline{4-5}
$c_3$ & $0$ &$\qquad$ &$h_4$ & $4A^2+8(Z^P)^2+8AZ^P$\\
$c_4$ & $2A$ &$\qquad$ &$h_5$ & $-4A^2-32(Z^P)^2-28AZ^P$\\
$c_5$ & $0$ &$\qquad$ &$h_6$ & $4A^2+6(Z^P)^2+8AZ^P$\\ \cline{1-2}
$h_3$ & $0$ &$\qquad\qquad$ &$h_7$ & $-14(Z^P)^2$\\
\end{tabular}
\vskip 0.5 true cm
{\bf Table 1b:} {\it Scale dependence of the low energy constants
of ${\cal L}_{(2,2)}$ and of ${\cal L}_{(0,4)}$.}
\end{center}
Notice that at order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$, the low-energy constants of
${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(2)}$ and
${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(3)}$ also need to be renormalized. The corresponding
counterterms, however, are of order ${\cal O}(B^2)$ and ${\cal O}(B)$,
respectively, and they are gathered in the three last terms of Eq. \rf{L4}~:
in GChPT, renormalisation proceeds order by order in the
expansion in powers of $B$. Alternatively, one may think of Eqs. \rf{L2}
and
\rf{L3} as standing for the combinations
${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(2)} + B^2{\cal
L}'_{(0,2)}$ and ${\tilde{\cal L}}^{(3)} + B{\cal L}'_{(2,1)} + B{\cal
L}'_{(0,3)}$, respectively, with the corresponding low-energy constants
representing the renormalized, scale dependent, quantities. We shall adopt the latter point of view in the sequel.
We have not worked out the general structure of the divergent part of the
one--loop generating functional in the odd intrinsic parity sector.
For SChPT, this has been done in Refs.~\cite{DonWyl,Issl,BijBraCor}.
\section{The One--Loop Amplitudes}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Having constructed the effective lagrangian in the preceding section, the computation
of the amplitudes ${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$ at next--to--leading order is a straightforward exercise.
We begin with the one--loop expression of the neutral amplitude ${\cal A}^N$, whose structure at that level of the chiral expansion is given by \rf{Aneu}, with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^N_1(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)&=&{{{\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}
{\cal A}^{00;00}(p_{12}^2,p_{13}^2,p_{23}^2)}\over{s-M_\pi^2}}
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{e^2}{4 \pi^2 F_\pi^3}\bigg\{
\frac{1}{2}(\beta -1)+\frac{1}{2}{\widehat m} t (\beta -3)
-\alpha M_{\pi}^2t'-4{\widehat m}^2t''-\gamma_{00}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^2} (\lambda_1+2\lambda_2)(s-3M_\pi^2))
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^2} {\bar J}(p_{12}^2)\big[p_{12}^2-M_\pi^2+
{1\over 3}(\alpha-1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^2} {\bar J}(p_{13}^2)\big[p_{13}^2-M_\pi^2+
{1\over 3}(\alpha-1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^2} {\bar J}(p_{23}^2)\big[p_{23}^2-M_\pi^2+
{1\over 3}(\alpha-1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{2}{F_\pi^2}
\big[{\bar R}(p_{12}^2,k\cdot p_{12})+{\bar R}(p_{12}^2,k'\cdot p_{12})\big]
\big[p_{12}^2-M_\pi^2+\frac{1}{3}(\alpha-1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{2}{F_\pi^2}
\big[{\bar R}(p_{13}^2,k\cdot p_{13})+{\bar R}(p_{13}^2,k'\cdot p_{13})\big]
\big[p_{13}^2-M_\pi^2+\frac{1}{3}(\alpha-1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{2}{F_\pi^2}
\big[{\bar R}(p_{23}^2,k\cdot p_{23})+{\bar R}(p_{23}^2,k'\cdot p_{23})\big]
\big[p_{23}^2-M_\pi^2+\frac{1}{3}(\alpha-1)M_\pi^2\big]
\bigg\}\ ,
\nonumber\\
&&
\lbl{A1N}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^N_2(k,k';p_1,p_2,p_3)=
\frac{e^2}{2\pi^2 F_\pi^5}{\bar R}(p_{12}^2,k\cdot p_{12})
\big[p_{12}^2-M_\pi^2+{1\over 3}(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2\big]\ .\lbl{A2N}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
This second amplitude, which was absent at tree level, is entirely generated by the pion loops.
The numerator of the contribution which develops a pole at $s=M_\pi^2$ in the expression \rf{A1N} of ${\cal A}^N_1$ is given by the product of ${\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$, which is related to the on-shell amplitude of the $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ decay through ${\cal A}(\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma)=-t_1(k,\epsilon,k',\epsilon '){\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$, times the amplitude ${\cal A}^{00;00}(p_{12}^2,p_{13}^2,p_{23}^2)$ of virtual $\pi^0-\pi^0$ scattering ($p_{12}^2+p_{13}^2+p_{23}^2=s+3M_\pi^2$). The expressions, at order
${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ and order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$, respectively, of these
amplitudes read
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}=\frac{e^2}{4 \pi^2 F_\pi}
\big[1+{\widehat m} t+ M_\pi^2t' +{\widehat m}^2 t'' +2{\widehat m}^2a_3\big]\ ,\lbl{ggpi0}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^{00;00}(p_{12}^2,p_{13}^2,p_{23}^2) &=&
{{\alpha M_\pi^2}\over{F_\pi^2}}
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^4} (\lambda_1+2\lambda_2)\big[(p_{12}^2-2M_\pi^2)^2
+(p_{13}^2-2M_\pi^2)^2+(p_{23}^2-2M_\pi^2)^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{F_\pi^4} {\bar J}(p_{12}^2)\bigg[(p_{12}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2
+\frac{\alpha}{3}M_\pi^2)^2+\frac{\alpha^2}{2}M_\pi^4\bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^4} {\bar J}(p_{13}^2)\bigg[(p_{13}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2
+\frac{\alpha}{3}M_\pi^2)^2+\frac{\alpha^2}{2}M_\pi^4\bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{F_\pi^4} {\bar J}(p_{23}^2)\bigg[(p_{23}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2
+\frac{\alpha}{3}M_\pi^2)^2+\frac{\alpha^2}{2}M_\pi^4\bigg]\ .\lbl{A0000}
\end{eqnarray}
The various parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\lambda_{1,2}$ and $\gamma_{00}$ involved in
the expressions \rf{A1N} and \rf{A0000} are given in terms of combinations of
the low--energy constants of the effective lagrangian
${\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$
and of chiral logarithms due to the pion loops. They read
\begin{eqnarray}
{{F_\pi^2}\over{F^2}}M_\pi^2\alpha &=&
2{\widehat m} B + 16{\widehat m}^2A
\nonumber\\
&&
+{\widehat m}^3(81\rho_1^{(2)}+\rho_2^{(2)}+164\rho_4^{(2)}+2\rho_5^{(2)})
-4M_\pi^2{\widehat m}\xi^{(2)}
\nonumber\\
&&
+16{\widehat m}^4(16e_1+e_2+32f_1+34f_2+2f_3+72f_4+6a_3A)
\nonumber\\
&&
-8M_\pi^2{\widehat m}^2(2b_1-2b_2-a_3-4c_1)
\nonumber\\
&&
-{1\over{16\pi^2F_\pi^2}}
\big[ 2M_\pi^4 + 102{\widehat m}^2M_\pi^2A+264{\widehat m}^4A^2\big]
\ln{{M_\pi^2}\over{\mu^2}}
\nonumber\\
&&
-{1\over{16\pi^2F_\pi^2}}
\big[ {{M_\pi^4}\over 2} + 44{\widehat m}^2M_\pi^2A+264{\widehat m}^4A^2\big]\ ,
\lbl{alphaexp}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta &=& 1 + 2{\widehat m}\xi^{(2)} - 4{\widehat m}^2(\xi^{(2)})^2
+2{\widehat m}^2(3a_2+2a_3+4b_1+2b_2+4c_1)
\nonumber\\
&&
-{{M_\pi^2}\over{48\pi^2F_\pi^2}}\bigg(\ln{{M_\pi^2}\over{\mu^2}} +1\bigg)
\big[ 6+5(\alpha -1)\big]\ ,
\nonumber\\
&&
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_1 &=& {1\over{48\pi^2}}\big( {\bar l}_1 - {4\over 3} \big)\ ,
\nonumber\\
&&\lbl{l1l2}\\
\lambda_2 &=& {1\over{48\pi^2}}\big( {\bar l}_2 - {5\over 6} \big)\ ,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{00}&=&{\widehat m}^2(3a_2+2a_3+6b_2+12c_1)
\nonumber\\
&&-{{M_\pi^2}\over{32\pi^2F_\pi^2}}\bigg(\ln{{M_\pi^2}\over{\mu^2}}+1\bigg)
(\alpha-1)\ .\lbl{g00}
\end{eqnarray}
The parameters $t$, $t'$ and $t''$ contain the contributions from ${\cal L}_{(4,1)}^-$, ${\cal L}_{(6,0)}^-$ and ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$, respectively. In
particular, from the formulae \rf{L41-} and \rf{L60-} we derive
\begin{eqnarray}
t &=& {32\over 3}A_4\ ,
\nonumber\\
t' &=& -{8\over 3}(A_2-2A_3)\ .\lbl{ttprime}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, ${\bar J}(s)$ denotes the Chew--Mandelstam function~\cite{chew}, the
usual scalar two--point loop integral subtracted at $s=0$ (for its expression,
see Ref.~\cite{GL1}), whereas ${\bar R}(p^2,k\cdot p)$, which is related to
the three--point scalar loop function, is given, for $k^2=0$, by
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\bar R}(p^2,k\cdot p)={\bar C}(p^2, k\cdot p)-
{{(k-p)^2}\over{4(k\cdot p)}}\big[{{\bar J}((k-p)^2)-\bar J}(p^2)\big]
+{1\over{32\pi^2}}\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
with ($\sigma = \sqrt{1-4M_\pi^2/p^2}$, $\sigma' = \sqrt{1-4M_\pi^2/(k-p)^2}$)
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
16\pi^2{\bar C}(p^2, k\cdot p) = {{M_\pi^2}\over{4(k\cdot p)}}\big[
\ln^2\big({{\sigma-1}\over{\sigma+1}}\big) -
\ln^2\big({{\sigma'-1}\over{\sigma'+1}}\big)\big]\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
For the charged amplitude ${\cal A}^C$, the general structure is more involved, see Eq.~\rf{decomp}, and at one loop we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^C_1(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)&=&
{{\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}
{\cal A}^{00;+-}(p_{+-}^2,p_{+0}^2,p_{-0}^2)\over{s-M_\pi^2}}
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2F_\pi^3}\bigg\{
\frac{1}{2}(\beta +1)+\frac{1}{2}{\widehat m} t(\beta -1)
-\frac{1}{3}(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2t'\nonumber\\
&&+
\gamma_{+-}+\frac{2}{3}\gamma_{+-}'\nonumber\\
&&+
{{\lambda_1}\over{F_\pi^2}}(p_{+-}^2-2M_\pi^2)
+
{1\over{F_\pi^2}}(\lambda_2-{1\over{288\pi^2}})
(p_{+0}^2+p_{-0}^2-4M_\pi^2)
\nonumber\\
&&
+{1\over{6F_\pi^2}} \bar{J}(p_{+-}^2)\big[3p_{+-}^2+4(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+{1\over{12F_\pi^2}} \bar{J}(p_{+0}^2)\big[5p_{+0}^2-14M_\pi^2-2(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+{1\over{12F_\pi^2}} \bar{J}(p_{-0}^2)\big[5p_{-0}^2-14M_\pi^2-2(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2\big]\bigg\}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^C_2(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)&=&
\frac{e^2}{24\pi^2F_\pi^3}\bigg\{
6+6\gamma_{+-}'-\frac{1}{48\pi^2F_\pi^2}\big[(k'-p_0)^2+p_{+0}^2+p_{-0}^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
-{1\over{F_\pi^2}}{\bar J}(p_{+0}^2)\big[4M_\pi^2-p_{+0}^2\big]
-{1\over{F_\pi^2}}{\bar J}(p_{-0}^2)\big[4M_\pi^2-p_{-0}^2\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
-{1\over{F_\pi^2}}{\bar J}\big((k'-p_0)^2\big)\big[4M_\pi^2-(k'-p_0)^2\big]
\bigg\}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^C_3(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)=
-\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2F_\pi^5}
{\bar R}(p_{+-}^2;k\cdot p_{+-})\big[p_{+-}^2+{4\over 3}(\alpha -1)M_\pi^2
\big]\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^C_4(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)&=&
-\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2F_\pi^5}\bigg\{
\frac{1}{3}\bar{J}\big((k'-p_{-})^2\big) M^2_\pi
(4\frac{k\cdot p_+}{k\cdot p_{+0}}-1)
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{6}
\big[\bar{J}\big((k'-p_{-})^2\big)-\bar{J}(p_{+0}^2)\big]
\bigg[p_{+0}^2+2 M^2_\pi+\frac{1}{2}\frac{p_{+0}^2}{k\cdot p_{+0}}
(4M^2_\pi-p_{+0}^2)
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad
+\frac{k\cdot p_+}{k\cdot p_{+0}}(
4M^2_\pi-7p_{+0}^2+6 k \cdot p_{+0})
+2\frac{k\cdot p_+}{k\cdot p_{+0}} \frac{p_{+0}^2}{k\cdot p_{+0}}(p_{+0}^2-4M^2_\pi) \bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&
+{\bar R}(p_{+0}^2,k \cdot p_{+0})\big[-M^2_\pi+2 k\cdot p_+
(\frac{p_{+0}^2}{k\cdot p_{+0}}-1)-\frac{1}{3}(\alpha-1)M^2_\pi\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{24\pi^2} k\cdot p_+ (1-\frac{p_{+0}^2}{k\cdot p_{+0}})
+ \frac{1}{96 \pi^2} p_{+0}^2\bigg\}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^C_5(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)=
-\frac{e^2}{24\pi^2F_\pi^5}\bigg\{
{\bar J}\big((k'-p_{-})^2\big)\big[4M^2_\pi-(k'-p_{-})^2\big]
-{\bar J}(p_{+0}^2)(4M^2_\pi-p_{+0}^2)
-\frac{1}{24\pi^2}k\cdot p_{+0}\bigg\}\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^C_6(k,k';p_0,p_+,p_-)&=&
-\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2F_\pi^5}\bigg\{
\frac{1}{6}
\big[\bar{J}\big((k'-p_{-})^2\big)-\bar{J}(p_{+0}^2)\big]
\bigg[p_{+0}^2-4M^2_\pi -6 k\cdot p_+
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad+4 \frac{k\cdot p_+}{k\cdot p_{+0}}
(p_{+0}^2- M^2_\pi)
+\frac{k\cdot p_+}{(k\cdot p_{+0})^2}p_{+0}^2
(4M^2_\pi-p_{+0}^2)\bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{1}{3}\bar{J}\big((k'-p_{-})^2\big)\big[
k\cdot p_0+2 M^2_\pi\frac{k\cdot p_+}{k\cdot p_{+0}}\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+{\bar R}\big(p_{+0}^2,(k-p_{+0})^2\big) (k \cdot p_+) \big[2-\frac{p_{+0}^2}
{k\cdot p_{+0}}\big]
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{32 \pi^2} \frac{k\cdot p_+}{k\cdot p_{+0}}(k'-p_-)^2
+\frac{1}{96\pi^2}\bigg(\frac{4}{3} k\cdot p_+- p_{+0}^2 \frac{k\cdot p_+}
{k\cdot p_{+0}}\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&&
+\frac{1}{144 \pi^2} k\cdot p_{+0}\bigg\}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The amplitude $A_1^C$ again contains a contribution with a pole at $s=M_\pi^2$, which is given by the product of the ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ amplitude ${\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$ times the (off--shell) $\pi^0\pi^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ amplitude ${\cal A}^{00;+-}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
-{\cal A}^{00;+-}(p_{+-}^2,p_{+0}^2,p_{-0}^2)
&&=
\ \frac{\beta}{F_\pi^2}(p_{+-}^2
-\frac{4}{3} M_\pi^2)+\frac{1}{3F_\pi^2}\alpha M_\pi^2\nonumber\\
&&+{{\lambda_1}\over{F_\pi^4}}(p_{+-}^2-2M_\pi^2)^2
+{{\lambda_2}\over{F_\pi^4}}[(p_{+0}^2-2M_\pi^2)^2+(p_{0-}^2-2M_\pi^2)^2]
\nonumber\\
&&+{1\over{6F_\pi^4}} \bar{J}(p_{+-}^2)\bigg[4(p_{+-}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2
+\frac{5}{6}\alpha M_\pi^2)^2-(p_{+-}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2-\frac{2}{3}
\alpha M_\pi^2)^2 \bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&+{1\over{12F_\pi^4}} \bar{J}(p_{+0}^2)\bigg[3(p_{+0}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2
-\frac{2}{3}\alpha M_\pi^2)^2+(p_{+-}^2-p_{-0}^2)(p_{+0}^2-4M_\pi^2)
\bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&+{1\over{12F_\pi^4}} \bar{J}(p_{-0}^2)\bigg[3(p_{-0}^2-\frac{4}{3}M_\pi^2
-\frac{2}{3}\alpha M_\pi^2)^2+(p_{+-}^2-p_{+0}^2)(p_{-0}^2-4M_\pi^2)
\bigg]\ ,
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_{+-}^2+p_{+0}^2+p_{-0}^2=s+3M_\pi^2$.
The remaining parameters $\gamma_{+-}$ and $\gamma_{+-}'$ which appear in the amplitudes ${\cal A}_1^C$, ... ${\cal A}_6^C$ contain the contributions from the low--energy constants and chiral logarithms~:
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{+-}&=& -{\widehat m}^2(a_2+2b_2+4c_1)
\nonumber\\
&&+{{M_\pi^2}\over{96\pi^2F_\pi^2}}\ln{{M_\pi^2}\over{\mu^2}}
(\alpha-1)
+{{M_\pi^2}\over{96\pi^2F_\pi^2}}
(\alpha-\frac{7}{3})+{\widehat m}^2\delta\gamma_{+-}\ ,\lbl{g}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{+-}' &=&
8{\widehat m}(2A_{12}-A_{13}) + 8M_\pi^2(A_7-A_8)+6{\widehat m}^2a_3\nonumber\\
&&
-{{M_\pi^2}\over{32\pi^2F_\pi^2}}\ln{{M_\pi^2}\over{\mu^2}}
+{\widehat m}^2\delta\gamma_{+-}'\ .\lbl{g'}
\end{eqnarray}
With the expressions given above, it is straightforward to check that the three conditions listed before Eq. \rf{iso1} as well as Eq. \rf{iso2} are satisfied, which provides a non--trivial check of our calculation. The isospin relation \rf{iso1} implies that the condition
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
2 + 3\gamma_{+-}+\gamma_{00}+{{M_\pi^2}\over{24\pi^2F_\pi^2}}
={\widehat m}^2( 2a_3 - 3t'')
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
must hold. This requires that the contributions of the ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$ counterterms to $\gamma_{+-}$, which we have denoted as ${\widehat m}^2\delta\gamma_{+-}$
in the expression \rf{g}, have to satisfy
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
3t''+3\delta\gamma_{+-}=0\ .\lbl{isocond}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The contributions of the ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$ counterterms to $\gamma_{+-}'$,
${\widehat m}^2\delta\gamma_{+-}'$ in the expression \rf{g'}, are not constrained
by isospin symmetry.
Upon using the information provided by Table~1, it is straightforward to check that $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma_{00}$ are scale independent by themselves (the parameters $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ were directly expressed in terms of the scale independent quantities ${\bar l}_1$ and ${\bar l}_2$ defined in Ref.~\cite{GL1}). In order that the amplitudes ${\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$,
${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$ be independent of the subtraction scale $\mu$, the parameters $t$, $t'$, $t''$, $\gamma_{+-}$ and $\gamma_{+-}'$ must be
separately scale independent. This requires that $\delta\gamma_{+-}$ and
$\delta\gamma_{+-}'$ themselves are scale independent. Since we have not worked out the
structure of
the one--loop divergences of the generalized generating functional in the odd
intrinsic parity sector, we could not perform these checks explicitly.
>From the above formulae, one may infer the expressions of the amplitudes in the standard case \cite{pere96,perethesis}. Since only the result for the neutral amplitude ${\cal A}^N$ was displayed explicitly in Ref.~\cite{pere96}, and the expressions of the amplitudes ${\cal A}^C_i$ in the charged channel are only available from the unpublished work \cite{perethesis}, we describe in some detail the necessary steps to obtain them.
Their general structure is of course unchanged, the differences occur only in the expressions of the various combinations of low--energy constants that are involved. In particular, the contributions from ${\cal L}_{(0,3)}$, ${\cal L}_{(2,2)}$, ${\cal L}_{(0,4)}$, and ${\cal L}^-_{(4,2)}$ are relegated to higher orders. For the remaining constants, the correspondance with the usual SChPT notation is given as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat m \xi^{(2)}_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}
&=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2 F_\pi^2}(\bar l_4+ \ln \frac{M_\pi^2}
{\mu^2})\ , \nonumber \\
\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}
&=& 1 + \frac{M_\pi^2}{32 \pi^2 F_\pi^2}(4 \bar l_4 -3 \bar l_3 -1)\ ,
\nonumber \\
\beta_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}
&=& 1 + \frac{M_\pi^2}{8 \pi^2 F_\pi^2}( \bar l_4 -1)\ , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{00,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}}&=& 0\ ,\nonumber \\
\gamma_{+-,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}}&=&
- \frac{M_\pi^2}{72 \pi^2 F_\pi^2}\ , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{+-,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}}'&=& 8M_\pi^2 (A_7-A_8+
\frac{2 A_{12}-A_{13}}{2B})- \frac{M_\pi^2}{32 \pi^2 F_\pi^2}
\ln
\frac{M_\pi^2}{\mu^2}\ .
\lbl{Sval}
\end{eqnarray}
We have checked that upon substituting these expressions into the one--loop amplitudes ${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$ given above, we recover the results of the standard case, up to the contributions from the counterterms
contained in $t$ and $t'$, which were not included in
Refs.~\cite{pere96,perethesis}.
\section{Counterterm Estimates and Numerical Results}
\label{COUNTER}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In order to make numerical estimates for the cross sections based on the ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ amplitudes, we first need to fix or estimate the values of
the various counterterms involved.
\noindent
~~{\bf i)}~$\underline{ \lambda_1,\ \lambda_2}$~:
At order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$, these parameters are related to ${\bar l}_1$ and ${\bar l}_2$ through Eq.~\rf{l1l2}.
The values of these low--energy constants in the standard case have been the subject of numerous studies in the literature
\cite{GL1,l1l2Kl4,l1l2coll,BCEGS,girlanda97}. A first determination at order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$ was given in Ref.~\cite{GL1}, using information from the D--wave $\pi$--$\pi$ scattering lengths. The corresponding values, taken from a recent numerical re--analysis~\cite{l1l2G}, are
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\bar l}_{1,{\mbox{\scriptsize GL}}} = -2.15\pm 4.30\ ,
\ \ {\bar l}_{2,{\mbox{\scriptsize GL}}} = 5.84\pm 1.72\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
leading to
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\lambda_{1,{\mbox{\scriptsize GL}}} = (-7.35\pm 9.06)\times 10^{-3}\ ,
\ \ \lambda_{2,{\mbox{\scriptsize GL}}} = (10.57\pm 3.63)\times 10^{-3}\ .\lbl{l1l2G}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
The parameters $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ can also be determined directly,
{\it via} a set of rapidly convergent sum--rules \cite{pipipaper2},
from the knowledge, at order two loops, of the $\pi$--$\pi$ scattering amplitude $A(s\vert t,u)$ in GChPT \cite{pipipaper1}, and from medium energy data on $\pi$--$\pi$ phase shifts. The values obtained this way correspond to a determination at order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$.
They depend only very weakly on the values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ when the latter are varied within the ranges specified below, and read
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\lambda_{1} = (-6.1\pm 2.2)\times 10^{-3}\ ,
\ \ \lambda_{2} = (9.6\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-3}\ .\lbl{l1l2K}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
These values are compatible with those given in eq.~\rf{l1l2G}, but are affected by much smaller error bars. The analysis may even be refined in the standard case, using the information on the SChPT two--loop $\pi$--$\pi$ amplitude obtained in Ref.~\cite{BCEGS}, leading to the following values~\cite{girlanda97},
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\lambda_{1,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}} = (-5.7\pm 2.2)\times 10^{-3}\ ,
\ \ \lambda_{2,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}} = (9.3\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-3}\ .
\lbl{l1l2Kst}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
\noindent
~~{\bf ii)}~$\underline{\alpha,\ \beta}$~:
At leading order, $\alpha$ is directly correlated to the size of the condensate, see Eq.~\rf{alphalead}. As such, the value of $\alpha$ is not predicted by GChPT, but remains a free parameter, that can {\it a priori} be varied in the range $1\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}}\alpha\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}} 4$. At order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$, the relationship between $\alpha$ and the ratio $2{\widehat m} B/M_{\pi}^2$ becomes more complicated, as shown in Eq.~\rf{alphaexp}. The corresponding next--to--leading and
next--to--next--to--leading corrections have been estimated in Ref.~\cite{pipipaper1} (see in particular the figures 8 and 10 in that reference). Notice that the analysis of
Ref.~\cite{pipipaper1} was done within the framework of
$SU(3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}\times SU(3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize R}}$ chiral
perturbation theory. Working with only two light flavours as in the present
paper might further reduce the uncertainties in the correspondance between
the value of $\alpha$ and the size of the condensate, due to the lower number
of unknown counterterms involved, and due to the absence of large
contributions from the chiral logarithms induced by the kaon loops
\cite{girl98}. However, the results of Ref.~\cite{pipipaper1} are sufficient for our present purposes, and we shall not pursue that matter further. Once $\alpha$ is given, the parameter $\beta$ is also constrained by low--energy $\pi$--$\pi$ data. The correlation between $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which results from the Morgan--Shaw universal curve~\cite{morganshaw}, has also been studied beyond leading order in \cite{pipipaper1}, and is summarized in Fig.~6 of that reference. For the subsequent numerical analyses, we shall take the values given in Table 2 below. The values given in the second line of this table correspond to the one--loop values $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}$ and
$\beta_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}$ of
the standard case, which follow from the expressions given in Eq.~\rf{Sval},
and from the values ${\bar l}_3 = 2.9\pm 2.4$ \cite{GL1}, ${\bar l}_4 =
4.4\pm 0.3$ \cite{pere98}. Two points are worth being remembered. The first
is that, independently of the value of $\alpha$, $\beta$ stays close to
unity. The second point is that the standard case allows to make a very
precise prediction for the value of $\alpha$ at order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^4)$,
{\it viz.} $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}
= 1.06\pm 0.06$. Furthermore, this value is barely affected by the
corrections at order
${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$~: The analysis of
Ref.~\cite{girlanda97}, based on the results of \cite{BCEGS}, gives
$\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}=1.07\pm 0.01$ and
$\beta_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}=1.105\pm 0.015$
at next--to--next--to--leading order. Therefore, any significant deviation of
the value of $\alpha$ from unity would provide evidence for a departure
from the standard scenario of chiral symmetry breaking with a strong
condensate.
\noindent
~~{\bf iii)}~$\underline{ t,\ t',\ t''}$~:
The constants $t$, $t'$ and $t''$ appear in the expression of the $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ amplitude \rf{ggpi0}. The uncertainty on the experimental value of the decay rate~\cite{PDG}, $\Gamma({\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma})=7.74\pm 0.56$ eV, only yields a very weak constraint on the combination that appears in ${\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$, {\it viz.}
${\widehat m} t +M_\pi^2 t' +{\widehat m}^2 t'' = (0.0\pm 3.6)\times 10^{-2}$.
This is comparable to the estimate one would obtain through naive dimensional analysis \cite{dimann}. In addition, as shown in Ref.~\cite{bachir95}, isospin breaking effects can be sizeable in ${\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$. Further information may be obtained by making use of the sum--rules considered in Ref.~\cite{bachir95}. The corrections due to $t'$ were however not taken into
account there, but the analysis of \cite{bachir95} is easily extended to the more general situation. In the generalized case, a similar set of sum--rules can be established, but they do not yield complete information on the three constants $t$, $t'$ and $t''$. We have summarized this analysis in the Appendix for the interested reader. Here, we only quote the values that we shall use in the sequel (the estimate for $t''$ follows from naive dimensional analysis),
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} t\,=\, (6\pm 12)\times 10^{-3}\, ,
\ \ M_\pi^2t'\,=\,(-3\pm 3)\times 10^{-3}\, ,
\ \ {\widehat m}^2 t''\,\sim\,\pm 1\times 10^{-3}
\ .\lbl{genWZresult}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
\noindent
~~{\bf iv)}~$\underline{ \gamma_{00},\ \gamma_{+-},\ \gamma_{+-}'}$~:
The main difficulty in obtaining numerical estimates for these parameters comes from the lack of knowledge, in the generalized case, on the contributions from the low--energy constants of ${\cal L}^+_{(2,2)}$.
In the spirit of Vector Meson Dominance (VMD), we have estimated the contributions of vector mesons to the two amplitudes ${\cal A}^N$ and ${\cal A}^C$, as done in Ref.~\cite{pere96} for the standard case. This way, we find that $t$, $t'$ and $t''$ receive no contribution, whereas the contribution to
$\gamma_{00}$, $\gamma_{+-}$ and $\gamma_{+-}'$ read
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\gamma_{00}\vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize VMD}}\,=\,
\gamma_{+-}\vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize VMD}}\,=\,0\ ,
\ \ \gamma_{+-}'\vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize VMD}}\,=\,
-\frac{3}{4}\frac{M_\pi^2}{M_V^2}\,\sim\,
-0.024\ .\lbl{VMDresult}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
We take \rf{VMDresult} as the values of these constants at the scale $\mu\sim M_V$=770 MeV, and estimate the error associated to the VMD approximation and to the presence of the low-energy constants from ${\cal L}_{(2,2)}^+$ in the expressions of $\gamma_{00}$ and of $\gamma_{+-}$ by varying the scale $\mu$ of the corresponding chiral logarithms between 500 MeV and 1 GeV. The resulting values for $\gamma_{00}$ and $\gamma_{+-}$ are shown in Table 2. In the case of $\gamma_{+-}'$, we obtain a constant value which, to a very good precision, is compatible with zero.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma_{00}\times 10^3$ & $\gamma_{+-}\times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$1.06\pm 0.06$ & $ 1.103 \pm 0.008$ & $0$ & $-3$ \\
\hline
1.5 & $1.06 \pm 0.06$ & $8\pm 3$ & $-5.7\pm 0.8$ \\
\hline
2 & $1.07 \pm 0.06$ & $16\pm 5$ & $-8.4\pm 1.6$ \\
\hline
2.5 & $1.08 \pm 0.06$ & $24\pm 8$ & $-11.0\pm 2.4$ \\
\hline
3 & $1.11 \pm 0.06$ & $32\pm 10$ & $-13.7\pm 3.2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
{\bf Table 2:}{\it Values of $\beta$, $\gamma_{00}$ and $\gamma_{+-}$ for different values of $\alpha$.}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\indent
With the above inputs at hand, we may now consider a few numerical
applications. In Fig.~2, we have plotted the tree--level and
one--loop cross sections for the charged channel,
$\sigma^C_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}}(s,\alpha)$
and $\sigma^C(s,\alpha)$,
in the threshold region, $3 M_\pi \le \sqrt{s} \le 0.5$~GeV,
where we expect the one--loop expression
of the amplitude to be reliable, and for different values of $\alpha$.
We have used $M_{\pi^\pm}
= M_{\pi^0}= 135$~MeV in the amplitude and the experimental values,
as quoted in \cite{PDG}, in the phase space integrals.
Let us first concentrate on the standard case
($\alpha\sim 1$) which has been discussed before in the literature.
In the second half of the energy region that we have shown, the correction
as compared to the tree level cross section amounts approximatively
to a factor of two, if we consider the central values.
This agrees with the unpublished result \cite{perethesis}, but is much
less than previously found in \cite{pere96}. On the other hand, the error
bars induced by the uncertainties attached to the various conterterm
contributions
that enter the ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ amplitude are important.
A closer analysis
(see also below) reveals that the main contribution comes from the uncertainty
on the value of $\lambda_1$ given in \rf{l1l2Kst}. This shows also that the
sensitivity of the cross section on the ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ counterterms
becomes already sizeable even at such low energies. Coming now to the dependence with respect to $\alpha$, we see that
here also the
higher order corrections have a deep influence and upset the situation that
prevailed at tree level.
For $\alpha\ge 2$ the
one--loop cross sections are suppressed as compared to their tree--level
values, and become even smaller than $\sigma^C(s,1)$ as the energy increases.
Unfortunately, the present theoretical
error bars make it difficult to disentangle the different situations
in practice from the knowledge of the total cross section alone.
\indent
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.gg3pi.ps,height=12.5cm,angle=-90}}
\noindent
{\bf Figure 2} : {\it The cross section $\sigma(s,\alpha)$
(in logarithmic scale)
for $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$
as a function of the center of mass total energy, for three values of
$\alpha$. Also shown are the corresponding curves for the tree level
cross section {\rm $\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}}(s,\alpha)$}.}
\indent
The cross sections $\sigma^N_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}}(s,\alpha)$
and $\sigma^N(s,\alpha)$
in the neutral channel have been plotted in Fig.~3. Whereas
$\sigma^N_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}}(s,\alpha)\sim \alpha^2$, the
corrections are seen to have an even more drastic influence on the behaviour
of the cross
section as a function of energy than in the charged channel.
Unfortunately, as far as the dependence on $\alpha$ is concerned,
the picture is again totally
blurred by the uncertainties, which, for the sake of clarity,
we have not shown, but which are even
more important than in the charged case.
In both channels, the origin of the large error bars
is a consequence of the highly destructive
interferences between the various amplitudes.
In the charged case, this interference was already present at tree level, and
is even accentuated by the loop effects. In the neutral case, the strong
$\alpha$ dependence of the single amplitude that contributes at lowest order
is, in a similar way, washed out by the interferences between the two
one--loop amplitudes ${\cal A}_1^N$ and ${\cal A}_2^N$.
In order to illustrate this point, we show, in Fig.~4,
how the neutral cross section looks like if only the amplitude ${\cal A}_1^N$
is considered. The importance of the interference effects with the second
amplitude ${\cal A}_2^N$ appears clearly upon comparing Figs.~3 and 4 (for the
standard case, a similar observation was already made by the authors of
Ref.~\cite{pere96}).
Unfortunately, we have not found a simple way to extract the contribution
from
${\cal A}_1^N$ only~: for photons with perpendicular polarizations, the two
amplitudes contribute, and the destructive interference between them is
again at work, while for photons with parallel polarizations, only the very
small contribution from ${\cal A}_2^N$, which vanishes at tree level, is
singled out. We have tried to investigate whether looking at more refined
observables allows to reach better perspectives from this point of view.
\indent
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3.gg3pi.ps,height=12.5cm,angle=-90}}
\noindent
{\bf Figure 3} : {\it The cross section $\sigma(s,\alpha)$
(in logarithmic scale)
for $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$
as a function of the center of mass total energy, for three values of
$\alpha$. Also shown are the corresponding curves for the tree--level
cross section {\rm $\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}}(s,\alpha)$}.}
\indent
\noindent
We have, for instance, looked at the invariant mass distribution of the two
charged pions in the $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ channel. The result is
shown in Fig.~5. As one may observe, the error bars are much less important
than for the total cross section, and the different values of $\alpha$ can be
distinguished
over a substantial portion of the energy range that has been considered.
Actually, analyses of this type usually require sufficiently high
statistics, which also represents a problem in the present case.
\indent
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4.gg3pi.ps,height=12.5cm,angle=-90}}
\noindent
{\bf Figure 4} : {\it The cross section $\sigma_{A_1^N}(s,\alpha)$ for
$\gamma\gamma\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ obtained by taking into account the
contribution from the amplitude $A_1^N$ alone,
for different values of $\alpha$.}
\indent
Indeed, in both channels, the cross sections are very small at low energies,
orders
of magnitude below, for instance, the corresponding cross sections for the
$\gamma\gamma\to\pi\pi$ processes. We have therefore also estimated the
numbers of
events that could be expected at an $e^+-e^-$ collider for the two--photon
total invariant mass $\sqrt{s}$ below a maximal energy $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize
max}}$.
As typical examples, we have considered two instances of symmetric $e^+-e^-$ colliders. The first
case corresponds to the Daphne $\phi$--factory~\cite{daphne}, with a total beam energy
of $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize beam}}\,=\,510$ MeV, and a nominal integrated luminosity
of $5\times 10^6$ nb$^{-1}$
per year. The second case concerns a $\tau$--Charm Factory
configuration~\cite{tauCF},
with a beam energy four times as large as for Daphne, and a design
integrated luminosity of $10^7$ nb$^{-1}$ per year.
The numbers of events are obtained upon convoluting the above cross sections
with the corresponding photon luminosities quoted in \cite{Lia}
(since we are not interested in resonant $\eta$ production,
whenever necessary we avoided the $\eta$ peak by applying a cut on
$m_{\gamma \gamma}$ such that only the events with $m_{\gamma \gamma}<
M_\eta -\Delta$ or $m_{\gamma \gamma} > M_\eta +\Delta$, with
$\Delta=20~$MeV are accepted),
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{d L_{\gamma\gamma}\over d m_{\gamma\gamma}}=
{4\over m_{\gamma\gamma}}\big({\alpha\over \pi} \ln {E_{\mbox{\scriptsize beam}}\over m_e}\big)^2
\big[-(2+z^2)^2 \ln z -(1-z^2) (3+z^2) \big],
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where $m_{\gamma\gamma}=\sqrt{s}$ is the photon--photon center
of mass energy, $z=m_{\gamma\gamma}/2E_{\mbox{\scriptsize beam}}$,
and $m_e$ is the electron mass.
For the luminosity quoted above, the expected total number of
$\gamma\gamma\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ events per year
at energies $\sqrt{s}\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}} 0.6$~GeV is around $5\pm 1$ for Daphne
(independently of $\alpha$) and even less in the neutral case. In the case of
a $\tau$--Charm Factory, the total number of events becomes sizeable, and the
results are shown, for the two modes, in the fourth column of Table~3,
\indent
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5.gg3pi.ps,height=12.5cm,angle=-90}}
\noindent
{\bf Figure 5} : {\it The histogram of the distribution of the invariant mass $m_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ of the two final charged pions in the process $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ for different values of $\alpha$ and $\sqrt{s} \le E^{max} = 0.6$~GeV. Also shown are the curves correponding to the same distribution, but from the lowest order amplitude alone.}
\indent
\noindent
for different choices
of $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ (second column) and for different values of
$\alpha$ (third
column). Also shown are the
corresponding uncertainties $\Delta$(\#events) (fifth column), while the
remaining entries show various sources of contributions to
the total error $\Delta$(\#events). The latter was obtained
upon adding the individual contributions in quadrature.
As mentioned above, the main source of error comes
from the uncertainty on the value of $\lambda_1$. A sizeable but not necessarily drastic reduction of the
latter would already allow to distinguish the standard case of a strong
condensate ($\alpha\sim 1$) from situations where spontaneous breakdown
of chiral symmetry would be triggered by a much weaker condensate ($\alpha
\stackrel{\displaystyle >}{{}_{\displaystyle\sim}} 2$).
\indent
\noindent
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Mode & $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}({\mbox GeV})$ & $\alpha$ & \#events & $\Delta$(\#events) &
$\Delta\lambda_1$ & $\Delta\lambda_2$ & $\Delta\beta$ & $\Delta{\widehat m} t$
\\ \hline
& & 1 & 16 & 4 & 3.3 & 1.3 & 0.3 & 1.3 \\
&0.50 & 2 & 11 & 1 & 1 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.4 \\
& & 3 & 12 & 2 & 1 & 0.6 & 1.8 & 0.5 \\
\cline{2-9}
& & 1 & 56 &11 & 9.7 & 3.6 & 0.6 & 3.5 \\
$\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$
&0.55 & 2 & 40 & 5 & 4.5 & 1.3 & 0.1 & 1.8 \\
& & 3 & 38 & 3 & 0.2 & 0.6 & 3.1 & 0.1 \\
\cline{2-9}
& & 1 &327 &56 &50 & 18 & 1.8 & 14 \\
&0.60 & 2 &273 &39 &35 & 11 & 2.7 & 10 \\
& & 3 &246 &26 &24 & 5.7 & 4.4 & 7.3 \\
\hline
\hline
& & 1 & 14 & 7 & 5.9 & 2.7 & 0.7 & 2.3 \\
&0.50 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1.2 & 0.6 & 1 & 0.5 \\
& & 3 & 5 & 4 & 2.6 & 1.2 & 2.6 & 1.3 \\
\cline{2-9}
& & 1 & 42 &18 &15.8 & 7.2 & 1.8 & 5.6 \\
$\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$
&0.55 & 2 & 8 & 9 & 5.9 & 2.7 & 4.8 & 2.1 \\
& & 3 & 6 & 3 & 1.7 & 0.8 & 2.0 & 1.0 \\
\cline{2-9}
& & 1 &211 &81 &71 & 32 & 6.3 & 19 \\
&0.60 & 2 &91 &59 &45 & 20 & 28 & 12 \\
& & 3 &51 &34 &26 & 12 & 15 & 6.6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
{\bf Table 3:}~{\it Number of events for $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ and
for $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ at a $\tau$--Charm Factory as a function
of the maximal energy $E_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}({\mbox GeV})$, and the
principal sources of error.}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{conclu}
In the present paper, the amplitudes of the processes
$\gamma\gamma\to \pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ and
$\gamma\gamma\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ have been computed in the framework of
$SU(2)_{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}\times SU(2)_{\mbox{\scriptsize R}}$
Generalized Chiral Perturbation Theory to
${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$ precision.
The corresponding generating functional has been
constructed explicitly in Section 3, and the structure of its divergences in
the sector of even intrinsic parity has been analysed.
The resulting amplitudes, worked out in Section~4,
satisfy the isospin relations that we have
established in Section 2 (to the best of our knowledge, these relations have
not been discussed previously in the literature).
When restricted to the standard case, specified by the choice of
parameters as indicated in Eq.~\rf{Sval}, we recover the results obtained by
previous authors \cite{pere96,perethesis}, both in the neutral and in the
charged case. Finally, we have estimated the counterterms that enter the
one-loop amplitudes and we have performed some numerical analyses in Section 5.
We have, in particular, shown that the error bars associated to the
counterterm estimates become important, especially in the neutral channel,
as a consequence of highly destructive interference effects between
the various amplitudes that build up the total cross sections.
We have also considered the possible detection of these processes at Daphne
and at a $\tau$--Charm Factory.
Unfortunately, and precisely because of these large interference effects,
the expected number of events is rather discouraging in
the first case.
Depending on the actual values of the counterterms and on $\alpha$, it is
hard to expect more than $\approx 5$ events per year with total invariant
mass lower than $500$~MeV. The number of events increases substantially
when allowing larger invariant masses, but at the expense of
working in an energy region where the ${\cal O}(p^6)$
expressions are probably less reliable,
since higher order terms can become important.
The computation at ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^8)$ would allow a better control of
the cross
sections at larger momenta, thus allowing a
substantial increase of the number of events already at Daphne.
The required amount of work seems excessive, though, and would make sense only
if conducted in parallel with a better determination of ${\bar l}_1$ (for instance,
from a two--loop analysis of $K_{\ell 4}$ decays), by far the main source of theoretical uncertainties at present. We rather expect
interesting and realistic prospects in
this field to come from future machines, like the
$\tau$--Charm Factory, which run at higher energy and higher luminosity.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are pleased to thank A. Bramon for discussions and for his interest and
collaboration at the early stages of this work, and J.~Bijnens for discussions. One of us (M.K.) wishes to acknowledge clarifying correspondance and/or discussions with I.~Kogan and J.~Stern on the content of Ref.~\cite{KKS98}, and L.~Girlanda for discussions and for sharing information on unpublished work. He also thanks the Universitat Polit\`ecnica de Catalunya and the Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona for their hospitality. Ll.~A. thanks the Institut de Physique Nucl\'eaire in Orsay for its hospitality. P.~T. thanks FEN department, where most of his
contribution to
the present work was done. This work has been partially supported by the
TMR Program, EC--Contract N. CT98--0169.
Ll.~A. and P.~T. received partial support from the CICYT research project
AEN95--0815, while the work of J.~K. and of P.~T.
was supported by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds and
by the Swedish Research Council (NFR), respectively.
\indent
\indent
\noindent
{\Large{\bf Appendix}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this Appendix, we give a brief description of our analysis of the anomalous counterterms $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_4$ and $A_6$ which is based on the approach of Ref.~\cite{bachir95}. The starting point are the invariant amplitudes $\Pi_{VVP}(p^2,q^2,r^2)$ and $\Pi_{VVP}^0(p^2,q^2,r^2)$ of the vector--vector--pseudoscalar three--point correlation functions in the three flavour chiral limit (we take the definition given by Eqs.~(3) and (4) of \cite{bachir95}). At $p^2=q^2=0$, the loop contribution vanish, and one has (notice the absence of the pion pole in the second equality)
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{VVP}(0,0,r^2) &=& \frac{2B_0N_c}{16\pi^2r^2}\,+\,\frac{1}{4\pi^2}
\big[ 8A_4-16B_0(A_2-2A_3)\big]\ ,\nonumber\\
\Pi_{VVP}^0(0,0,r^2) &=& \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\big[ 8A_4 +24 A_6\big]\ .
\end{eqnarray}
In the chiral limit, the counterterms from ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$ do not contribute, so that the above result holds both in SChPT and in GChPT. Although the contributions from the low--energy constants $A_2$ and $A_3$ from ${\cal L}_{6,0}^-$ were omitted in \cite{bachir95}, one may follow the same steps as described there (we have also kept the same notation), and end up with the following set of sum--rules~:
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}
\big[ 8A_4-16B_0(A_2-2A_3)\big] \,=\,
-\frac{B_0}{2M_V^2}\bigg\{ \frac{F_0^2}{M_V^2}\,+\,\frac{N_c}{4\pi^2}
\left(\frac{M_V}{M_P}\right)^2{\mbox{tan}}\Theta\frac{{\cal A}(\pi'\to\gamma\gamma)}{{\cal A}(\pi\to\gamma\gamma)}\bigg\}\ ,\lbl{bachir1}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
and
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}
\big[ 24A_6+16B_0(A_2-2A_3)\big] \,=\,-\frac{3}{8}
\frac{B_0G_{\eta'}}{M_{\eta '}^2}\sqrt{6}{\cal A}(\eta'\to\gamma\gamma)\ .
\lbl{bachir2}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
In addition, one needs to know the expression of the amplitude of the two--photon decay of the $\eta$, ${\cal A}(\eta\to\gamma\gamma )=-t_1(k,\epsilon,k',\epsilon'){\cal A}^{\eta\to\gamma\gamma}$, which, in analogy to the $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ amplitude ${\cal A}^{\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma}$ of Eq.~\rf{ggpi0}, may be written as
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^{\eta\to\gamma\gamma}\,=\,\frac{e^2}{4\sqrt{3} \pi^2 F_\pi}
\big[\frac{F_\pi}{F_\eta} +\frac{1}{3}{\widehat m} (5-2r)t+
\frac{128}{3}{\widehat m} (1-r)A_6+M_\eta^2t'+{\widehat m}^2{\widetilde t}''(r)+\frac{2}{3}{\widehat m}^2(1+2r^2)a_3\big]\ .\lbl{ggeta}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
In this last expression, $t$ and $t'$ are related to $A_2$, $A_3$ and $A_4$ according to Eq.~\rf{ttprime}, while $r$ stands for the quark mass ratio $m_s/{\widehat m}$, and ${\widehat m}^2{\widetilde t}''(r)$ denote the corrections coming from ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$, which can be of order ${\cal O}({\widehat m}^2)$, ${\cal O}({\widehat m} m_s)$, and ${\cal O}(m_s^2)$.
In the standard case, the two last terms in Eq.~\rf{ggeta} would appear only at higher orders, and one may thus proceed as described in Ref.~\cite{bachir95}. At the order we are working, the quark mass ratio is then given as
$r_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}} = r_2\equiv 2M_K^2/M_\pi^2-1\sim 25.9$~\cite{GL2}.
Using the numerical values given in \cite{bachir95}, one obtains, from Eqs.~\rf{bachir1} and \rf{bachir2}, respectively,
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} A_{4,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}}-M_\pi^2(A_2-2A_3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}
\,=\, (-5.9\pm 1.8)\times 10^{-4}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
and
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
3{\widehat m} A_{6,{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}}+M_\pi^2(A_2-2A_3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}}
\,=\, (-2.1\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-3}\ .
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
Upon using the experimental rate for $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$~\cite{PDG}, we then determine the combination
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
M_\pi^2(A_2-2A_3)_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}} \,=\, (1\pm 1) \times 10^{-3} .\lbl{A2minus2A3std}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
Adding errors in quadrature, the previous results give
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} t_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}} + M_\pi^2t'_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}} =
(1.7 \pm 8.2)\times 10^{-3}\ ,
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
which is four times more accurate than the value obtained directly from the experimental rate of $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$. For the separate pieces, we obtain
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} t_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}} \,=\, (4.4\pm 10.8)\times 10^{-3}\, ,
\ \ M_\pi^2t'_{\mbox{\scriptsize st}} \,=\,(-2.7\pm 2.7)\times 10^{-3}
\ .\lbl{stdresult}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
In the generalized case, the analysis may, unfortunately, not be pursued quite that far. The main drawback are the corrections from ${\cal L}_{(4,2)}^-$, which in particular produce potentially large ${\cal O}(m_s^2)$ corrections to the $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$ decay amplitude, and on which the sum--rules \rf{bachir1} and \rf{bachir2} give no information. If one restricts the analysis to the order ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^5)$ precision, then the contributions from ${\cal L}_{(6,0)}^-$ are also absent, and the situation becomes even simpler than in the standard case, since ({\it cf.} Eq.~\rf{gencount}) the left--hand sides of the sum--rules \rf{bachir1} and \rf{bachir2} now only involve $A_4$ and $A_6$, respectively. Keeping in mind that $r$ is now a free parameter ($\alpha$ and $r$ are however related, see \cite{gchpt}), and taking the necessary inputs from \cite{bachir95}, the ${\cal O}({\mbox p}^5)$ determination of $A_4$ and $A_6$ reads
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} A_4\,=\,-\frac{N_c}{32}\left(
\frac{\vert\lambda (r) M_S^2 - (1-\lambda (r))^2M_\pi^2\vert}{M_P^2-M_S^2}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{M_\pi}{M_P}\frac{{\cal A}(\pi'\to\gamma\gamma)}{{\cal A}(\pi\to\gamma\gamma)}\,+\,\cdots\ ,\lbl{A4gen}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} A_6\,=\,-\frac{3\pi^2}{32}\frac{M_\pi}{M_{\eta '}}\left(
\lambda (r) - \frac{\Delta_{\mbox{\scriptsize GMO}}}{(r-1)^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}F_\pi
{\cal A}(\eta'\to\gamma\gamma)\,+\,\cdots\ ,\lbl{A6gen}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
where the ellipses stand for higher order corrections, $\lambda (r) = 2(r_2-r)/(r^2-1)$ and $\Delta_{\mbox{\scriptsize GMO}} \equiv (3M_\eta^2-4M_K^2+M_\pi^2)/M_\pi^2\sim -3.6$. For $r=r_2$, the above expressions give values compatible with the previous SChPT analysis. Furthermore, as $r$ decreases ({\it i.e} as $\alpha$ increases), the variation of ${\widehat m} t$ stays within the bounds given in Eq.~\rf{stdresult}. On the other hand, in the extreme case of a vanishing condensate, the ${\cal L}_{(6,0)}^-$ contributions to the two sum--rules also disappear, and the expressions \rf{A4gen} and \rf{A6gen} become exact at order
${\cal O}({\mbox p}^6)$. Finally, if we use the two sum--rules in order to express $A_4$ and $A_6$ in terms of $A_2-2A_3$ in the expression \rf{ggeta}, we obtain an estimate of a combination of $A_2-A_3$, ${\widehat m}^2{\widetilde t}''(r)$ and ${\widehat m}^2a_3$, which is not very sensitive to the value of $r$ and compatible with the value \rf{A2minus2A3std} obtained in the standard case for $M_\pi^2(A_2-2A_3)$. Thus, within reasonable error bars, the values of $t$ and $t'$ can be taken independent of $r$. For the numerical analyses presented in the text, we have used
\vs{2}\begin{equation}
{\widehat m} t\,=\, (6\pm 12)\times 10^{-3}\, ,
\ \ M_\pi^2t' \,=\,(-3\pm 3)\times 10^{-3}
\ .\lbl{genresult}
\\[2mm]\end{equation}
|
\section{Introduction}
The measurement of proton momentum distributions by neutron scattering is
analogous to the measurement of electron momentum distributions by Compton
scattering\cite{pss} and measurement of nucleon momenta by Deep Inelastic
Scattering \cite{is} and is known as Neutron Compton Scattering (NCS) or Deep
Inelastic Neutron Scattering (DINS).
All three techniques rely upon the fact that if the momentum transferred
from the incident to target particle is sufficiently large, the impulse
approximation (IA) can be
used to interpret the data. In the IA, momentum and kinetic energy are
conserved. From a measurement of the momentum and energy change of the
neutron, the momentum of the target nucleus before the collision can be
determined.
DINS measurements have only become practical since the construction
of intense accelerator based neutron sources, which have allowed
inelastic neutron scattering measurements with energy transfers in the eV
region\cite{hmt}. Energy transfers
much
greater than the maximum vibrational frequency of the target atom are required
before the IA
can be used to reliably determine the momentum distribution . At lower
energy transfers the IA is no longer valid and is not related in a simple
way to the observed scattering intensities.
There have been a few
pioneering studies on anisotropic systems at eV energy
transfers\cite{rw,ph,isns,pal,ftm}
but the analysis has been limited to fitting Gaussians to the observed
data, or more generally fitting the data with model containing a few
parameters, as was done for measurements on molecular hydrogen\cite{jm1}. We
show here that an entire spectrum of anharmonic coefficients can be measured
without recourse to any model, in addition to the
widths of an anisotropic gaussian, thus describing an arbitrary anisotropic and
anharmonic momentum distribution,
The possibility of doing this for isotropic systems was first suggested by
Reiter and Silver,\cite{rs}
That possibility, for more general systems, is now a reality. We demonstrate
this
by measuring the momentum
distribution for $KHC_2O_4$ where we obtain 14 anharmonic coefficients whose
size varies by nearly two orders of magnitude, with at least 2-3$\sigma$
confidence
levels for all but one. The experimental instrument is the EVS spectrometer
at ISIS. The work
presented here by no means represents the limits of resolution of the
instrument, but rather the first experiments of this kind. Upgrades are planned
in the near future that will significantly increase flux and counting
efficiency.
\section*{Theory of Measurement}
The theoretical basis of neutron Compton scattering is the impulse
approximation (IA), which is exact when the momentum transfer and energy
transfer are infinite\cite{n,s,jm2}. The neutron scattering function
S($\vec{q},\omega$), is related to the momentum distribution n($\vec{p}$)
in the impulse approximation limit by the relation
\begin{equation}
S(\vec{q},\omega) = {M\over q}\int n(\vec{p})\delta(y-\vec{p}.\hat q)d\vec{p} =
{M\over q} J(\hat {q}, y)
\label{sqw}
\end{equation}
where y=${M\over q}(\omega-{q^2\over 2M})$, M is the mass of the target
particle,q=$|\vec{q}|$, and $\hat{q}$=$\vec{q}/q$.
DINS measurements on protons have a particularly simple interpretation, as
the interaction of protons with other atoms can usually be accurately
accounted for\cite{l,hrp,wls} in terms of a single particle potential and hence
by a
proton wave function.\cite{temp} From elementary quantum mechanics,
n($\vec{p}$) is
related to
the Fourier transform of the proton wave function via,
\begin{equation}
n(\vec{p})={1\over(2\pi)^3)}|\int|\Psi(r)exp(i\vec p\cdot\vec r)d\vec r|^2
\label{npsi}
\end{equation}
and a DINS measurement of n($\vec{p}$) can be used to determine the wave
function in
an analogous way to the determination of real space structure from a
diffraction pattern. If n($\vec{p}$) is known, and if the proton is in a site
with reflection symmetry, so that the wave function can be assumed real, then in
principle both the proton wave
function and the exact form of the potential energy well in which the
proton sits can be directly reconstructed.\cite{rs} With an asymmetric site
such as potassium binoxalate, the phase information that is lost by taking the
absolute
value of the momentum wavefunction is irrecoverable, and we will not be able to
reconstruct the potential directly. The n($\vec{p}$) obtained can, of course,
be used to check any model potential.
While the original formulation of the inversion problem\cite{rs} is complete as
it stands, it is useful
for the systems we will be dealing with to take into account the anisotropy of
the system explicitly.
The fundamental result
that allows for a simple inversion of the Radon transform, J($\hat q, y$) to
obtain n($\vec{p}$) makes use of a basis of Hermite polynomials and spherical
harmonics in which the
transform is diagonal. That is, a single term in the series for J($\hat q, y$)
corresponds to a single term in the expansion of n($\vec{p}$).
If we express J($\hat q, y$) in this basis as
\begin{equation}
J(\hat q, y) = {e^{-y^2}\over \pi^{1\over 2}} \sum\limits_{n,l,m} a_{n,l,m}
H_{2n+l}(y)Y_{lm}(\hat q)
\label{exp}
\end{equation}
then n($\vec{p}$) is given in the related basis of Laguerre polynomials as
\begin{equation}
\label{inv}
n(\vec{p}) = {e^{-p^2}\over \pi^{3\over 2}}\sum\limits_{n,l,m}2^{2n+l}n!(-1)^n
a_{n,l,m} p^lL_n^{l+{1\over 2}}(p^2) Y_{lm}(\hat p)
\end{equation}
where $\hat p$ and $\hat q$ are unit vectors. Clearly, since the expansions are
complete, a distribution of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{anh}
n(\vec p) = \prod\limits_i {e^{-p_i^2\over 2\sigma_i^2}\over
(2\pi\sigma_i)^{1\over 2}} R(\vec p)
\end{equation}
with the $\sigma_i$ significantly different from each other, could be expanded
in this form,
but even if R($\vec p$) were 1, it would require a large number of terms in the
series. To avoid this, we show that the anisotropy may be taken into account by
a change of variables, so that the coefficients $a_{n,l,m}$ represent genuinely
anharmonic contributions.
Introducing the new variables
\begin{equation}
p_i^\prime = p_i /\sqrt2\sigma_i
\end{equation}
with n($\vec p$) defined as in Eq. (\ref{anh}) , defining $R^\prime(\vec
{p^\prime}$)=R($\vec p(\vec {p^\prime}$)) and
\begin{equation}
\label{trans1}
n^\prime(\vec p^\prime)={e^{-{p^\prime}^2}\over \pi^{3\over 2}}R^\prime(\vec
p^\prime)
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{trans}
J(\vec{q}, y) = \int n^\prime(\vec {p^\prime}) \delta(y-\vec {p^\prime}.\vec
{q^\prime})d\vec {p^\prime}
\end{equation}
where ${{q^\prime}_i} = q_i\sqrt2\sigma_i$. The right hand side of Eq.
(\ref{trans}) is no longer a Radon transform, since $\vec q^\prime$ is not a
unit vector. However, defining ${y^\prime} = y/\vert\vec q^\prime|$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{fin2}
J(\vec{q}, y) = {1\over \vert\vec q^\prime\vert}\int n^\prime(\vec {p^\prime})
\delta(y^\prime-\vec {p^\prime}.\hat {q^\prime})d\vec {p^\prime} = {1\over
\vert\vec {q^\prime}\vert}J^\prime(\hat {q^\prime}, y^\prime)
\end{equation}
where $J^\prime(\hat {q^\prime}, y^\prime)$ is the Radon transform of the
isotropic(in it's gaussian component) but anharmonic distribution
$n^\prime(\vec {p^\prime})$. If $ {\hat q}$ is specified as a unit vector in the
usual
spherical coordinates, then
\begin{equation}
\label{fin}
\vert\vec q^\prime\vert = \sqrt2\big((\sigma_1 sin(\theta)cos(\phi))^2+(\sigma_2
sin(\theta)sin(\phi))^2+(\sigma_3 cos(\theta))^2\big)^{1\over 2}
\end{equation}
Our procedure is to expand $J^\prime(\hat {q^\prime}, y^\prime)$ in hermite
polynomials, as in Eq. (\ref{exp}), and least squares fit the data,
S($\vec{q},\omega$), using Eqs. (\ref{sqw},\ref{fin2},\ref{fin}), to obtain the
parameters, $\sigma_i, a_{n,l,m}$. $n^\prime(\vec {p^\prime})$ can then be
reconstructed as in Eq. (\ref{inv}), and we thus obtain n($\vec{p}$) as in
Eq.(\ref{anh}) with R($\vec p$)= $R^\prime(\vec {p^\prime}(\vec p))$. That this
is a practical procedure will be demonstrated below.
\section{Measurements}
The measurements were performed on the electron volt spectrometer eVS\cite{me}
at the ISIS neutron source. On EVS the energy of the scattered neutron is
fixed by a resonance filter difference technique\cite{stb}. The final neutron
velocity and energy are related by $E_1=m{\nu_1}^2/2$ where m is the neutron
mass. The energy
of the incident neutron is determined from a measurement of the neutron
time of flight via the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{tof}
t={L_0\over\nu_0}+{L_1\over\nu_1}
\end{equation}
where t is the measured time of flight $,L_0$ and $L_1$ are the lengths of
the
incident and the scattered flight paths of the neutron, $\nu_0$ and $\nu_1$
are the
speeds of the incident and scattered neutrons. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{endef}
\omega=m({\nu_0}^2-{\nu_1}^2)/2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{qdef}
q=m({\nu_0}^2+{\nu_1}^2+2\nu_1\nu_0cos\theta)^{1\over 2}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the scattering angle. From these equations $\omega$ and
$\vec q$ can be
determined for a given time of flight t , if the instrumental parameters
$L_0,L_1,\theta$
and $E_1$ are known. Hence from the count rate at a given time t, J($\hat q,
y$) can be determined.
On eVS the detectors are situated in the horizontal plane and hence $\vec q$ is
always horizontal. By orienting the sample with a chosen crystal axis
vertical, it is possible to measure J($\hat q, y$) for $\vec q$ in whichever
plane, relative to the sample, one chooses.
A time of flight scan at a particular angle for a given detector does not
correspond, however,
to a particular direction of $\vec q$. There is significant curvature
of this scan through the proton momentum space since the direction of $\vec q$
varies significantly over the data region. Time of flight spectra for eight
adjacent detectors at angles between 35 and 55 degrees scan through the atomic
momentum momentum space of the proton as illustrated in figure 1
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=gr1.ps,width=100mm}
\caption{Scan pattern in momentum space for detectors at a fixed angle as the
time of flight is varied }
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
A complete scan over the proton momentum space is constructed by combining a
number of data sets, taken with the sample rotated about the vertical axis
by appropriately chosen angles.
The reported measurements were made using two banks of 8 $ Li^6$ doped glass
scintillator detectors which were symmetrically placed on each side of the
incident beam at scattering angles
between $35^o$ and $55^o$. For DINS studies of protons it is necessary to
site the detectors at forward scattering angles since the hydrogen
scattering cross section is strongly anisotropic at eV incident energies,
with virtually no back scattering. This restriction is a kinematic
consequence of the closeness of the mass of the neutron and the hydrogen
atom and does not apply to heavier atoms.
The resolution function of the instrument is determined by the
uncertainties in the measured values of the time of flight t and the
distribution of $L_0,L_1,\theta$ and $E_1$ values allowed by the instrumental
geometry and
analyser foil resolution. Uncertainties in $L_0$ arise primarily from the
finite
depth of the neutron moderator, those in $L_1$ and $\theta$ from the finite
sample and
detector sizes and those in t from jitter in the detector electronics. All
resolution components can be determined by calibration measurements and all
except the energy component can be approximated by Gaussians, without
significant error. A 0.015
mm thick gold foil provided a Lorentzian energy resolution function at
$E_1=4908meV$ ,
with a peak HWHM of 136 meV. The Gaussian and Lorentzian resolution
components in momentum space y ,are listed in table 1 for two angles
representative of the range of angles employed. The resolution is
dominated by the energy component which varies strongly with scattering
angle. The second most important contribution comes from the angular
resolution of the spectrometer and is independent of angle. The momentum
and energy transfers at the centre of the hydrogen response peak are also
listed for the different angles.
\vskip .25in
{\bf Table 1.} The resolution widths are the Lorentzian HWHM for (RL) and the
Gaussian standard deviation for other parameters (RG) . The momentum q and
energy transfer ( at the scattering angles $35^o$ and $55^o$ are also given.)
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline
\hline
Angle & $R_G(\AA^{-1})$ & $R_L(\AA^{-1})$ & q $(\AA^{-1})$ & $ \omega$ (eV)\\
\hline
\hline
$ 35^0$ & 0.61 & 1.08 & 34.1 & 2.41\\
\hline
$ 55^0$ & 0.55 & 0.55 & 48.8 & 4.92\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The raw data contains signals from all the atoms in the scattering sample
and from the cryostat background. Fortunately the energy transfer to
hydrogen is much greater than that to other atomic masses and the proton
signal is well separated from that due to other masses. The contribution
from all components other than hydrogen is subtracted by fitting a sum of
Gaussians convoluted with the instrument resolution function to the data
and subtracting off the fitted contribution to other peaks. There is also a
small contribution to the data from a second gold resonance at 60 eV which
can be seen at ~100 $\mu$sec and this is also fitted and subtracted from the
data.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=gr2.ps,width=100mm}
\caption{ The sum of data from 8 detectors at scattering angles between $38^o$
and $55^o$ is shown as the dotted line. The data after
subtraction of the contribution from atoms with higher masses and the 60 eV
resonance data is shown as the full line.The total data set for a single plane
consisted
of 36 such spectra. The FWHM of the Lorentzian resolution function is ~6
microsec.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The data for each scan was converted into a distribution in the momentum
space of the crystal as described above. Complete coverage of the plane was
achieved by combining six runs which were taken at steps of $23^o$ sample
rotation. A contour plot of the data derived from the six runs is shown in
figure 3. This was produced by binning the counts from different detectors and
sample orientations in the appropriate pixel of the momentum space
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=gr3.ps,width=100mm}
\caption{Contour plot of data in one plane of potassium binoxalate. The apparent
double
peak near the origin is an artifact of the method of plotting the data }
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The data has been corrected for sample attenuation, but still contains
errors due to small deviations from the Impulse Approximation which are
present at the finite momentum transfers of the measurement. These tend to
introduce small asymmetries into the data set at the ~1-5\% level, thereby
removing the exact inversion symmetry of the Compton profile. It has been
shown by Sears\cite{s2} that most of these effects are removed by
symmetrisation of the data about the origin. This procedure cannot be
followed for our data sets as the scan in a single detector is curved and
different points in the crystal plane which are related by inversion
symmetry may have been measured in different detectors, with different
experimental resolution. However by fitting to a J($\hat q, y$ with inversion
symmetry,
as discussed below, we automatically include a correction for deviations from
the impulse
approximation. Any asymmetries are ignored by the fit and should not
affect the values of the fitted parameters.
\section{Fitting Procedures}
Eqs.(\ref{exp},\ref{inv}) hold quite generally for Radon transform pairs, but
physical requirements in the present context restrict the allowed coefficients.
Since
$J(\vec{q}, y)$ is an even function of y, l is restricted to even values, and
since $J(\vec{q}, y)$is real, the $a_{n,l,m}$ for $\pm m$ must be equal. In
fact, if there are residual final state effects in the data, the data will not
be symmetric. Restricting the coefficients in this way will therefore eliminate
these residual effects. Lifting the restrictions and fitting the data allows one
to measure the extent of these effects.For potassium binoxalate, data was taken
for
three perpendicular planes oriented parallel to the crystal axes The procedure
followed was to
perform a simultaneous fit to the 6x16x3=288 separate time of flight spectra
to an expansion of the form given in Eq.(\ref{exp}), convoluted with the
instrument resolution function
The actual fitting procedure requires that three of the parameters $\sigma_i,
a_{n,l,m}$ be fixed, as they are not all independent. That is, if one varies the
$\sigma_i$ abitrarily, there will always be a set of $a_{n,l,m}$ that will fit
the data, the particular values that fit depending on the choice of the
$\sigma_i$. One could obtain fixed values for the $\sigma_i$ by first fitting
the data to a gaussian, i.e. $R^\prime(\vec p^\prime)=1$, and then varying only
the $a_{n,l,m}$, in which case all such terms would in principle be needed. We
find in practice, that better results are obtained, i.e. fewer anharmonic
coefficients needed and more rapid convergence of the series for $R^\prime(\vec
p^\prime)$, when the $\sigma_i$ are allowed to vary but the first three
anharmonic coefficients, $a_{1,0,0}, a_{0,2,0}, a_{0,2,2}$ are set to zero. In
fact, these coefficients are not really anharmonic coefficients at all. They
could always be eliminated by a shift of the $\sigma_i$ and an adjustment of
higher order coefficients. This procedure thus has the virtue as well of
producing only genuinely anharmonic corrections to a gaussian fit.
The datasets as they are presently obtained in the EVS spectrometer at ISIS, are
obtained one plane at a time(see discussion of experimental apparatus). That is
$\vec q$ varies within a plane, and a range of y values is taken such that
$J(\vec{q}, y) $is negligible outside this range.
There is a very high density of points, which for the purposes of the present
discussion we can take to be continuous. The question then arises, 'How many
planes of data
are needed to determine a specified number of coefficients, and at what angles
to each other should they be?' We can see the point of the question by
considering first a single plane and looking at the fit to the leading
anharmonic coefficient. From Eq.(\ref{exp}) we see that there are six
independent coefficients multiplying $H_4$, i.e. the coefficients of
$(Y_{00},Y_{20}, Y_{22}, Y_{40}, Y_{42}, Y_{44})$. Let us say that our
coordinate system is chosen so that the plane measured is treated as an xz
plane. Then in terms of the variable $\theta$ there are only three independent
fourier coefficients that can be present in the data for the coefficients of
$H_4$, i.e. the coefficients of (1, $cos(2\theta), cos(4\theta)$ for instance.
Therefore three of the coefficients are not independent. The complete set of
coefficients cannot be determined by the data. This is of course due to the fact
that there is no information as to the behaviour of $J(\vec{q}, y)$ for nonzero
azimuthal angles $\phi$ in the data, so we shouldn't expect the fitting
procedure to provide it. The data provides a complete description of
$J(\vec{q}, y)$ only if this function is rotationally invariant about the z
axis. Actually, what is required is only that $J^\prime(\hat {q^\prime},
y^\prime)$ be rotationally invariant, since the fit is done in the primed
coordinate system. If this is the case, then all coefficients of $Y_{lm}$ with
non-zero values of m must be zero. We see that there are only three remaining
possibly non zero coefficents, which can all be determined. For higher order
terms as well, keeping only the coefficients with m=0 provides all the
independent terms needed to fit the data, and the resulting fit, of course, is
rotationally symmetric about the z axis.
If the data is not known to be rotationally symmetric, additional planes of data
must be taken to determine even these lowest order coefficients. In general,
whenever we take another plane of data, we might expect to obtain 3 more
independent measurements of the coefficients of $H_4$, 4 independent
measurements of the coefficients of $H_6$,
and in general, k+1 measurements of the coefficients of $H_{2k}$. (k+1 being
the number of independent fourier components in the data for that value of k).
Since the number of $a_{n,l,m}$ that are to be determined for 2n+l=2k is
(k+2)(k+1)/2, it appears that (k+2)/2 planes are needed to measure all
coefficients up to $H_{2k}$. The angles between the planes must be chosen,
however, so that the measurements are really independent. For instance, if k=2,
it would appear that two planes would suffice, but if they are chosen as the xz
and yz planes, they do not provide independent measurements of the coefficients.
This may be seen by observing that the sum of the data from the two planes
gives three independent fourier coefficients to determine four independent
$a_{n,l,m}$, the coefficients of $(Y_{00},Y_{20}, Y_{40}, Y_{44})$, since the
coefficients of $Y_{22}$ and $Y_{42}$ cannot affect this sum. The difference
of the data on the two planes gives three equations for the two coefficients of
$Y_{22}$ and $Y_{42}$. A better choice for the planes would be $\phi=0$ and
$\phi=\pi/4$, which would allow the determination of all the coefficients. If
there is some symmetry in the problem, one may be able to use perpendicular
planes if the symmetry axis is chosen appropriately with respect to the common
axis of the two scattering planes. For instance, if there is tetragonal
symmetry present, and the symmetry axis is chosen perpendicular to the common
axis, one can obtain all the allowed coefficients up to k=4. One can show that
three perpendicular planes do in fact suffice to determine the coefficients up
to k=4 in the general case, without any symmetry to reduce the number of
allowed coefficients. The question of whether this is an optimum configuration
of planes or not, we will leave to another time. Including the three
$\sigma_i$, a three plane measurement allows 34 coefficients to be measured.
\section{Measurement Errors}
The uncertainty in the measurement of n($\vec p$) at some point $\vec p$ is due
to the uncertainty in the measured coefficients. Denoting an arbitrary
coefficient by $\rho_i$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{uncn}
\delta n(\vec{p})= \sum\limits_{i} {\delta n(\vec{p})\over \delta\rho_i}
\delta\rho_i
\end{equation}
The fitting program, after a minimum is obtained with some set of coefficients,
calculates the correlation matrix $<\delta\rho_i\delta\rho_j>$ by varying the
coefficients slightly and calculating the curvature of the chi-square of the
fit. \cite{dev}. Hence, the variance in the momentum distribution is
\begin{equation}
\label{deln}
<\delta n(\vec{p})^2>= \sum\limits_{i,j} {\delta n(\vec{p})\over \delta\rho_i}
{\delta n(\vec{p})\over \delta\rho_j}<\delta\rho_i\delta\rho_j>
\end{equation}
There are of course, potential systematic errors that could enter the
measurement, such as multiple scattering effects, or an error in determining
the resolution function. The former must be handled with good experimental
design, and if small, can be corrected for. We have done measurements on samples
whose thickness differed by a factor of two, with no significant differences in
the observed scattering. Multiple scattering effects would also lead to
asymmetries in J($\hat q, y$) that are not observed. The resolution function
has been studied extensively, and is believed to be known
accurately.In the present measurement, the resolution width is between 15 and
25\% of the width of the distribution measured.
A further source of error not
contained in the estimate in Eq.(\ref{deln}) is the truncation of the series
used to fit the data to include
only terms up to 2n+l=8. To get an idea of the seriousness of this, and to test
the fitting procedures and software, we have generated synthetic data from a
known momentum distribution that corresponds to an asymmetric double well, and
convolved it with the instrumental resolution function. The data was then
analyzed by the means described above, and the extracted n($\vec{p}$) compared
with the input. The input n($\vec{p}$) corresponded to a spatial wave function
consisting of two displaced gaussians with the same variance and a relative
weight r=.5. The explicit form is
\begin{equation}
\label{dpotn}
n(p_x,p_y,p_z)={(1+r^2+2rcos(2p_za))\over{ (1+r^2+2re^{-{a^2\over
2{\sigma_z}^2}}})}
\prod\limits_i {e^{-{p_i^2\over 2\sigma_i^2}}\over (2\pi\sigma_i)^{1\over 2}}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_x=4.6, \sigma_y=4.0,\sigma_z=6.0 $ and a=.15 in units of inverse
angstroms and angstroms, respectively. This form is rather similar to the actual
form of the data we will analyze. The coordinate system z axis was chosen
to be identical with the crystal z axis. The comparison is shown in fig 4. The
extracted n($\vec{p}$) is plotted with a dotted line, the input n($\vec{p}$)
above with a dashed line. As may be seen from the figure, there is essentially
no error due to the truncation of the the expansion. Of course, an input with
more variation might require including higher terms in the expansion, and hence
taking more planes of data. The actual data we have obtained for potassium
binoxalate has
less variation than the simulation and the truncation error will be negligible.
In the other directions, the fit is rigorously gaussian, since all coefficients
with $m\not=0$ were zero. We note that the measured $\sigma_z$ parameter was
4.47, not 6.0. It is simply a fitting parameter. The overall momentum
distribution has physical significance, the individual parameters may not. In
fact, we have gotten the same degree of fit with the crystal z axis aligned
along the coordinate y axis. In this case, all the coefficients are non-zero,
but the resultant n($\vec{p}$) is identical to the one displayed above.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=simplotz.ps,width=100mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Comparison of input n($\vec{p}$), given by Eq.(16)with reconstruction
of n($\vec{p}$ )using fitting procedure. The z coordinate axis is chosen to be
the double well axis.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
A final source of systematic error involves the possibility of finding a false
minimum with the fitting procedure. With such a large number of parameters,
there is the possibility that the program will home in on a local minimum and
miss the true minimum. We are using straightforward gradient methods for the
search, which would have difficulty with a very rugged chi-squared landscape. We
do not appear to have such a landscape for these problems, and certainly not for
the large parameters, such as the $\sigma_i$, or the largest anharmonic
coefficients, whose values appear to be quite robust with regards to different
paths to the minimum. One can check for this problem by orienting the fitting
coordinate system differently with respect to the crystal axes, as was done for
the test data above. In this case, all
the coefficients will be different, but the final n($\vec{p})$ must be the same.
There is also the fact that n($\vec{p})$ must be positive,
and a spurious fit that leads to significant negative values can be rejected. We
can also eliminate some parameters which are consistently much smaller than
their variance,and which can be set to zero without affecting significantly the
chi-square, thus reducing the dimensionality of the space. We believe there are
no problems of this sort with the fits we will present.
\section{Results for Potassium Binoxalate}
Potassium Binoxalate, $KHC_2O_4$, is a hydrogen bonded system in
which the hydrogen sits in an asymmetric position between two oxygen
atoms.\cite{emd}.The crystal is monoclinic. We will choose a primitive cell for
which the bond axis, that is the line joining the two oxygen atoms,
is essentially aligned with the c axis of the crystal.\cite{cell} We choose this
axis for
the z axis of our coordinate system. Three planes of data were taken at right
angles to each other, with 69,632 data points in all. One of these is the bc
plane, where the b axis is the unique axis, and the other two are the $a^*b$ and
$a^*c$ plane, where the $a^*$ axis is perpendicular to the bc plane. These were
fit with the
methods described above to give the momentum distribution. The measurements were
done at 10 deg K and hence there are no significant finite temperature
corrections to the ground state momentum distribution due to excited states.
Note that the coordinate system used to describe the momentum distribution need
not have the symmetry of the crystal. The local symmetry of the site is only a
two-fold rotation. We show the values of
the fitted coefficients in tables 2 and 3, along with the rms uncertainty in
their
values. This is included only to give some sense of the individual parameter.
The error in n($\vec{p}$)is given by Eq.(\ref{uncn}) and includes
the
effect of the correlations between coefficients, whereas the figures cited in
the
table are only the diagonal correlation coefficients. It can be seen, that many
of
the measured coefficients have been determined at the 2-3 $\sigma$ level of
confidence, some at higher levels, and only one at a 1$\sigma$ level.
Coefficients that are set to zero in the fitting procedure were
found to have values smaller than their variance by at least a factor of 2, and
setting them to zero did not significantly change the minimum value of
chi-square. The
goodness of fit to a sample of the data is shown in Fig. 5.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=gr5.ps,width=100mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Data fitted by method described above. The data is a composite of data
points in a 10deg wedge about the z axis.
}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
We have compared the
fitted prediction, convolved with the instrumental resolution, and the data, for
the cumulative sum of data in a 10 degree wedge along the hydrogen bond
direction. The measured
momentum distribution along the axes of the measurement planes, are shown in
Figs. 6-9, and
contour plots along coordinate planes in Figs. 10-13.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pgz.ps,width=100mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Momentum distribution for potassium binoxalate along the axis shown.
The
momentum is in units of $\AA^-1$, n($\vec{p}$ is in arbitrary units. The errors
are calculated as in Eq.(15) for the parameters that are significant in Tables 2
and 3. The lower curve is the anharmonic component.
}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pgx.ps,width=100mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Momentum distribution for potassium binoxalate along the axis shown.
The
momentum is in units of $\AA^-1$, n($\vec{p}$) is in arbitrary units. The errors
are calculated as in Eq.(15) for the parameters that are significant in Tables 2
and 3. The lower curve is the anharmonic component.
}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pgy.ps,width=100mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Momentum distribution for potassium binoxalate along the axis shown.
The
momentum is in units of $\AA^{-1}$, n($\vec{p}$) is in arbitrary units. The
errors are calculated as in Eq.(15) for the parameters that are significant in
Tables 2 and 3 }. The lower curve is the anharmonic contribution.
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pg2xz.ps,width=80mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Momentum distribution for potassium binoxalate along the axes shown.
The
momentum is in units of $\AA^{-1}$, n($\vec{p}$) is in arbitrary units. }
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pg2yz.ps,width=80mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Momentum distribution for potassium binoxalate along the axes shown.
The
momentum is in units of $\AA^{-1}$ }
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pg2xy.ps,width=80mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Momentum distribution for potassium binoxalate along the axes shown.
The
momentum is in units of $\AA^{-1}$. }
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pgcxy.ps,width=80mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Anharmonic contribution to the momentum distribution for potassium
binoxalate along the axes shown. The
momentum is in units of $\AA^{-1}$. }
\label{fig12}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{.2 \hsize}
\psfig{figure=pgcxz.ps,width=80mm,angle=-90}
\caption{Anharmonic contribution to the momentum distribution for potassium
binoxalate along the axes shown. The
momentum is in units of $\AA^{-1}$. }
\label{fig13}
\end{figure}
\newpage
The coefficients that were measured are given in the tables below.
\vskip .25in
{\bf Table 2.} The harmonic fitting coefficients and the variances in their
values as measured
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c|p{.6in}|p{.6in}||}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{||c||}{\bf Harmonic Coefficients}\\
\hline
i&$\sigma_i$&$\delta\sigma_i$\\
\hline
x&4.509&.0235\\
y&4.869&.0254\\
z&5.351&.0449\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\smallskip
\vspace{.5in}
{\bf Table 3.} The anharmonic fitting coefficients and their variances as
measured.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|p{.6in}|p{.6in}||}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{||c||}{\bf Anharmonic Coefficients}\\
\hline
n & l & m & $a^{\prime}_{n,l,m}$ & $\delta a^{\prime}_{n,l,m}$\\
\hline
2 & 0 & 0 & 0.0000 &0 .0000\\
1 & 2 & 0 & -0.1443&0.0377\\
1&2&2&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&4&0&0.0510 &0.0086 \\
0&4&2& -0.0564&0.0095 \\
0&4&4&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
3&0&0&-0.1356 &0.0098 \\
2&2&0&-0.0296 &0.0105 \\
2&2&2&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
1&4&0&-0.000 &0.0000 \\
1&4&2&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
1&4&4&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&6&0&-0.0184 &0.0065 \\
0&6&2&-0.0127 &0.0028 \\
0&6&4&-0.0388 &0.0129 \\
0&6&6&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
4&0&0&-0.0290 &0.0029 \\
3&2&0&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
3&2&2&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
2&4&0&-0.0016 &0.0013 \\
2&4&2&0.0069 &0.0013 \\
2&4&4&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
1&6&0&-0.0049 &0.0021 \\
1&6&2&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
1&6&4&-0.0098 &0.0036 \\
1&6&6&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&8&0&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&8&2&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&8&4&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&8&6&0.0000 &0.0000 \\
0&8&8&-0.0075 &0.0028 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\smallskip
\vskip .1in
Note that there are 14 anharmonic coefficients that are measureable, 13 of which
are at the $2\sigma$ level at least, and that the harmonic coefficients are
measured
to better than 1\%.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown how the method of analysis of DINS data suggested in \cite{rs}
can be extended to anisotropic momentum distributions, and have applied this
method to an analysis of the hydrogen bond in potassium binoxalate.
The results demonstrate that DINS, as it is
implemented now at ISIS, is capable of detailed, model independent,
measurement of the momentum distribution for hydrogen, and by inference, other
light atoms.
These measurements required about four days of beam time, and are the first
such measurements to be analyzed in this way. The count rates, resolution and
detetector efficiency can be, and are scheduled to be, significantly improved.
The data can be analyzed in less than a day. The DINS technique thus provides a
practical means of accessing precise information about the anharmonicity of
local potentials and can provide a check of any theoretical calculation of
these potentials at a level of accuracy and detail that has not been possible
previously.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Devinder Sivia for assistance in analyzing the data,
Steve Bennington and John Tomkinson for useful discussions, and Professors
R.G.Delaplane and H. Kuppers for providing the crystals.
|
\section{Introduction}
The $Q$ counting scheme introduced just over one year ago by Kaplan, Savage and
Wise (KSW) \cite{KSW} represents an important advance in the development of effective
field theory techniques for nuclear physics. The approach is systematic,
it builds in approximate chiral symmetry and chiral power counting, it solves
Weinberg's \cite{Weinberg} ``unnatural scattering length problem'', and,
in principle, it provides {\it a priori} estimates of errors for observables since one works to fixed order in $Q/\Lambda$.
This last feature is extremely important since in Weinberg's initial formulation \cite{Weinberg} it was unclear how to make such error estimates.
\footnote{Of course, the principal difference between $Q$ counting and the Weinberg scheme is that in
Weinberg's approach the potential is iterated to all orders whereas in $Q$ counting only the leading term is iterated to all orders; all other operators are treated perturbatively. If $Q$ counting is valid, a scheme like Weinberg's if it can be systemat
ically implemented will, at worst, add
uncontrolled higher order contributions which do not spoil the systematic error
estimates. Thus even if one is using Weinberg's approach, if one wants to make
simple error estimates one may resort to $Q$ counting for the error estimate, provided the system is in a regime where it is valid. This view of error
estimation in the Weinberg scheme is featured prominently in the discussions
at this workshop.} To a considerable
practical extent the major advantage to using EFT technology as opposed to
unsystematic models is the ability to specify the accuracy of one's
predictions.
Thus, in this talk, I will focus entirely on $Q$ counting and not on the
many beautifully accurate calculations based on Weinberg's approach implemented with a finite cutoff \cite{cutcalcs}.
The scheme introduced by KSW may be divided up into two parts. The first is
$Q$ counting and the second is a set of technical tricks to implement the $Q$
counting. These technical tricks are rather unusual; they are based on the
so-called PDS scheme for doing subtractions in dimensional regularization.
Apart from the very peculiar prescriptions required (subtracting the poles as $d=3$!) the formalism is not completely transparent in terms of the physics. Of course, provided the scheme is
consistent and we are in the regime for which $Q$ counting is valid, one should get the same results for any scheme which implements the $Q$ counting. Two
other approaches to $Q$ counting have been tried---the OS scheme with
dimensional regularization of Mehan and Stewart\cite{MS} and a cutoff scheme
in configuration space \cite{CH1}. All the schemes give the same results
at fixed order
in $Q$ counting. Thus, ultimately the physics turns on whether or not the $Q$ counting
is working.
The $Q$ counting scheme is straightforward:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q \, & \sim \, 1/a \nonumber \\
Q \, & \sim \, m_\pi \nonumber \\
Q \, & \sim \, p \label{Qcount}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ is the scattering length--either singlet or triplet, and p represents
external momenta. For partisans of the OS scheme, you can just as well use
$\gamma =\sqrt{M B}$ where $B$ is the magnitude of the binding energy, in place of $1/a$. All other scales are assumed to be heavy and will collectively be
denoted as $\Lambda$. The expansion implied by $Q$ counting is in $Q/\Lambda$.
Now the key point of $Q$ counting is that since $p$, $m_\pi$ and $1/a$ are
all of the same order, at any order in $Q$ counting we have $ 1/(p a)$ and
$p/m_\pi$ to all orders.
One important feature of $Q$ counting is that while one needs to iterate the
lowest order contact term to all orders to get a consistent result, all higher
order contributions, including those from the pion can be treated
perturbatively.
$Q$ counting has been used to calculate a number of observables \cite{KSW,MS,Qpred} and
generally seems to have real predictive power. At first sight this would appear
to rule out the possibility that $m_\pi \sim \Lambda$. However, most
``vanilla'' observables principally test the $1/(a \Lambda)$ part of the
theory. Clearly, it is important to identify observables which are principally
sensitive to the $m_\pi/\Lambda$ parts of the theory and to rigorously test
the chiral expansion. Recall that only the chiral part of the $Q$ counting
is really understood in terms of QCD. In $Q$ counting, the small value of
$1/a$ is treated as an essential fact of life that we cannot ignore.
>From the QCD level, however, this fact of life is seen
as essentially an accident. In contrast, the chiral physics is understood directly in terms of the small
quark masses in the QCD Lagrangian along with spontaneous symmetry breaking. The central theme of this talk is that the
effective range expansion---namely the expansion of $p \cot (\delta )$ as
a power series in
energy---is
a good place to test whether the chiral part of $Q$ counting is under control.
The effective
range expansion (ERE) is a good place to look at pionic effects for a number of reasons. The expansion
may be written:
\begin{equation}
p \cot (\delta ) \, = \, -\frac{1}{a} \, +\, \frac{1}{2} r_e \, p^2 \, +
\,v_2 p^4 \, + \, v_3 p^6 \, + \, v_4 p^8 + \, \ldots
\end{equation}
Simple $Q$ counting shows that the scattering length term is order $Q^1$
while all other terms in the ERE are at least order $Q^2$. When one includes
pions explicitly the same counting holds; all terms except the first are
${\cal O}(Q^2)$. It is important to note the distinction between the $Q$ expansion
and the momentum expansion in the ERE. They differ precisely because the $Q$
expansion has $k/m_\pi$ and $1/(k a)$ to all orders while in the
momentum expansion they are multiplied out. One immediately deduces that
$v_n \sim Q^{-2 n + 2}$. Moreover all of the $v_i$ coefficients in the expansion diverge
in the chiral limit of $m_\pi \rightarrow 0$. Hence they are pion dominated
quantities and should provide a test of the chiral part of $Q$ counting.
\section{Scales in Nuclear Physics}
Before coming to the effective range expansion in this approach, it is
useful to look a bit more closely at the various scales underlying $Q$ counting.
Formally, there are two light scales intrinsic to the problem, $1/a$ and
$m_\pi$. In $Q$ counting they are both formally of the same order namely
${\cal O}(Q)$. But emprically for both the triplet and singlet channel,
\begin{equation}
m_\pi \gg 1/a
\end{equation}
with $m_\pi a \approx 4$ for the triplet channel and $m_\pi a \approx 16$
for the singlet channel.
This raises the following logical possibility;
\begin{eqnarray}
m_\pi \, & \sim & \, \Lambda \nonumber\\
1/a \, & \ll & \, \Lambda
\label{cond}\end{eqnarray}
{\it i.e.}, that there is no scale separation between pionic scales
and the ``short
distance scales'' but there is a good scale separation between them and $1/a$.
Of course, an immediate prejudice is that the first relation
in eqs.~(\ref{cond})
must be wrong; chiral scales are intrinsically long compared to typical
hadronic scales. However, what is relevant here for $\Lambda$ is not hadronic
scales, but {\it nuclear} scales. The relationship of nuclear scales to QCD is quite
obscure, but it is certainly true that typical nuclear mass scales are much lower
than typical hadronic scales. If conditions in eqs.~(\ref{cond}) turn out
be true one would expect that the parts of the theory which depend on
$ 1/(a \Lambda)$ will work quite well, while the parts which depend on
$m_\pi/\Lambda$ will converge slowly or not at all.
Note, if it turns out that $ m_\pi \sim \Lambda $, there is nothing in
principle wrong with the $Q$ counting formalism and PDS. It would simply
not be useful for real world situations. Of course, one could play God
and consider a world in which the pion is much lighter than in nature
and then one would have real predictive power. In principle, if lattice
technology improves, one could calculate properties in such an artificial
world from first principles and could use the $Q$ counting technology
to make predictions for this world.
Before looking at explicit calculations, we should ask whether it is reasonable to suppose
that $m_\pi \sim \Lambda$. Ultimately, this question comes down to whether
$1/a$ and $m_\pi$ are the only light scales in nuclear physics. The answer
appears to be ``no''. Numerically:
$$\frac{1}{m_\pi} \approx 1.5 {\rm fm} \; \; a^s \approx -23 {\rm fm} \; \;
a^t \approx 6 {\rm fm} $$
where the superscript s (t) refers to the singlet (triplet) channel. Compare
these with the effective ranges:
$$r_e^s \approx 2.7 {\rm fm} \; \; r_e^t \approx 1.6 {\rm fm} $$
It is apparent that $m_\pi r_e \sim 1$; if $r_e \sim 1/\Lambda$ there is
a serious potential problem.
Of course, it is possible that the large numerical size of $r_e$ is itself a reflection of chiral physics. For example, if
$r_e \sim 1/m_\pi$ there would be no problem. One can use $Q$ counting
itself to answer the question of how $r_e$ behaves. At leading nonvanishing order it is given by \cite{MS,CH1}
\begin{equation}
r_e \, = \, {\cal O}(\Lambda) \, + \,
\frac{g_A^2 M}{4 \pi f_\pi^2 a^2 m_\pi^2} \, - \
\frac{g_A^2 M}{3 \pi f_\pi^2 a m_\pi} \, =\,{ \cal O}(Q^0)
\end{equation}
Note that although there {\it is} a chiral enhancement---the last two terms
diverge in the chiral limit---it is compensated for by factors of the scattering
length in the denominator. Thus, one expects in the context of $Q$ counting
the effective range to be a short distance scale. In practice, however, it is
larger than $1/m_\pi$. This suggests, but does not prove, that the chiral
scale is not well separated from ``short distance'' scales.
There is another way to see that ``short distance'' scales may be comparable
to the pion mass scale. Consider the typical scales in so-called realistic
N-N potential models, {\it i.e., those which fit the scattering data}.
If you look at the non--one-pion-exchange part of the potential it is,
in fact,
larger than the OPEP potential for a distance less than $\sim 1.5-2$ fm.
Since $1/m_\pi$ is comparable to, or shorter than, this distance
we again appear to have
evidence that non-chiral supposedly short distance scales are comparable to
$1/M_\pi$. One might argue that the central potential contains
two-pion-exchange physics (suitably reparameterized) in the potential model. However, if $Q$ counting is valid, that contribution is chirally suppressed.
This argument appears to be model dependent as it is based on ``typical'' potential models.
There is a model independent way to constrain the short
distance physics.\cite{scal} Consider {\it any} nonrelativistic potential,
including possible non-local potentials. Write the potential as the sum of an OPEP potential and some short distance potential with the constraint that the short distance potential vanishes beyond some distance $R$:
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) \, = \, V_{\rm OPEP}(\vec{r}) \, \delta(\vec{r} - \vec{r'})
+ V_{\rm short}(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \; \; \; {\rm with} \; \; \; V_{\rm short}(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) = 0 \;\; \; {\rm for } \; \; \; r, r' \, > \, R.
\end{eqnarray}
Now suppose that this potential is inserted to a Schr\"odinger equation
and used
to solve for singlet phase shifts. A remarkable theorem can then
be proved, namely that if the
short distance potential fits the scattering length and effective range there
is a minimum value for $R$. For real world values one can deduce the
$R > $1.1 fm \cite{scal}. Moreover the derivation of this bound shows that it
is unsaturatable so one expects $R$ to be significantly
more than than 1.1 fm. From this one deduces that substantial
contributions to the scattering
come from ``short distance'' contributions which come from separations of
greater than 1.1 fm. Recalling
that $1/m_\pi \approx$ 1.4 fm, we see immediately that there is no significant
scale separation between $m_\pi$ and the scales fixing the overall range of
the nonpionic part of the potential.
While the preceeding arguments do not decisively prove that $\Lambda \sim m_\pi$
they certainly show that it is not implausible.
\section{$Q$ Counting and Cutoffs}
Now the problem comes down to computing $p \cot (\delta )$. This can be done
in PDS as in ref.~1.
For the present purpose it is instructive to
consider the cutoff calculation and we take our discussion
from ref.~5.
The essential physical idea in this approach is to implement the separation
of long distance physics from short distance physics directly in configuration
space. A radius, $R$, is introduced as a matching point between long and short distance
effects; renormalization group invariance requires that physical quantities
must be independent of $R$. It is important, however, that $R$ be chosen
large enough so that essentially all of the effects of the short distance
physics is contained within $R$. The potential is divided into the sum of two pieces,
a short distance part which vanishes for $r>R$ and a long distance part which vanishes for
$r<R$.
At $R$, the information about short
distance effects is entirely contained in the energy dependence of the
logarithmic derivative (with respect to position) of the wave function at $R$.
Thus, provided we can parameterize this information systematically, we can formulate
the problem in a way which is insensitive to the details of the short distance
part of the potential. This insensitivity to the details of the short distance physics is at the core of why effective field theory works.
For $r>R$, the Schr\"odinger equation is solved subject to the boundary
conditions at $R$.
For s wave scattering, the wave function at $R$ may be parameterized as
$A \sin (k r + \delta_0)$; the energy dependence of the logarithmic derivative
is independent of $A$ and can be expressed in terms of an expansion similar to
an effective range expansion:
\begin{equation}
p \cot (\delta_0) \, = \, -1/a_{\rm short} \,
+ \, 1/2 \,r_e^0\,p^2 \, + \, v_2^0 \, p^4 +
\, v_3^0 \, p^6 + \,v_4^0 \, p^8 + \ldots \label{effrange0}
\end{equation}
Power counting in $Q$ for s wave scattering can be implemented straightforwardly.
All of the coefficients in the preceding expansion are assumed to be order $Q^0$
except the first term ($-1/a_{\rm short}$ ) which will be taken to be order $Q^1$
to reflect the unnaturally large scale of the scattering length. Power counting
for the long range part of the potential simply follows Weinberg's analysis
\cite{Weinberg}, with the proviso that the potentials are only used for $r >R$.
At order $Q^2$ in $p \cot (\delta )$, only the simple one-pion-exchange contribution
to the $V_{\rm long}$ contributes. The power counting also justifies an iterative
solution of the Schr\"odinger equation for $r>R$ along the lines of a conventional
Born series. It differs from the usual Born series in that the boundary conditions
at $R$ are implemented. Finally, $Q$ counting is used in expanding out the final
expression for $k \cot (\delta )$.
Carrying out this program gives the following expression for $k \cot (\delta )$
at order $Q^2$ for the ${}^1S_0$ channel
\begin{eqnarray}
p \cot (\delta ) & = &-\frac{1}{a_0} \, + \, m_\pi^2 \, \left[d + \,
\frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left (\gamma + \ln (m_\pi R) \right) \right ]
\, \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
& + &\, \frac{1}{2} \, r_e^0 \,p^2 - \, \, \frac{g_A^2 M}{64 \pi a_0^2 f_\pi^2} \,
\left( \frac{m_\pi^2}{p^2} \right )
\ln \left
(1 + \frac{4 p^2}{m_\pi^2} \right ) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
& + & \, \, \frac{g_A^2 m_\pi M}{16 \pi a_0 f_\pi^2} \,
\left( \frac{m_\pi}{p} \right )\,
\tan^{-1} \left ( \frac{2 p}{m_\pi} \right ) \,
+ \, \frac{g_A^2 m_\pi^2 M}{64 \pi f_\pi^2} \,
\ln \left (1 + \frac{4 p^2}{m_\pi^2} \right )
\label{kcotd1}\end{eqnarray}
The convention used here has $f_\pi$ = 93 MeV.
Apart from well-known parameters from pionic physics, there are three
parameters---$a_0$, $d$ and $r_e^0$, where
$1/a_{\rm short}$ from eq.~(\ref{effrange0}) is rewritten as
$1/a_0 + d m_{\pi}^2$
with $1/a_0 \sim Q$, and $d m_\pi^2 \sim Q^2$.
These parameters fix the energy dependence of the
wave function at the matching scale $R$; renormalization group invariance
requires $d$ to depend on R logarithmically.
This form is precisely equivalent to the calculation in PDS, provided that the
following identifications are made between the coefficients used above and
those used in PDS with the notation of ref.~1.
$$\frac{4 \pi}{M} \, \frac{1}{-\mu + 1/a_0} \, = \, C_0 $$
$$\frac{1}{2} \, r_e^0 \, = \, \frac{C_2 M}{4 \pi } \, \left ( \mu^2 \, - \,
\frac{2 \mu}{a_0} \, + \, \frac{1}{a_0^2} \right ) $$
\begin{eqnarray}
& m_\pi^2 &\, \left[d \, + \,
\frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left (\gamma + \ln (m_\pi R) \right) \right] \, = \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
\,
& \frac{g_A^2 \, M}{16 \pi \, f_\pi^2} &\, \left ( m_\pi^2 \, \ln
\left (\frac{m_\pi}{\mu} \right ) \, - \,
m_\pi^2 \, + \, \frac{1}{a_0^2} \, - \, 2 \frac{\mu}{a_0} \, + \mu^2 \right )
\nonumber \\ \nonumber\\
& + &\, \frac{D_2 M}{4 \pi} \left ( m_\pi^2 \mu^2 \, - \,
\frac{2 m_\pi^2 \mu}{a_0} \, + \, \frac{m_\pi^2}{a_0^2} \right)
\label{equiv}\end{eqnarray}
Formally, this is encouraging in the sense that it explicitly demonstrates the
scheme independence of physical quantities. At the same time, there is an
important hint of trouble which may lie ahead. In doing the derivation
the matching scale, $R$ was taken to scale as $Q^0$ and the quantity $m_\pi R$
as order $Q^1$. To obtain the final expression only the leading term in $m_\pi R$ is kept. If $R \sim 1/m_\pi$ this is clearly problematic, and from the
previous discussion about potentials, we see that $m_\pi R \sim 1$.
It should also be stressed that the quantity $p \cot (\delta )$ is an extremely
useful observable to work with in $Q$ counting. Unlike the amplitude itself,
there are no poles near $p=0$; thus the issues of reorganizing the expansion
as in OS \cite{MS} do not come up. Moreover, the expression is valid near $p=0$
(assuming that $Q$ counting holds) so it should be useful for ultra low energy
scattering.
\section{Low Energy Theorems}
One difficulty with eq.~(\ref{kcotd1}) is that it is given in terms of $a_0$
which is the scattering length for the short distance potential only; as such it is not an observable. However, one can express everything in terms of physical observables and in doing so develop ``low energy theorems'' \cite{CH2}. The trick is to rel
ate $a_0$ to the
physical scattering length as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
- \frac{1}{a} \, & = &\, - \frac{1}{a_0} + \, m_\pi^2 \, \left[ d \, + \,
\frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left ( \gamma + \ln (m_\pi R) \right) \right ]
\, + \, \frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left(
\frac{2 m_\pi}{a_0} \, - \, \frac{1}{a_0^2} \right ) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \, & = & \,
- \,\frac{1}{a_0} + {\cal O}(Q^2/\Lambda)
\label{scat}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore in all of the ${\cal O}(Q^2)$ terms in eq.~(\ref{kcotd1}) one can
replace $a_0$ by the physical $a$; the error in doing this is ${\cal O}(Q^3)$
which is one order beyond the order at which I am working.
One gets the following expression orginally derived in ref.~8.
\begin{eqnarray}
p \cot (\delta ) & = &-\frac{1}{a_0} \, + \, m_\pi^2 \, \left[d + \,
\frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left (\gamma + \ln (m_\pi R) \right) \right ]
\, \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
& + &\, \frac{1}{2} \, r_e^0 \,p^2 - \, \, \frac{g_A^2 M}{64 \pi a^2 f_\pi^2} \,
\left( \frac{m_\pi^2}{p^2} \right )
\ln \left
(1 + \frac{4 p^2}{m_\pi^2} \right ) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
& + & \, \, \frac{g_A^2 m_\pi M}{16 \pi a f_\pi^2} \,
\left( \frac{m_\pi}{p} \right )\,
\tan^{-1} \left ( \frac{2 p}{m_\pi} \right ) \,
+ \, \frac{g_A^2 m_\pi^2 M}{64 \pi f_\pi^2} \,
\ln \left (1 + \frac{4 p^2}{m_\pi^2} \right )
\label{kcotd2}\end{eqnarray}
One can expand this as a Taylor series in $p$ to obtain ERE coefficients.
They are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
v_2 \, & = & \, \frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left ( \, -\frac{16}{3 a^2
\,
m_\pi^4}\, + \, \frac{32}{5 a \,m_\pi^3} \, - \,\frac{2}{m_\pi^2} \right
)\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
v_3 \, & = & \, \frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left ( \, \frac{16}{ a^2 \,
m_\pi^6}\, - \, \frac{128}{7 a \, m_\pi^5} \, + \,\frac{16}{3 m_\pi^4} \right )
\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
v_4 \, & = & \, \frac{g_A^2 M}{16 \pi f_\pi^2} \, \left
( \, -\frac{256}{5 a^2 \,
m_\pi^8}\, + \, \frac{512}{9 a \,m_\pi^7} \, - \, \frac{16}{ m_\pi^6} \right )
\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
& \ldots &
\label{vi}
\end{eqnarray}
The preceding low energy theorems are valid to leading nontrivial order in $Q$ counting;
corrections are of {\it relative} order $Q/\Lambda$.
Several features of these expressions are notable. The first is that they are
true predictions, independent of choices made in fitting, to this order in $Q$
counting. As such they are low energy theorems. One consequence of this
is that different schemes ({\it eg.} fitting out the pole as in OS rather
than using
$1/a$) will only give corrections at relative order $Q/\Lambda$.
In this sense these predictions can be considered ``low energy theorems '' which
become exact in the limit $(m_\pi,1/a)/\Lambda \rightarrow 0$. The
second significant fact is that all terms for all the expressions for the $v_i$
coefficients diverge in the chiral limit of $m_\pi \rightarrow 0$. This implies that these
quantities are dominated by pionic effects and hence are a good place to test
whether the pionic parts of $Q$ counting are working.
If the pionic parts of $Q$ counting were under control one would expect
that these predictions would work well. In practice, however, they work quite poorly.
This can be seen in Table~(\ref{LET}) where the prediction from the low energy theorems are compared with coefficients extracted from the Nijmegen partial wave analysis (PWA). The prediction from the low energy theorems are typically off by a factor of
5 or so. This suggests that pionic
parts of the $Q$ counting are failing rather badly.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{A comparison of the predicted effective range expansion
coefficients, $v_i$, for the ${}^1S_0$
and ${}^3S_1$
channels with coefficients extracted
from the Nijmegen partial wave analysis.\label{LET}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c| c | c | c |}
\hline
& $v_2$ (${\rm fm}^{3})$ & $v_3$ (${\rm fm}^{5})$ & $v_4$ (${\rm
fm}^{7})$\\
\hline \hline
$\delta$ (${}^1S_0$ channel)& & & \\
\hline \hline & & &\\
low energy theorem & -3.3 & 17.8 & -108. \\ \hline & & & \\
partial wave analysis & -.48 & 3.8 & -17. \\
\hline \hline
$\delta$ (${}^3S_1$ channel)& & & \\
\hline \hline & & & \\
low energy theorem & -.95 & 4.6 & -25. \\ \hline & & & \\
partial wave analysis & .04 & .67 & -4.0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
One possible difficulty with the comparison of the $v_i$ coefficients from
the low energy theorems with the experimental data is that there is no
experimental data. The coefficients extracted from the Nijmegen PWA were
based on a fit to the smoothed ``best fit''. In principle one should do
this fit including an error analysis based on the uncertainties. This cannot
be done from the published data of the Nijmegen group as they did not publish information about correlated errors. Thus, one might wonder whether it is meaningful
to extract high derivatives which are presumably rather sensitive to errors.
A simple error estimate in ref.~4
concludes that the errors are
likely to be too large to get any quantitative information about the $v$
coefficients. From this one might
conclude the disagreement between the low energy theorems and the ``data''
in Table~(\ref{LET}) is due to an inability to extract the $v$ from the
scattering data in a reliable way. This is almost certainly not the case,
however.
The Nijmegen group made several independent fits
to the scattering data. One was the PWA. The others were various potential models which were fit
directly to the data ({\it i.e.} not to the PWA). These fits had a $\chi^2$
per degree of freedom of essentially unity. Thus they can be regarded as
independent fits to the data \cite{Nij2}. As the potential models have different forms
from each other, they clearly have different systematic errors. Moreover in doing
the least squares fit different models make different compromises in fitting
individual data points so that they tend to explore the statistical errors.
Thus, one might expect that the spread in the coefficients extracted in the
different fits gives a reasonable feel for the scale of the uncertainty.
Table~(\ref{pot}) shows the $v_i$ coefficients for these fits for the triplet channel \cite{Stoksa}, and it is manifestly
clear that the spread in the effective range parameters as extracted from the
three is vastly smaller than the difference with the predictions from the low energy theorems.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{A comparison of the effective range expansion
coefficients, $v_i$, for the ${}^3S_1$
and ${}^3S_1$
channel predicted from the low energy theorem with coefficients extracted
from the partial wave analysis and with three potential models---Nijmegen I, Nijmegen II and Reid 93---which were
fit directly to the scattering data. \label{pot}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c| c | c | c |}
\hline
$\delta$ (${}^3S_1$ channel)&$v_2$ (${\rm fm}^{3})$ & $v_3$ (${\rm fm}^{5})$ & $v_4$ (${\rm
fm}^{7})$\\ \hline \hline & & & \\
low energy theorem & -.95 & 4.6 & -25. \\ \hline & & & \\
partial wave analysis & .040 & .672 & -3.96\\
Nijm I & .046 & .675 & -3.97 \\
Nijm II & .045 & .673 & -3.95 \\
Reid93 & 0.033 & .671 & -3.90 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{ Re-summing the Effective Range Expansion}
The effective range expansion parameters discussed in the previous section
provide a dramatic way to see that the pionic parts of $Q$ counting may
have serious problems with convergence. However, there are a number of drawbacks
with looking at the $v_i$ coefficients. As noted above, there are ambiguities
in the extraction from the data and it is hard to get reliable error bars. Moreover, the effective range expansion itself
has a very limited radius of convergence. Because of the pion cut one expects
the effective range expansion to converge only for $p < m_\pi /2$.
Of course, all of the low energy theorems for the $v_i$ coefficients are
contained in eq.~(\ref{kcotd2}). We can study this directly without expanding
as a function of $k$. In effect, this amounts to re-summing the effective
range expansion and using $p \cot (\delta )$ as our fundamental quantity. There are two obvious advantages to doing this: First, one can
avoid the problem of extracting the $v_i$ coefficients from noisy data and instead we can compare directly with the partial wave analysis (which includes error estimates). Second, one is no longer restricted to $p < m_\pi /2$ since the
re-summed expression is valid over the entire domain of $Q$ counting. Unfortunately, $p \,cot (\delta )$ does not isolate the pionic contributions
from the rest,
and at low $p$ it is dominated by $1/a$ physics and the fitting procedure
which gives the effective range. There is a clean way to finesse this problem,
however. Rather than study $p \cot (\delta)$ directly, one can study the
following ``shape function''\cite{CH3}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}(p) \, = \, p \cot (\delta) - (-1/a + 1/2 r_e p^2)
\end{equation}
which is just the re-summed effective range expansion with the first two terms
subtracted off. This has the advantage of removing completely the sensitivity
to $1/a$ and the fitting of the effective range. The quantity is completely pion dominated since in a theory with pions
integrated out ${\cal S} (p)$ is ${\cal O}(Q^3)$, while in a theory with
explicit pions it is ${\cal O}(Q^2)$.
In Table ~(\ref{S}) we see the low energy
theorem prediction for ${\cal S} (p)$ compared with values extracted from the
Nijmegen partial wave analysis for the triplet channel. Note the disagreement
is quite pronounced. Moreover, note that error estimates are given for the
results extracted from the scattering data. It is manifestly clear that
the discrepancies are {\it not} due to uncertainties in the data. Again this suggests that the pionic parts of $Q$ counting are not predictive at leading nontrivial order---at least not for
this observable.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{A comparison of the shape function ${\cal S}(p^2) =
p \cot (\delta) + 1/a - 1/2 r_e p^2 $ for the ${}^3 S_1$ channel extracted
from the Nijmegen partial wave analysis with the prediction by the low energy theorem. \label{S}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c |c | c|}
\hline
lab energy (MeV) &${\cal S}$ extracted (Mev)
& ${\cal S}$ low energy theorem (Mev)\\
\hline \hline
Deuteron Pole & $-0.0017 \pm 0.0125$ & -0.743\\
1 & $-0.00095 \pm 0.00721$ & -0.0258 \\
5 & $0.0428 \pm 0.0194$ & -0.535 \\
10 & $0.245 \pm 0.047$ & -1.78 \\
25 & $ 2.18 \pm 0.14$ & -7.54 \\
50 & $ 11.03 \pm 0.24 $ & -20.10\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
The development of $Q$ counting is an extremely important step in our
understanding of effective field theory for nuclear physics. However,
as stressed in this talk $Q$ counting involves two small mass parameters, $1/a$
and $m_\pi$. While there is every indication that the part of the theory based
on expanding in $1/(a \Lambda)$ is working well, the chiral counting is far
more problematic. The expansion has no predictive power for the
effective range parameters and the shape function
at leading nontrivial order (NLO). As both of these quantities are
chirally sensitive this failure suggests that the chiral expansion
may not be well under control.
There are a number of possibilities. The most optimistic one is simply that
the NLO calculation is not adequate, and if one works at higher order all
will be well. The most pessimistic possibility is that that the chiral expansion is not
converging and that this failure is general. Clearly, the way to resolve the
situation is to work at higher order. It is important when doing so, however,
to focus on observables which are highly sensitive to the pion physics.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Most of the work discussed in this talk was done in collaboration
with James Hansen. The research was funded by the U.S. Department of
Energy under grant no. DE-FG02-93ER-40762.
\section*{References}
|
\section*{ABSTRACT}
The broad band 0.1-200 keV spectra of a sample of 5 Seyfert 2
galaxies (NGC 7172, Mkn 3, NGC 2110, NGC 4507 and NGC 7674)
have been measured within the first year of the $BeppoSAX$ Core program.
All sources have been detected up to $\sim$ 100 keV
and their spectral characteristics derived with good accuracy.
Although the results obtained from the detailed analysis of individual
sources indicate some ``source-by-source'' differences, we show
in the following that all spectra are consistent, at least qualitatively,
with what expected from a ``0$^{th}$-order'' version of unified models.
Indeed, a simple test on these data
indicates that these Seyfert 2 galaxies are on average intrinsically
very similar to Seyfert 1 galaxies (i.e., steep at E$\hbox{\raise0.5ex\hbox{$>\lower1.06ex\hbox{$\kern-1.07em{\sim}$}$}}$ 10 keV)
and that the main difference can be
ascribed to a different amount of absorbing matter along the line of
sight (i.e. different inclinations of our line of sight with respect to a
putative molecular torus or different thicknesses of the tori).
\section{\bf PREDICTIONS FROM UNIFIED MODELS}
The discovery of broad emission lines in the polarized optical
spectra of several Seyfert 2 galaxies (Antonucci \& Miller 1985,
Tran et al. 1992) has provided the basis for
a unified model of Seyfert galaxies in which the main discriminating
parameter between Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 nuclei is the inclination with respect to
our line of sight of a supposed obscuring torus surrounding the
central source (see Antonucci 1993 for a review).
In this scheme, Seyfert 1 galaxies are active nuclei observed nearly
perpendicularly to the torus plane (unabsorbed) whereas Seyfert 2 galaxies
represent those seen through the torus (absorbed) and, of course, the
main prediction is that Seyfert 2 galaxies are {\it intrinsically} similar
to Seyfert 1 galaxies, once the effects of the torus are properly accounted for.
It is now widely recognized that the {\it intrinsic} high energy spectrum of
Seyfert 1 galaxies consists, on average, of a steep power-law continuum
($\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.9--2.0, Nandra \& Pounds 1994) with an exponential cut-off
typically at energies larger than 150 keV (Zdziarski et al. 1996,
Perola et al. 1998). Therefore, one would expect that Seyfert 2 galaxies
exhibit similar high-energy properties.
X-ray observations (mainly below $\sim$ 20 keV)
of Seyfert 2 galaxies, have
shown a variety of spectral characteristics not always consistent with
a ``0$^{th}$-order'' version of unified models (Smith \& Done 1996, Cappi et al.
1996, Turner et al. 1998). However, at high energies where the effects of
absorption and matter reprocessing are less evident, measurements are sparse for
Seyfert 2 galaxies (but see Johnson et al. 1997). It has been therefore difficult
to assess the Seyfert 1 nature of the primary spectrum of Seyfert 2 galaxies
from these observations.
Based on these general considerations, we have undertaken a program of
observations with $BeppoSAX$, aimed at studying the X-ray spectral properties
of bright Seyfert 2 galaxies over a broad energy band (up to about 200 keV) and at
testing the validity of unified models.
As a matter of fact, $BeppoSAX$ can provide crucial information on the
intrinsic source properties because high energy photons from a few
to several keV can pass through the circumnuclear intervening material and can
therefore be compared to the ``typical'' spectrum of Seyfert 1 galaxies.
So far 5 objects have been observed within the first AO cycle, namely
NGC 7674 (Malaguti et al. 1998a), Mkn 3 (Cappi et al.1998), NGC 2110
(Malaguti et al. 1998b), NGC 7172 and NGC 4507 (see also Bassani et al. 1998).
\section{A SIMPLIFIED QUALITATIVE TEST}
A simple, qualitative, test has been performed on our sources by fitting
each source of the sample with the same model: a soft power-law component
plus a hard, absorbed, power-law component with reflection and associated
Fe K line as illustrated in Fig. 1. In the framework of unified models,
the soft power-law is attributed to scattered soft X-ray emission from
ionized material placed above the molecular torus, while
the hard X-ray and reflection components are interpreted as the direct
component absorbed by the torus and
its reflection from the inner side of the torus, respectively.
The intensity of the soft, scattered, component was assumed to be
$\sim$ 2\% that of the direct one. The intensity of the
reflection component was fixed to R = 1 (conrresponding to a 2$\pi$
coverage as viewed from the X-ray source), and the iron line
was assumed to be produced through both the reflection and absorption
with an equivalent width of $\sim$ 1 keV (with respect to the
reflected continuum) and $\sim$ 500 $\times$ $N_{\rm H}\over{1.23 \times 10^{24}}$ eV
(with respect to the direct, absorbed, component), as expected from theoretical
models (George \& Fabian 1991, Leahy \& Creighton 1993).
The only free parameters were the intensity and photon index
of the direct continuum and the absorption column along the line of sight.
The fit results and unfolded spectra obtained from this test are
given in Figure 2. The most interesting result is that all sources
are well described by a steep, Seyfert 1-like spectrum, with
$\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.79--1.95.
This is a newly discovered behaviour of Seyfert 2 galaxies for energies
up to $\sim$ 100 keV which supports unified models. It is stressed that
this result is largely independent on the presence of the steep soft component and
on the assumed intensity of the reflection component.
This is demonstrated by the fact that
the average Seyfert 2 spectrum obtained averaging all the PDS 20-200 keV data
(except NGC 7674) can be well fitted ($\chi^2$ $\sim$ 1.2) by
a single power-law model with $\Gamma_{20--200 keV}$ = 1.85 $\pm$ 0.05
and shows no deviation from the power-law up to $\sim$ 150 keV.
The observed major differences in the quality of fits ($\chi^{2}_{red}$ ranging
from 0.9--1.8) are to be ascribed to two main factors. The first is source
by source differences in the Fe K complex which indicates the need
of a more dedicated analysis. The second depends upon the different
amount of absorbing matter along the line of sight.
The less absorbed source is NGC 2110 which also shows less indication
for a reflection component and the most absorbed one is NGC 7674, where only
the reflection component is observed possibly because the direct component
is completely blocked by a Compton thick molecular torus
(with $N_{\rm H} \hbox{\raise0.5ex\hbox{$>\lower1.06ex\hbox{$\kern-1.07em{\sim}$}$}} 10^{25}$ cm$^{-2}$, Malaguti et al. 1998a).
Intermediate cases are NGC 7172, NGC 4507 and Mkn 3; in the latter,
both the direct and reflected components are clearly resolved spectroscopically.
Moreover although a detailed measurement in individual sources of the
high-energy cutoff is difficult, it appears clear in the data (see Figure 2)
that there is no evidence of such a cutoff for energies up to at least
$\sim$ 100--150 keV.
{\bf REFERENCES}
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemindent}{-8mm}
\setlength{\itemsep}{-1mm}
\item []
Antonucci, R.R.J., 1993, $ARA\&A$, {\bf 31}, 473
\item []
Antonucci, R.R.J. \& Miller, J.S., 1985, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 297}, 621
\item []
Bassani, L., et al. 1998, to appear in proceedings of ``Dal nano- al tera
-eV: tutti i colori degli AGN'', third Italian conference on AGNs, Roma,
{\it Memorie S.A.It}, astro-ph/9809327
\item []
Cappi M., Mihara, T., Matsuoka, et al., 1996, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 456}, 141
\item []
Cappi, M., et al. 1998, $A\&A$, in press, astro-ph/9902022
\item []
George, I.M. \& Fabian, A.C., 1991, {\it MNRAS}, {\bf 249}, 352
\item []
Johnson, W.N., Zdziarski, A.A., Madejski, G.M., Paciesas, W.S., Steinle, H., \& Lin Y-C,
1997, in proceedings of the Fourth Compton Symposium, Ed. D. Dermere, M.S. Stcikman and
J.D. Kurfess, {\it AIP}, 283
\item []
Leahy D.A. and Creighton J., 1993, {\it MNRAS}, {\bf 263}, 314
\item []
Malaguti, G., et al. 1998a, $A\&A$, {\bf 331}, 519
\item []
Malaguti G. et al. 1998b, $A\&A$, in press, astro-ph/9901141
\item []
Nandra, K. \& Pounds, K.A., 1994, {\it MNRAS}, {\bf 268}, 405
\item []
Perola, C., et al. 1998, to appear in proceedings of ``Dal nano- al tera
-eV: tutti i colori degli AGN'', third Italian conference on AGNs, Roma, {\it Memorie S.A.It}
\item []
Smith, D.A., \& Done, C., 1996, {\it MNRAS}, {\bf 280}, 355
\item []
Tran, H.D., Miller, J.S. \& Kay, L.E., 1992, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 397}, 452
\item []
Turner, T.J., George, I.M., Nandra, K., \& Mushotzky, R.F., 1998, {\it ApJ}, {\bf 493}, 91
\item []
Zdziarski, A.A., Johnson, W.N., Poutanen, J., Magdziarz, P., \& Gierlinski, M.,
1996, in ``The Transparent Universe'', proceedings of the 2nd INTEGRAL Workshop,
Ed. C. Winkler, T.J.-L. Courvoiser and P. Durouchoux, ESA SP-382, 373
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\psfig{file=./cappi_fig1.ps,width=16cm,height=8cm,angle=-90}
\caption{Simple, qualitative, test model used to fit all the sources of the
sample in the framework of unified models.}
\end{figure}
\par\noindent
\vfill\eject
\normalsize
\begin{figure}[htb]
\hspace{1.5truecm}
\parbox{5truecm}
{{\bf NGC 2110}:
\par\noindent
$N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 5 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$
\par\noindent
$\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.97 \hspace{2.5truecm}{$\Longleftrightarrow$}
\par\noindent
$\chi^{2}_{red}$ $\sim$ 1.16
\par\noindent
Malaguti et al. 1998, submitted to A\&A}
\ \hspace{0truecm} \
\parbox{8truecm}
{\psfig{file=./cappi_fig2.ps,width=8cm,height=4cm,angle=-90}}
\par\noindent
\hspace{1.5truecm}
\parbox{5truecm}
{{\bf NGC 7172}:
\par\noindent
$N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$
\par\noindent
$\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.83 \hspace{2.5truecm}{$\Longleftrightarrow$}
\par\noindent
$\chi^{2}_{red}$ $\sim$ 1.4
\par\noindent
Dadina et al., in prep}
\ \hspace{0truecm} \
\parbox{8truecm}
{\psfig{file=./cappi_fig3.ps,width=8cm,height=4cm,angle=-90}}
\par\noindent
\hspace{1.5truecm}
\parbox{5truecm}
{{\bf NGC4507}:
\par\noindent
$N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 5 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$
\par\noindent
$\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.83 \hspace{2.5truecm}{$\Longleftrightarrow$}
\par\noindent
$\chi^{2}_{red}$ $\sim$ 1.8
\par\noindent
Bassani et al., in prep}
\ \hspace{0truecm} \
\parbox{8truecm}
{\psfig{file=./cappi_fig4.ps,width=8cm,height=4cm,angle=-90}}
\par\noindent
\hspace{1.5truecm}
\parbox{5truecm}
{{\bf Mkn 3}:
\par\noindent
$N_{\rm H}$ $\sim$ 1.3 $\times$ 10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$
\par\noindent
$\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.79 \hspace{2.5truecm}{$\Longleftrightarrow$}
\par\noindent
$\chi^{2}_{red}$ $\sim$ 0.9
\par\noindent
Cappi et al., submitted to A\&A}
\ \hspace{0truecm} \
\parbox{8truecm}
{\psfig{file=./cappi_fig5.ps,width=8cm,height=4cm,angle=-90}}
\par\noindent
\hspace{1.5truecm}
\parbox{5truecm}
{{\bf NGC 7674}:
\par\noindent
$N_{\rm H}$ $\hbox{\raise0.5ex\hbox{$>\lower1.06ex\hbox{$\kern-1.07em{\sim}$}$}}$ 10$^{25}$ cm$^{-2}$
\par\noindent
$\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.95 \hspace{2.5truecm}{$\Longleftrightarrow$}
\par\noindent
$\chi^{2}_{red}$ $\sim$ 0.9
\par\noindent
Malaguti et al. 1998a}
\ \hspace{0truecm} \
\parbox{8truecm}
{\psfig{file=./cappi_fig6.ps,width=8cm,height=4cm,angle=-90}}
\caption{Fit results and broad-band unfolded spectra obtained from the qualitative test.
See text for a description of the model fitted. $N_{\rm H}$ increases going from the
top (NGC 2110) to the bottom (NGC 7674).}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Optimization methods have found widespread application in
computational physics. Among these the investigation of the
low-temperature behavior of spin glasses \cite{binder86}
attracted most of the attention within the statistical physics community.
The reason is that despite its simple definition (see below) its
behavior is far from being understood. From the computational point of
view the calculation of spin-glass ground states is very demanding,
because it belongs to the class of the NP-hard problems
\cite{barahona82}. This means that only algorithms are available,
for which the running time on a computer increases
exponentially with the system size. In this work a method recently
proposed, the {\em cluster-exact approximation} (CEA) \cite{alex2} is
applied to four-dimensional Ising spin glasses.
The model under investigation here consists of $N$ spins
$\sigma_i = \pm 1$, described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H \equiv - \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j
\end{equation}
where $\langle \ldots \rangle $ denotes a sum over pair of nearest neighbors.
In this report simple 4d lattices are considered, i.e.
$N=L^4$. The nearest neighbor interactions (bonds) take
independently $J_{ij} = \pm 1$ with equal probability.
Periodic boundary conditions are applied to the systems. No kind of
external magnetic field is present here.
Four-dimensional Ising spin glasses have been investigated rather
rarely. Most of the results were obtained via Monte-Carlo (MC)
simulations at finite temperature, see e.g.
\cite{bhatt85u88,reger90,badoni93,parisi96,bernardi97,marinari98,hukushima99}.
Here the $T=0$ behavior is investigated, i.e. ground states are
calculated. This has the advantage, that one does not
encounter ergodicity problems or critical
slowing down like in algorithms which base on MC methods. Only
one attempt \cite{wanschura96} to address the 4d
spin-glass ground-state problem is known to the author.
But, as we will see later, the former results
suffer from the problem, that not the true global minima of the
energy were obtained. Furthermore, no analytic predictions of
the ground-state energy have been noted by the author.
The question whether finite-dimensional Ising spin glasses
show an ordered phase below
a non-zero transition temperature $T_c$ is of crucial interest. By MC
simulations around the (expected) transition temperature this question
is hard to solve.
Another way to address this question is to calculate the {\em stiffness} or
{\em domain wall energy} $\Delta=E^a-E^p$ which is the difference
between the ground-state energies $E^a, E^p$
for antiperiodic and periodic boundary conditions
in one direction\cite{bray84,mcmillan84}. Here the antiperiodic
boundary conditions for calculating $E^a$ are realized by inverting one
plane of bonds. For the other
directions periodic boundary conditions are applied always. This treatment
introduces a domain wall into the system. If a model exhibits an
ordered low-temperature phase, the domain wall increases with growing system
size, which becomes visible through the behavior of $\Delta$:
the disorder-averaged stiffness energy shows a finite size dependence
\begin{equation}
\langle |\Delta| \rangle \sim L^{\Theta_S}
\end{equation}
A positive value of the stiffness exponent $\Theta_S$ indicates the
existence of an ordered phase for non-zero temperature. For example
a simple $d=2$ Ising ferromagnet has $\Theta_S=1$. For spin glasses, the
stiffness exponent plays additionally
an important role within the droplet-scaling
theory \cite{mcmillan,bray,fisher86,fisher88,bovier},
where it describes the finite-size behavior of the basic excitations (the
droplets).
Using this kind of analysis is was proven that the 2d spin glass
exhibits no ordering for $T>0$ \cite{kawashima97}. For the
three-dimensional problem in a recent calculation \cite{alex-stiff}
by applying genetic CEA a value of $\Theta_S=0.19(2)$ was found,
which shows, that indeed the $d=3$ model
has a spin-glass phase for nonzero temperature. For $d=4$ the
existence of a finite $T_c\approx 2.1$
was proven rather early even by MC simulations
\cite{bhatt85u88,reger90}, but the value for the
stiffness-exponent $\Theta_S$ is of interest on its own. In \cite{hukushima99}
recently a value of $\Theta_S=0.82(6)$ was found by performing a MC
simulation near $T_c$. In the work presented here the value is obtained via
ground-state calculations.
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section the algorithm
applied here is briefly presented. The main section contains the results
for the ground-state energy and the stiffness exponent.
Finally a summary is given.
\section{Algorithm}
The technique for the calculation bases on a special genetic
algorithm \cite{pal96,michal92} and on cluster-exact approximation
\cite{alex2} which is an optimization method designed especially
for spin glasses. Now a brief description of the method is given.
Genetic algorithms are biologically motivated. An optimal
solution is found by treating many instances of the problem in
parallel, keeping only better instances and replacing bad ones by new
ones (survival of the fittest).
The genetic algorithm starts with an initial population of $M_i$
randomly initialized spin configurations (= {\em individuals}),
which are linearly arranged in
a ring. Then $\nu \times M_i$ times two neighbors from the population
are taken (called {\em parents}) and two offspring are created
using the so called triadic crossover \cite{pal95}.
Then a mutation with a rate of $p_m$
is applied to each offspring, i.e. a fraction $p_m$ of the
spins is reversed.
Next for both offspring the energy is reduced by applying
CEA. The algorithm bases on the concept of {\em frustration}
\cite{toulouse77}.
The method constructs iteratively and randomly
a non-frustrated cluster of spins, whereas
spins with many unsatisfied bonds are more likely to be added to the
cluster.
The non-cluster spins act like local magnetic fields on the cluster spins.
For the spins of the cluster an energetic minimum state can be
calculated in polynomial time
by using graph-theoretical methods
\cite{claibo,knoedel,swamy}: an equivalent network is constructed
\cite{picard1}, the maximum flow is calculated
\cite{traeff,tarjan} and the spins of the
cluster are set to the orientations leading to a minimum in energy.
This minimization step
is performed $n_{\min}$ times for each offspring.
Afterwards each offspring is compared with one of its parents. The
pairs are chosen in the way that the sum of the phenotypic differences
between them is minimal. The phenotypic difference is defined here as the
number of spin where the two configurations differ. Each
parent is replaced if its energy is not lower (i.e. better) than the
corresponding offspring.
After this creation of offspring is performed
$\nu \times M_i$ times the population
is halved: From each pair of neighbors the configuration
which has the higher energy is eliminated. If not more than 4
individuals remain the process is stopped and the best individual
is taken as result of the calculation.
The whole algorithm is performed $n_R$ times and all configurations
which exhibit the lowest energy are stored, resulting in $n_g$ statistical
independent ground state configurations. The method was already applied for
the investigation of the ground-state landscape of 3d Ising spin
glasses \cite{alex-3d}.
\section{Results}
In this section at first the values for the
simulation parameters, which are defined above, are presented. Then the
finite-size behavior of the ground-state energy is
investigated. Finally results for the stiffness energy are discussed.
The simulation parameters were determined in the following way:
For the system sizes $L=2,4,6,7$ several different combinations
of the
parameters $M_i, \nu, n_{min}, p_m$ were tested.
For the final parameter sets it is not possible to obtain lower
energies even by using parameters where the calculation consumes
four times the computational effort. For $L=3,5$ the parameter sets
for $L+1$ were used.
Using parameter sets chosen this way genetic CEA calculates true
ground states, as shown in \cite{alex-stiff}.
It should be pointed out that it is relatively easy
to obtain states, which exhibit an energy slightly above the true
ground state energy. The hard task is to obtain really the global
minimum of the energy.
Here $p_m=0.1$ and $n_R=5$ were used for all system sizes.
Table \ref{tab_parameters} summarizes the parameters. Also the
typical computer time $\tau$ per ground state
computation on a 80 MHz PPC601 is given.
Ground states were calculated for system sizes up to $7\times 7\times
7 \times 7$ for $N_L$
independent realizations (see table \ref{tab_parameters})
of the random variables. For each realization
the ground states with periodic and antiperiodic boundary condition
in one direction
were calculated. The remaining three directions are always subjected to
periodic boundary conditions. One can extract from the table that for
small system sizes $L\le 4$ ground states are rather easily to obtain,
while the $L=7$ systems alone required 6560 CPU-days.
Using these parameters on average $n_g>2.7$
ground states were obtained for every system size $L$ using $n_R=5$ runs per
realization.
The average ground-state energy $e_0$ per spin is shown in
Fig.\ref{figEnergy} as a function of the system size $L$. Using a fit
to $e_0(L)=e_0^{\infty} + a*L^{-b}$ the value for the
infinite system is extrapolated, resulting in $e_0^{\infty} = -2.095(1)$
($a=7.1(7),b=-4.2(1)$).
This value is compatible with the lower bound of
$e_0=\sqrt{2d\ln 2}\approx 2.35$ given by the random energy model
\cite{derrida81}. The value calculated here is substantially smaller than
the result $e_0^{\infty} =
-2.054(3)$, which was obtained in \cite{wanschura96} using a pure
genetic algorithm. This shows that in \cite{wanschura96} not the true global
minima were found, which can be concluded also from the fact, that
there $e_0(L)$ increases with growing system size. Because the
periodic boundary conditions impose additional constraints on the
systems, the opposite behavior is expected, as found for the results
presented here. For further comparison additionally some
calculations were performed by the author by
simply rapidly quenching from random chosen spin
configurations. By executing an analogous fit, a value of
$e_0^{\infty} = -2.04(2)$ is obtained. This shows, that the result from
\cite{wanschura96} seems to be only slightly better than the data obtained
by applying a very simple minimization method.
The distribution of the stiffness energy, which is obtained
from performing ground-state
calculations for systems with either periodic or antiperiodic boundary
conditions in one direction, are shown in Fig. \ref{figPStiff} for
$L=5$ and $L=7$. With increasing system size the distribution
broadens. This means that larger domain walls become
more and more likely. To study this effect more quantitatively,
in Fig. \ref{figStiffness} the disorder-averaged absolute value
$\langle |\Delta| \rangle$ of the stiffness
energy is plotted as a function of the system size $L$.
Also shown is a fit $\langle|\Delta(L)|\rangle \sim L^{\Theta_S}$
which results in
$\Theta_S=0.64(5)$. Here, the system sizes $L=2,3$ were left out of the
analysis, since they are below the scaling regime.
Because of the large sample sizes the error bars are small
enough, so we can be pretty sure that $\Theta_S>0$. It confirms
earlier results from MC simulations \cite{bhatt85u88,reger90} that the 4d
EA spin glass exhibits a non-zero transition temperature $T_c$. The
value $\Theta_S=0.64(5)$ is comparable to a recent result from MC simulations
$\Theta_S=0.82(6)$ \cite{hukushima99},
given the facts that the system sizes are rather
small and the other result was obtained at finite temperature near the
transition point $T_c\approx 2.1$. Additionally, the prediction from
droplet-scaling theory $\Theta_S < (d-1)/2 = 1.5$ \cite{fisher88} is
fulfilled.
It should be pointed out, that the method described above does not
guaranty to find exact ground states, although the method for choosing
the parameters makes it very likely. If states with a slightly higher
energy are obtained, the result for $e_0^{\infty}$ is not affected
very much. For the stiffness energy, it was shown in \cite{alex-stiff}
that the result is very reliable as well, as long as the energies of the
states are not too far away from the true ground-state energies.
\section{Conclusion}
Results have been presented from calculations of
a large number of ground states of 4d Ising spin glasses. They were
obtained
using a combination of cluster-exact approximation
and a genetic algorithm. Using a huge computational effort it was
ensured that true ground states have been obtained with a high probability.
The finite size behavior of the ground-state
energy and the
stiffness energy have been investigated. By performing a $L\to\infty$
extrapolation, the ground-state energy per spin for the infinite system
is estimated to be $e_0^{\infty}=-2.095(1)$. The absolute value of the
stiffness energy increases with system size and shows a
$\langle |\Delta(L)|\rangle\sim L^{\Theta_S}$
behavior with $\Theta_S=0.64(5)$. For
systems with a Gaussian distribution of the bonds qualitatively similar
results are expected, since the ordering behavior depends only on the
sign of the interactions and not on their magnitudes.
A more detailed study of the ground-state landscape of 4d systems,
similar to \cite{alex-3d}, requires more than $n_G\approx 3$ ground
states per realization to be calculated. Since this requires a
substantial higher computational effort, it remains to be done for
the future.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The author thanks A.P. Young for interesting discussions, critical
reading of the manuscript and for the
allocation of computer time on his workstation cluster at the
University of California in Santa Cruz.
This work was suggested by him during the ``Monbusho Meeting'' held
at the {\em Fondation Royaumont} near Paris.
The author was supported by the Graduiertenkolleg
``Modellierung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen in
Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften'' at the
{\em In\-ter\-diszi\-pli\-n\"a\-res Zentrum f\"ur Wissenschaftliches
Rechnen} in Heidelberg and the
{\em Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing}
by the allocation of computer time. Financial support was provided
by the DFG ({\em Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft}) and
the organizers of the ``Monbusho Meeting''.
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to Manuel Drees and Peter Zerwas for valuable comments and
helpful discussions.
This work was supported in part by the Korea Science and Engineering
Foundation (KOSEF) through the KOSEF--DFG large collaboration project,
Project No.~96--0702--01-01-2, and in part by the Center for
Theoretical Physics. MG acknowledges Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung
foundation for financial help and also KOSEF for funding during his stay
in Yonsei University, Seoul, where this work was initiated.
|
\section{Introduction}
In order to test models for structure formation in the Universe it
is necessary to pinpoint galaxies within the modelled large-scale distribution
of matter. As this distribution evolves in a non-linear fashion, the use
of N-body methods is usually required.
Galaxies should form, under the influence of gravity, within an N-body
simulation in a self-consistent way. However, such simulations suffer from
a numerical problem: small groups of particles that represent galaxies
get disrupted by numerical two-body effects within clusters (Carlberg 1994;
van Kampen 1995). This can be solved by replacing each group of particles by a
single `galaxy particle' just after they have formed into a virialised system
that resembles a galactic halo, thus ensuring their survival.
This should also produce galaxies at the right time and the right
place, with a spectrum of masses. In van Kampen (1995) such galaxy particles
were only formed at a single epoch. Here we extend this scheme to `continuous'
galaxy formation by applying the algorithm several times during the evolution.
This means that merging of already-formed galaxies is taken into account
as well, although only in a schematic fashion.
An important advantage of having a galaxy formation algorithm added to the
N-body integrator is that the time normalisation is now intrinsically fixed,
since one can {\it directly} compare the properties of the distribution of
simulated galaxies to those of the observed galaxy distribution.
\section{Galaxy formation recipe}
\subsection{Outline}
For the identification of galaxies during the evolution of the large-scale
matter distribution we use the {\it local density percolation} algorithm
(see also van Kampen 1995). Instead of a fixed linking
length, we modulate the linking length according to the {\it local density}\
around each particle in such a way that the linking length is shorter in
high-density environments. This partly resolves the cloud-in-cloud problem.
We form (and merge) galaxies several times during the evolution,
so we have to consider percolation of {\it unequal}\ mass particles.
In the following ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf v}$ are {\it comoving} variables.
\subsection{Local density percolation for unequal mass particles}
In the local density percolation scheme particles are linked together if they
are separated by a certain fixed fraction $p$ of the Poissonian average nearest
neighbour distance $x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn}\equiv [4\pi\langle n\rangle /3]^{-1/3}$,
where $\langle n\rangle$ is the mean number density of particles,
modulated by the local number density $n^{\rm G}({\bf x},s)$, which is
$n({\bf x})$ Gaussian smoothed at the scale $s\ x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn}$.
Thus, $p$ and $s$ are the (dimensionless) free parameters of the algorithm.
All models in this paper have $\langle n \rangle=8.0\ h_0^3$Mpc$^{-3}$,
so $x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn}=0.31 h_0^{-1}$Mpc. For unequal mass particles we need
an extra modulation according to their masses. Initially, all particles have
mass $m_0$. As galaxies form, particles arise with masses $m_i$ that are
integer multiples of $m_0$. Galaxy particles with mass $m_i$ that are put
$\sqrt{m_i/m_0}$ times further away will exert the same gravitational
force as dark particles with mass $m_0$. So we should take the factor
$\sqrt{m_i/m_0}$ as the second modulation factor.
This gives a local percolation length
$$ R_{\rm p}({\bf x}_i,p,s) = p\ x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn} \sqrt{m_i\over m_0}
\Bigl[{n^{\rm G}({\bf x}_i,s)\over\langle n\rangle}\Bigr]^{-{1/3}}\
.\eqno(1)$$
Since each particle has its own linking length, we use their mean to test
pairs of particles. Furthermore, to prevent excessive percolation lengths,
we adopt an absolute maximum of $x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn}/2$ for the pair linking
lengths (after taking the mean of the individual ones), i.e.\ a lower limit
for the local particle density which is equal to eight times the background
particle density.
In addition, we require pairs to have a relative pairwise velocity
$$ v_{||} \equiv({\bf v}_j - {\bf v}_i)\cdot({\bf x}_j - {\bf x}_i)
/ |{\bf x}_j - {\bf x}_i| \eqno(2) $$
of less then 800 km s$^{-1}$.
This is twice the relative pairwise velocity dispersion
at separations around $x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn}$ for the field, and somewhat smaller
than found for a sample including the Coma cluster (Mo, Jing \& B\"orner 1993).
It is also twice the maximum internal velocity dispersion we allow for a group.
We include this velocity linking length to exclude fast-moving particles which
are geometrically linked to a group. This often occurs within the potential
wells of galaxy clusters. One should see this criterion as the velocity
equivalent of a (constant) spatial linking length, so that we actually
find groups in phase-space.
However, the velocity linking length is less restrictive than
the spatial linking length since it serves a different purpose, as said.
\subsection{Virial equilibrium criterion for unequal mass particles}
A group of particles should only be transformed into a single, soft
galaxy particle if it forms a physical system roughly in virial equilibrium.
This `virial criterion' is a necessary addition to the local density
percolation algorithm for the purpose of defining galaxies. We will
use a virial equilibrium criterion in a simplified form using the half-mass
radius $R_{\rm h}$, motivated by Spitzer (1969) who found that for many
equilibrium systems the virial equilibrium equation can be written as
(where $v$ is now the proper velocity)
$$\sigma_v\equiv\langle v^2 \rangle \approx 0.4 {GM\over R_{\rm h}}\ .
\eqno(3)$$
If galaxies are identified only once, one has to deal with equal mass
particles, and $R_{\rm h}$ can simply be calculated by obtaining the
median of the distances of all particles with respect to the centre of
the group being tested. For groups where the masses of the member particles
can differ a few orders of magnitude, the half-mass radius will often
exactly coincide with a galaxy particle.
This makes the median (i.e.\ the half-mass radius) a rather noisy estimater
for the total gravitational energy of a group of unequal mass particles.
Because for many probability distributions the mean and the median are almost
identical, we use the mass-weighted mean distance from the centre of the group
as an estimator for $R_{\rm h}$. This is a more smoothly-defined and
well-behaved quantity than the median distance. The new galaxy particle has
a softening parameter corresponding to the $R_{\rm m}$ of the original
group, which certifies a reasonable conservation of energy
(see van Kampen 1995).
Discreteness noise will cause some scatter in the group quantities, so we
should allow for some tolerance in the difference between the estimated virial
mass and the true mass of the group. The allowed tolerance determines
the `reach' the criterion has in time: larger permitted deviations from virial
equilibrium result in the acceptance of groups that are still collapsing.
We accept groups as real when the virial mass is within 25 per cent of the
true mass.
\subsection{Choice of the galaxy formation parameters}
For the (dimensionless) local density percolation parameters we choose
$p=1$ and $s={\scriptstyle 1 \over 2}$. The maximum percolation length is
$x^{\rm P}_{\rm nn}/2$, which is $0.16 h_0^{-1}$Mpc for our simulations.
We set the upper mass limit for galaxy particles to be
$1.4\times10^{13}$ M$_\odot$. This ensures that possible cD galaxies are
{\it not}\ modelled by single galaxy particles, since that would produce
undesirable numerical problems, and galaxies that massive are not
(numerically) disrupted anyway. We add an extra limit on the internal
galaxy velocity dispersion of $\sigma_v < 400$ km s$^{-1}$,
the maximum value found for typical ellipticals (de Zeeuw \& Franx 1991)
and comfortably within the velocity dispersion of haloes around spirals
given their typical circular velocities of 200-300 km s$^{-1}$.
Finally, we need to adopt a lower limit of seven particles in a group
because of discreteness noise that causes an artificially
large scatter in the virial mass estimate.
\section{Description and timing of the simulations}
We have run eight simulations of average patches of universe, and
99 cluster models. This latter set forms a catalogue of galaxy clusters,
and is discussed extensively in van Kampen \& Katgert (1997).
The actual N-body code we use is the Barnes \& Hut (1986) treecode,
slightly adapted for our purposes and supplemented with the galaxy
formation algorithm.
We ran the models up to $\sigma_8=1$, which is sufficiently beyond the
time that is expected to be the present epoch for the $\Omega_0=1$ CDM
scenario adopted: $\sigma_8$ was found to be significantly smaller than
unity in most earlier work (e.g.\ Davis et al.\ 1985; Frenk et al.\ 1990;
Bertschinger \& Gelb 1991).
From a comparison of the galaxy-galaxy autocorrelation function obtained
for the field models to that observed, we find $\sigma_8$ to be in
the range 0.46 to 0.56 (van Kampen 1997), while a similar comparison
of the statistical properties of clusters gives roughly the same range
(van Kampen \& Katgert 1997).
\section{Galaxy properties}
\subsection{Galaxy formation and merging rates}
As a first check how our modelling of the formation and merging of galaxies
compares to other techniques, notably hydrodynamical simulations, we look at
the galaxy formation and merger number density rates as a function of time.
These are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig-1} for $\sigma_8=0.46$, where $t_0$
is the present epoch. The formation rate peaks at $z\approx 1.3$, whereas
the merger rate does not show a clear peak. The merging of small objects
into galaxies with masses that are included in the formation rate is not
included in the merger rate.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=frates.ps,width=10.0cm,silent=}
\caption{Galaxy formation and merger rates for our models (symbols) and
the simulations of Summers (1993, histograms), rescaled to our units and galaxy
masses (see text). Filled symbols and solid lines represent galaxy formation,
open symbols and dotted lines merging.} \label{fig-1}
\end{figure}
The shapes and amplitudes of both rates compare remarkably well with those
found from hydrodynamical simulations performed by Summers (1993), also
shown in Figure~\ref{fig-1}, if we triple his time-scale. This can be
justified quantitatively as follows: Summers (ibid.) has a higher mass
resolution and forms galaxies down to a lower mass cut-off.
The smallest galaxy masses in his simulations are roughly
a hundred times smaller than our lowest mass galaxies.
The CDM spectrum on galactic scales is a power-law with index -2. We can
then use the scaling law $t_{\rm form}\sim M^{1/4}$ which applies for such a
spectrum to find that this mass difference
gives a factor of three difference in the formation time.
Summers (ibid.) used a full-fledged hydro code (and identified galaxies
with the ordinary friends-of-friends algorithm).
The fact that we find similar shapes and
amplitudes for the rates means that the use
of a galaxy formation recipe with an ordinary collisionless N-body
code can give comparible results to more advanced simulation techniques that
incorporate more (but certainly not all) physical processes.
\subsection{Cluster luminosity function}
For our cluster simulations, we study the luminosity function within the
projected Abell radius. Since we know only the masses of the galaxies we
need to assume a constant mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$ to obtain a luminosity
function. For the $B_{\rm J}$ magnitude, $\Upsilon_{\rm J}\approx1200$ for
an $\Omega_0=1$ universe.
Because on average 25 per cent of the mass is locked into our galaxies
(including dark haloes), $\Upsilon_{\rm J}\approx 300$ for the galaxies.
The joint luminosity function for our cluster models is plotted in
Figure~\ref{fig-2} for all
galaxies (all symbols), and for the $M>1.5\times10^{12}$ M$_\odot$ ones
(filled symbols only), along with a fitted Schechter (1976) luminosity
function for each of them (dashed line for all galaxies, solid line for
the limited set), with slope $\alpha$ and characteristic magnitude
$B_{\rm J}^*$ as free parameters.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=mf1a.ps,width=10.0cm,silent=}
\caption{Joint luminosity function for all galaxies within the
projected Abell radius. Filled symbols represent galaxies with masses larger
than $1.5\times10^{12}$M$_\odot$. The dashed line indicates a fit of a
Schechter (1976) function to all galaxies. The solid line is a similar fit to
the massive ones only (filled symbols). Both fits were made with $\alpha$ and
$B_{\rm J}^*$ as free parameters, and assume a constant mass-to-light ratio
$\Upsilon_{\rm J}=300$.} \label{fig-2}
\end{figure}
The fit for all galaxies is quite good but not perfect: $\alpha=-1.5$.
We find that the fit gets better for the limited set of massive galaxies:
$\alpha=-1.25$. This means that we either do not model low-mass galaxies
very well, or that the mass-to-light ratio is not constant. The first
option is probably true anyway since we cannot model merging
of galaxies with masses below our lower limit towards the low-mass end of
the mass function that we try to fit.
With this in mind it is fair to say that the Schechter function does
fit rather well for the limited set.
We find $B_{\rm J}^*=-20.3$ for this set, which corresponds remarkably
well with the value that Colless (1989) found for a sample of 14 observed
clusters. It compares less well with $B_{\rm R}^*=-22.6$ found by
Vink \& Katgert (1994) for a sample of 80 clusters, corresponding to
$B_{\rm J}^*\approx-20.8$.
Still we can say that the modelling performes reasonably
well given the uncertainties in both the fits and the assumption of a
constant mass-to-light ratio.
\acknowledgments
Joshua Barnes and Piet Hut
are gratefully acknowledged for allowing use of their treecode, Edmund
Bertschinger and Rien van de Weygaert for their code to generate initial
conditions, and Eric Deul for allowing me to use the computer systems that are
part of the DENIS project. I acknowledge EelcoSoft Software Services for
partial financial support during the early stages of the project, and an
European Community Research Rellowship as part of the HCM programme during
its final stages.
|
\section{\intro}Introduction
Recently the concept of time-symmetric elements of reality, introduced by
Vaidman (1996a, 1997), stirred up a lively controversy which culminated in the
joint publication of two papers in this journal (Kastner, 1999; Vaidman 1999).
Using the standard formalism of standard quantum mechanics, one calculates
the Born probability
$$
P_B(a_i)=|\sandwich{\Psi}{{\bf P}_{A=a_i}}{\Psi}|,\eqno{(1)}
$$
where the operator ${\bf P}_{A=a_i}$ projects on the subspace corresponding
to the eigenvalue $a_i$ of the observable $A$. $P_B(a_i)$ is generally
regarded as {\it the} probability with which a measurement of $A$ performed
after the `preparation' of a system $S$ in the `state' $\ket{\Psi}$ yields the
result $a_i$. But $P_B(a_i)$ is not the only such probability. Using a
nonstandard formulation of standard quantum theory called
time-symmetrized quantum theory (Aharonov and Vaidman, 1991; Vaidman,
1998), one calculates the ABL probability
$$
P_{ABL}(a_i)={\absosq{
\sandwich{\Psi_2}{{\bf P}_{A=a_i}}{\Psi_1}
}\over
\Sigma_j\absosq{
\sandwich{\Psi_2}{{\bf P}_{A=a_j}}{\Psi_1}
}}.\eqno{(2)}
$$
ABL probabilities were first introduced in a seminal paper by Aharonov,
Bergmann, and Lebowitz (1964). In this paper it was shown that $P_B(a_i)$
can also be thought of as the probability with which a measurement of $A$,
performed {\it before} what may be called the `retroparation' of $S$ in the
`state' $\ket{\Psi}$, yields the result $a_i$. Further it was shown that if a system
is `prepared' at the time $t_1$ and `retropared' at the time $t_2$ in the
respective `states' $\ket{\Psi_1}$ and $\ket{\Psi_2}$, the probability with which
a measurement of $A$ performed at an intermediate time $t_m$ yields (or
would have yielded) the result $a_i$, is given by $P_{ABL}(a_i)$.\fnote{%
The $\Psi$'s in (2) are related to the `pre-/retropared' $\Psi$'s via unitary
transformations\break $U(t_m-t_1)$ and $U(t_m-t_2)$.}
Born probabilities can be measured (as relative frequencies) using preselected
ensembles (that is, ensembles of identically `prepared' systems). ABL
probabilities can be measured using pre- and postselected ensembles (that is,
ensembles of systems that are both identically `prepared' and identically
`retropared'). If the Born probability $P_B(a_i,t)$ of obtaining the result $a_i$ at
time $t$ is equal to~1, one feels justified in regarding the value $a_i$ of the
observable $A$ as a property that is actually possessed at the time $t$, that is,
one feels justified in assuming that at the time $t$ there is is an {\it element of
reality} corresponding to the value $a_i$ of the observable $A$ irrespective of
whether $A$ is actually measured. Redhead (1987) has expressed this feeling
as the following `sufficiency condition':
\medskip{\leftskip=\parindent\rightskip=\parindent\noindent
(ER1) If we can predict with certainty, or at any rate with [Born] probability one,
the result of measuring a physical quantity at time $t$, then at the time $t$
there exists an element of reality corresponding to the physical quantity and
having a value equal to the predicted measurement result.\par}\medskip
The controversy about time-symmetric elements of reality arose because it
appeared that Vaidman (1993) made the same claim with regard to ABL
probabilities:
\medskip{\leftskip=\parindent\rightskip=\parindent\noindent
(ER2) If we can infer with certainty [that is, with ABL probability one] that the
result of measuring at time $t$ an observable $A$ is $a$, then at the time $t$
there exists an element of reality $A=a$.\par}\medskip
In response to criticism by Kastner and others (Kastner, 1999; and references
therein), Vaidman (1999) clarified that he intended the term `element of reality'
in a `technical' rather than `ontological' sense: saying that there is an element
of reality $A=a$ is the same as saying that if $A$ is measured, the result is
certain to be $a$. In other words, (ER2) is a tautology: if $A=a$ is certain to be
found then $A=a$ is certain to be found. In formulating (ER2), Vaidman does
not affirm the existence of an element of reality {\it irrespective} of whether $A$
is actually measured. (ER2) {\it defines} what it means to affirm the existence
of an element of reality corresponding to $A=a$. To say that there is such an
element of reality is to affirm the truth of a conditional, not the existence of an
actual situation or state of affairs. Since ordinarily the locution `element of
reality' refers to an actual state of affairs, Vaidman's terminological choice was
unfortunate and has mislead many readers. But beyond that, his reading of
(ER2) is unobjectionable. I shall, however, stick to the ordinary, ontological
meaning of `element of reality.' In what follows, (ER2) is to be understood
accordingly, that is, as affirming an actual state of affairs (the existence of an
`ordinary' element of reality) just in case the corresponding ABL probability is
one. Hence my showing that (ER2), thus understood, is false, has no bearing
on Vaidman's reading of (ER2). A definition cannot be false.
The aim of this paper is to show that not only (ER2) but also (ER1) is false. In
Sec.~2 I discuss the three-box {\it gedanken} experiment due to Vaidman
(1996b). By calculating the ABL probabilities associated with different versions
of this experiment I show that positions are extrinsic, and that, consequently,
(ER1) and (ER2) are both false. Since the validity of arguments based on
time-symmetric quantum counterfactuals is open to debate, in Sec.~3 I show
without making use of ABL probabilities that positions are extrinsic and that
(ER1) is false. This leads to the conclusion that the measurement problem is a
pseudoproblem, and that all that ever gets objectively entangled is
counterfactuals. In Sec.~4 I establish the cogency of the argument of Sec.~2
by showing that the proper condition for the truth of a quantum counterfactual is
$P_{ABL}=1$. This necessitates a discussion of objective probabilities,
retroactive causality, and the objectivity or otherwise of the psychological arrow
of time. In Sec.~5 I argue that since quantum mechanics presupposes the
occurrence/existence of actual events and/or states of affairs, it cannot be
called upon to account for the emergence of `classicality.' What is more, if
quantum mechanics is as fundamental as its mathematical simplicity and
empirical success suggest, the property-defining events or states of affairs
presupposed by quantum mechanics are causal primaries -- nothing accounts
for their occurrence or existence.
If this is correct, the remaining interpretative task consists not in explaining the
quantum-mechanical correlations and/or correlata but in understanding what
they are trying to tell us about the world. I confine myself to pointing out, in
Sec.~6, the most notable implications of the diachronic correlations, viz., the
existence of entities of limited transtemporal identity, objective indefiniteness,
and the spatial nonseparability of the world. The extrinsic nature of positions,
finally, appears to involve a twofold vicious regress. Its resolution involves
macroscopic objects, which are defined and discussed in Sec.~7. Section~8
concludes with a remark on the tension of contrast between objective
indefiniteness and the inherent definiteness of language.
\section{\vaidboxes}The Lesson of the Three-Box Experiment
In the following I present a somewhat different but conceptually equivalent
version of Vaidman's (1996b) three-box experiment. Consider a wall in which
there are three holes $A$, $B$ and $C$. In front of the wall there is a particle
source $Q$. Behind the wall there is a particle detector $D$. Both $Q$ and $D$
are equidistant from the three holes. Behind $C$ there is one other device; its
purpose is to cause a phase shift by $\pi$. Particles emerging from the wall are
thus preselected in a `state' $\ket{\Psi_1}$ proportional to
$\ket{a}+\ket{b}+\ket{c}$, where $\ket{a}$, $\ket{b}$ and $\ket{c}$ represent the
respective alternatives `particle goes through $A$,' `particle goes through $B$,'
and `particle goes through $C$,' while detected particles are postselected in a
`state' $\ket{\Psi_2}$ proportional to $\ket{a}+\ket{b}-\ket{c}$.
We will consider two possible intermediate measurements. First we place near
$A$ a device $F_a$ that beeps whenever a particle passes through $A$. With
the help of the ABL formula one finds that every particle of this particular
pre- and postselected ensemble $\cal E$ causes $F_a$ to beep with
probability~1, as one may verify by calculating the probability with which a
particle would be found passing through the union $B\cup C$ of $B$ and $C$:
$$
P_{ABL}(\subset B\cup C)\propto
\absosq{
\sandwich{\Psi_2}{{\bf P}_{\subset B\cup C}}{\Psi_1}
}=0,
$$
where ${\bf P}_{\subset B\cup C}=\ketbra bb+\ketbra cc$ projects on the
subspace corresponding to the alternative `particle goes through $B\cup C$.'
We obtain the same result by considering what would happen if $A$ were
closed, or if all particles that make $F_a$ beep were removed from $\cal E$.
The remaining particles are pre- and postselected in `states' proportional to
$\ket{b}+\ket{c}$ and $\ket{b}-\ket{c}$, respectively, and these `states' are
orthogonal. The result is an empty ensemble: if $A$ were closed, no particle
would arrive at $D$. Does this warrant the conclusion that all particles
belonging to $\cal E$ pass through $A$?
Let us instead place near $B$ a device $F_b$ that beeps whenever a particle
passes through $B$. Considering the invariance of $\ket{\Psi_1}$ and
$\ket{\Psi_2}$ under interchange of $\ket{a}$ and $\ket{b}$, one is not surprised
to find that the ensemble $\cal E$ would be empty if the particles causing
$F_b$ to beep were removed. Hence if the conclusion that all particles
belonging to $\cal E$ pass through $A$ is warranted, so is the conclusion that
the same particles also pass through $B$. If these `conclusions' were
legitimate, they would make nonsense of the very concept of localization.
Therefore we are forced to conclude instead that an ABL probability equal to 1
does {\it not} warrant the existence of a corresponding element of reality (in the
straightforward, ontological sense). Taken in this sense, (ER2) is false.
It pays to investigate further. We are in fact dealing with four different
experimental arrangements: (i)~there is no beeper, (ii)~$F_a$ is the only
beeper in place, (iii)~$F_b$ is the only beeper in place, (iv)~both $F_a$ and
$F_b$ are in place. The first arrangement permits no legitimate inference
concerning the hole taken by a particle. Assuming that $F_a$ is 100\%
efficient, the second arrangement guarantees that one of two inferences is
warranted: `the particle goes through $A$' (in case $F_a$ beeps) or `the
particle goes through $B\cup C$' (in case $F_a$ fails to beep). Assuming that
$F_b$ is equally efficient, the third arrangement likewise guarantees that one
of two inferences is warranted: `the particle goes through $B$' or `the particle
goes through $A\cup C$.' The fourth arrangement, finally, guarantees that one
of three inferences is warranted: `the particle goes through $A$' (in case $F_a$
beeps), `the particle goes through $B$' (in case $F_b$ beeps), and `the particle
goes through $C$' (in case neither $F_a$ nor $F_b$ beeps). The following
counterfactuals are therefore true: (i)~If $F_a$ were in place, either it would
beep and the particle would go through $A$, or it would fail to beep and the
particle would go through $B\cup C$. (ii)~If $F_b$ were in place, either it would
beep and the particle would go through $B$, or it would fail to beep and the
particle would go through $A\cup C$. (iii)~If both $F_a$ and $F_b$ were in
place, one of the following three conjunctions would be true: $F_a$ beeps and
the particle goes through $A$; $F_b$ beeps and the particle goes through $B$;
neither beeper beeps and the particle goes through $C$.
If we confine the discussion to particles that are emitted by $Q$ and detected
by $D$, then the following counterfactuals are true: If $F_a$ but not $F_b$
were present, the alternatives represented by $\ket{b}$ and $\ket{c}$ would
interfere with each other but not with the alternative represented by $\ket{a}$;
as a consequence, they would interfere destructively; therefore $F_a$ would
beep and the particle would go through $A$. By the same token, if $F_b$ were
the only beeper present, the alternatives represented by $\ket{a}$ and $\ket{c}$
would interfere destructively, $F_b$ would beep, and the particle would go
through $B$. Finally, if both beepers were present, no interference would take
place; each particle would go through a particular hole, but not all particles
would go through the same hole. To my mind, these counterfactuals are
unobjectionable. One does not have to delve into the general philosophy of
counterfactuals to see that they are true. I concur with Vaidman (1999) that
quantum counterfactuals are unambiguous. Quantum counterfactuals are
statements about possible worlds in which the outcomes of all measurements
but one are the same as in the actual world. The remaining measurement is
performed in a number of possible worlds (the number depends on the range of
possible values) but not in the actual world.
The three-box (or three-hole) experiment demonstrates that position
probabilities cannot be assigned independently of experimental arrangements.
More specifically, they cannot be assigned without specifying a set of
experimentally distinguishable alternatives. A position probability of~1 depends
not only on the way the particle is `prepared' and `retropared' but also on the
set $L$ of alternative locations that can be experimentally distinguished. If
$L=\{A,B\cup C\}$, the particle is certain to be found in (or going through) $A$,
but the inference of an element of reality `the particle went through $A$' is
warranted only if the members of $L$ are actually distinguished (that is, only if
the corresponding experiment is actually performed).
It follows that the position of a particle is an extrinsic property. By an {\it
extrinsic} property $p$ of $S$ I mean a property of $S$ that is undefined unless
either the truth or the falsity of the proposition ${\bf p}=$~`$S$~is~$p$' can be
inferred from what happens or is the case in the `rest of the world' ${\cal W}-S$.
The position of a particle is undefined unless there is a specific set $\{R_i\}$ of
alternative locations, and unless there is a matter of fact about the particular
location $R_j$ at which the particle is, or has been, present. (By `a matter of
fact about the particular location $R_j$' I mean an actual event or an actual
state of affairs from which that location can be inferred.\fnote{%
Examples of actual events are the click of a Geiger counter or the deflection of
a pointer needle. An actual state of affairs is expressed, for instance, by the
statement `The needle points to the left.' Can such events and states of affairs
be defined in quantum-mechanical terms? See below.}%
) Positions are {\it defined} in terms of position-indicating matters of fact. They
`dangle' from actual events or actual states of affairs. And if it is true that
`[t]here is nothing in quantum theory making it applicable to three atoms and
inapplicable to $10^{23}$' (Peres and Zurek, 1982), this must be as true of
footballs and cats as it is of particles and atoms. The positions of things {\it are}
what matters of fact imply concerning the positions of things.
If this is correct then (ER1) is as false as (ER2). In particular, the `sufficiency
condition' (ER1) is {\it not} sufficient for the presence of a material object $O$
in a region of space $R$. The condition that is both necessary and sufficient for
the presence of $O$ in $R$, is the existence of a matter of fact that indicates
$O$'s presence in $R$. If there isn't any such matter of fact (now or anytime
past or future), and if there also isn't any matter of fact that indicates $O$'s
absence from $R$, then the sentence `$O$ is in $R$' is neither true nor false
but meaningless, and $O$'s position with respect to $R$ (inside or outside) is
undefined.
\section{\pcer}Probabilities, Conditonals, Elements of Reality, and the
Measurement Problem
In the previous section I made use of the ABL probabilities associated with
different versions of Vaidman's three-box experiment to show that positions are
extrinsic, and that, consequently, both (ER1) and (ER2) are false. The validity
of arguments based on time-symmetric quantum counterfactuals might be
challenged. In the present section I therefore show without recourse to ABL
probabilities that positions are extrinsic and that (ER1) is false. In the following
section I shall establish the cogency of the argument of the previous section by
showing that the proper condition for the truth of a quantum counterfactual is
$P_{ABL}=1$. (It is readily verified that $P_B=1$ is sufficient but not necessary
for this condition to be met.)
Consider two perfect detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$ whose respective (disjoint)
sensitive regions are $R_1$ and $R_2$. If the support of the (normalized) wave
function associated with the (center-of-mass) position of an object $O$ is
neither wholly inside $R_1$ nor wholly inside $R_2$, nothing necessitates the
detection of $O$ by $D_1$, and nothing necessitates the detection of $O$ by
$D_2$. But if the wave function vanishes outside $R_1\cup R_2$, the
probabilities for either of the detectors to click add up to~1, so either of the
detectors is certain to click. Two perfect detectors with sensitive regions $R_1$
and $R_2$ constitute one perfect detector $D$ with sensitive region $R_1\cup
R_2$. But how can it be certain that one detector will click when individually
neither detector is certain to click? What could cause $D$ to click while causing
neither $D_1$ nor $D_2$ to click?
That two perfect detectors with disjoint sensitive regions constitute one perfect
detector for the union of the two regions forms part of the {\it definition} of what
we mean by a perfect detector. By definition, a perfect detector clicks when the
quantum-mechanical probability for it to click is~1. $D$ is certain to click
because the probabilities for either of the two detectors to click add up to~1.
Hence the question of what {\it causes} $D$ to click does not arise. Perfect
detectors are theoretical constructs that by definition behave in a certain way. If
real detectors would behave in the same way, it would be proper to inquire why
they behave in this way. But real detectors are not perfect and do not behave in
this way. A real detector is not certain to click when the corresponding
quantum-mechanical probability is~1. Hence the question of what causes a real
detector to click does not arise. Nothing causes a real detector to click.
What I aim at in this paper is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes
standard quantum mechanics to be fundamental and complete. My claim that
nothing causes a real detector to click is based (i)~on this assumption and
(ii)~on the observation that the efficiency of a real detector cannot be
accounted for in quantum-mechanical terms. All quantum-mechanical
probability assignments are relative to {\it perfect} detectors. If quantum
mechanics predicts that $D_1$ will click with a probability of $1/2$, it does {\it
not} predict that a {\it real} detector will click in 50\% of all runs of the actual
experiment. What it predicts is that $D_1$ will click in 50\% of {\it those} runs of
the experiment in which either $D_1$ or $D_2$ clicks. Quantum mechanics
has nothing to say about the percentage of runs in which no counter clicks (that
is, is tells us nothing about the efficiency of $D$, or of any other real detector
for that matter). If quantum mechanics predicts that $D_1$ will click with
probability~1, it accounts for the fact that whenever either $D_1$ or $D_2$
clicks, it is $D_1$ that clicks. It does {\it not} account for the clicking of either
$D_1$ or $D_2$. Where quantum mechanics is concerned, nothing causes the
clicking. And if quantum mechanics is as fundamental and complete as is here
assumed, then this is true without qualification: nothing causes the
clicking.\fnote{%
It is well known that all actually existing detectors are less than perfect. On the
other hand, there is no (obvious) theoretical limit to the efficiency of a real
detector. It might one day be possible to build a detector with an efficiency
arbitrarily close to 100\%. However, unless the efficiency of detectors is exactly
100\%, it remains impossible to interpret a `preparation' that warrants assigning
probability~1 as {\it causing} a detector to click. If the preparation is to be a
sufficient reason for the click, the detector must {\it always} click (that is, it must
be perfect). What if it were possible to build perfect detectors? We could then
speak of the preparation as the cause of the click, but if quantum mechanics is
fundamental and complete, it would still be impossible to explain how the
preparation causes the click: {\it ex hypothesi}, no underlying mechanism
exists. The perfect correlation between preparation and click would have to be
accepted as a brute fact. So would the fact that either $D_1$ or $D_2$ clicks
when neither of them is certain to click. Causality would be just another name
for such correlations, not an explanation.}
Quantum mechanics assigns probabilities (whether Born or ABL) to alternative
events (e.g., deflection of the pointer needle to the left or to the right) or to
alternative states of affairs (e.g., the needle's pointing left or right). Implicit in
every normalized distribution of probabilities over a specified set of alternative
events or states of affairs is the assumption that exactly one of the specified
alternatives happens or obtains. If we assign normalized probabilities to a set of
counterfactuals, we still assume (counterfactually) that exactly one of the
counterfactuals is true. In other words, if we assign probabilities to the possible
results of an unperformed measurement, we still assume that the
measurement, if it had been performed, would have yielded a definite result.
Like all (normalized) probabilities, the probabilities assigned by quantum
mechanics are assigned to mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive
possibilities, and they are assigned {\it on the supposition} that exactly one
possibility is, or would have been, a fact. Even the predictions of the standard
version of standard quantum mechanics therefore are {\it conditionals}.
Everything this version tells us conforms to the following pattern: {\it If} there is
going to be a matter of fact about the alternative taken (from a specific range of
alternatives), {\it then} such and such are the Born probabilities with which that
matter of fact will indicate this or that alternative.
It is important to understand that quantum mechanics never allows us to predict
{\it that} there will be such a matter of fact, unconditionally. If the Born
probability of a particular event $F$ is~1, we are not entitled to predict that $F$
will happen. What we are entitled to infer is only this: Given that one of a
specified set of events will happen, and given that $F$ is an element of this set,
the event that will happen is $F$. In order to get from a true conditional to an
element of reality, a condition has to be met: a measurement must be
successfully performed, there must be a matter of fact about the value of an
observable, one of a specific set of alternative property-indicating events or
states of affairs must happen or obtain. Quantum mechanics does not predict
that a measurement will take place, nor the time at which one will take place,
nor does it specify the conditions in which one will take place. It requires us to
{\it assume} that one will take place, for it is on this assumption that its
probability assignments are founded.
It follows that (ER1) is false. A Born probability equal to~1 is equivalent to a
conditional $c$. The inference of a corresponding element of reality is
warranted only if the condition laid down by $c$ is actually met.
It also follows that positions are extrinsic. The condition laid down by $c$ is the
existence of a matter of fact about the value taken by some observable. If this
observable has for its spectrum a set $\{R_i\}$ of mutually disjoint regions of
space, if $R$ is an element of $\{R_i\}$, and if the Born probability associated
with $R$ is~1, then $O$ is inside $R$ just in case there is a matter of fact
about the particular element of $\{R_i\}$ that contains $O$.
I conclude this section with a few remarks concerning the so-called
measurement problem. First some basic facts. Quantum mechanics represents
the possible values $q^k_i$ of all observables $Q^k$ as projection operators
${\bf P}_{Q^k=q^k_i}$ on some Hilbert space $\cal H$. The projection
operators that jointly represent the range of possible values of a given
observable are mutually orthogonal. If one defines the `state' of a system as a
{\it probability measure} on the projection operators on $\cal H$ (Cassinello and
S\'anchez-G\'omez, 1996; Jauch, 1968, p. 94) resulting from a {\it preparation}
of the system (Jauch, 1968, p. 92), one finds (Cassinello and
S\'anchez-G\'omez, 1996; Jauch, 1968, p. 132) that every such probability
measure has the form $P({\bf P})=\hbox{Tr}({\bf WP})$, where $\bf W$ is a
unique density operator (that is, a unique self-adjoint, positive operator
satisfying $\hbox{Tr}({\bf W})=1$ and ${\bf W}^2\leq{\bf W}$). [The trace
$\hbox{Tr}({\bf X})$ is the sum $\sum_i\sandwich{i}{{\bf X}}{i}$, where
$\{\ket{i}\}$ is any orthonormal basis in $\cal H$.] If ${\bf W}^2(t)={\bf W}(t)$,
${\bf W}(t)$ projects on a one-dimensional subspace of $\cal H$ and thus is
equivalent -- apart from an irrelevant phase factor -- to a `state' vector
$\ket{\Psi(t)}$ or a wave function $\Psi(x,t)$, $x$ being any point in the
system's configuration space. In this case one retrieves the Born formula~(1).
The quantum-mechanical `state' vector (or the wave function, or the density
operator) thus is essentially a probability measure on the projection operators
on $\cal H$, specifying probability distributions over all sets of mutually
orthogonal subspaces of $\cal H$. Hence the $t$ that appears in the `states'
${\bf W}(t)$, $\ket{\Psi(t)}$, and $\Psi(x,t)$ has the same significance as the $t$
that appears in the time-dependent probabilities $P_B(q^k_i,t)$. Now recall that
quantum mechanics predicts neither that a measurement will take place nor the
time at which one will take place. It requires us to {\it assume} that a
measurement will take place {\it at a specified time}. The time-dependence of
the `state' vector therefore is a dependence on the {\it specified} time at which
a {\it specified} observable (with a {\it specified} range of values) is measured
either in the actual world or in a set of possible worlds. It is {\it not} the
time-dependence of a state of affairs that evolves in time.
On the supposition that $\ket{\Psi(t)}$ represents a state of affairs that evolves
in time (so that at every time $t$ a state of affairs $\ket{\Psi(t)}$ obtains), one
needs to explain what brings about the real or apparent discontinuous transition
from a state of affairs represented by a ket of the form $\ket{\Psi(t)}=\sum_i
a_i(t)\ket{a_i}$ to the state of affairs represented by one of the kets $\ket{a_i}$.
This is the measurement problem. It is a pseudoproblem because a collection
of time-dependent probabilities is not a state of affairs that evolves in time. The
probability for something to happen at the time $t$ does not exist at $t$, any
more than the probability for something to be located in $R$ exists in $R$.
The probabilities $P_B(q^k_i,t)$ are determined by the relevant matters of fact
about the properties possessed by a physical system at or before a certain time
$t_0$. In the special case of a complete measurement performed at $t_0$,
they are given by the Born formula
$$
P_B(q^k_i,t)=|\sandwich{\Psi(t)}{{\bf P}_{Q^k=q^k_i}}{\Psi(t)}|\qquad
\hbox{for $t\geq t_0$},\eqno{(3)}
$$
where $\ket{\Psi(t)}=U(t-t_0)\ket{\Psi(t_0)}$. $\ket{\Psi(t_0)}$ is the `state'
`prepared' by the measurement at $t_0$ (that is, it represents the properties
possessed by the system at $t_0$). $U(t-t_0)$ is the unitary operator that
governs the time-dependence of quantum-mechanical probabilities (often
misleadingly referred to as the `time evolution operator'). And $t$ is the {\it
stipulated} time at which the next measurement is performed, either actually or
counterfactually.
Thus all that a superposition of the form $\ket{\Psi(t)}=\sum_i a_i(t)\ket{a_i}$
tells us, is this: {\it If} there is a matter of fact from which one can infer the
particular property (from the set of properties represented by the kets
$\ket{a_i}$) that is actually possessed by the system at the stipulated time $t$,
then the prior probability that this matter of fact indicates the property
represented by $\ket{a_i}$ is $\absosq{a_i}$. It is self-evident that if there {\it is}
such a matter of fact, and if this matter of fact is taken into account, the correct
basis for further conditional inferences is not $\ket{\Psi(t)}$ but one of the kets
$\ket{a_i}$. This obvious truism is the entire content of the so-called projection
postulate (L\"uders, 1951; von Neumann, 1955). By the same token, all that an
entangled `state' of the form $\sum_i a_i(t)\ket{b_i}\otimes\ket{a_i}$ tells us, is
this: {\it If} there are two matters of fact, one indicating which of the properties
represented by the kets $\ket{a_i}$ is possessed by the first system, and
another indicating which of the properties represented by the kets $\ket{b_i}$ is
possessed by the second system, then the two matters of fact together indicate
$\ket{a_i}$ and $\ket{b_i}$ with probability $\absosq{a_i}$, and they indicate
$\ket{a_i}$ and $\ket{b_j}$ ($j\neq i$) with probability~0. But if there {\it is} any
such matter of fact, these entangled probabilities are based on an incomplete
set of facts and are therefore subjective (that is, they reflect our ignorance of
some relevant fact). All that ever gets {\it objectively} entangled is {\it
counterfactuals}.
\section{\opretro}Objective Probabilities, Retrocausation, and the Arrow of Time
What most strikingly distinguishes quantum physics from classical physics is
the existence of objective probabilities. In a classical world there are no
(nontrivial) objective probabilities: the probability of dealing an ace is not
$1/13$ but either $1$ or $0$, depending on whether or not an ace is top card.
Objective probabilities have nothing to do with ignorance; there is nothing (that
is, no actual state of affairs, no actually possessed property, no actually
obtained measurement result) for us to be ignorant of. Then what is it that {\it
has} an objective probability? What are objective probabilities distributed over?
The obvious answer is: counterfactuals. Only a contrary-to-fact conditional can
be assigned an objective probability. Objective probabilities are distributed over
the possible results of {\it unperformed} measurements. Objective probabilities
are objective in the sense that they are not subjective, and they are not
subjective because they would be so only if the corresponding measurements
were performed. In short, objective probabilities are probabilities that are {\it
counterfactually subjective}.
Probabilities can be objective only if they are based on a complete set of facts.
Otherwise they are subjective: they reflect our ignorance of some of the
relevant facts. Born probabilities are in general calculated on the basis of an
incomplete set of facts; they take into account the relevant past matters of fact
but ignore the relevant future matters of fact. Born probabilities are objective
only if there are no relevant future matters of fact. Thus they cannot be
objective if any one of the measurements to the possible results of which they
are assigned, is actually performed. This is equally true of ABL probabilities: if
one of the measurements to the possible results of which they are assigned, is
actually performed, they too are calculated on the basis of an incomplete set of
facts. They take into account all revelant matters of fact except the result of the
actually performed measurement. On the other hand, if none of these
measurements is actually performed, ABL probabilities take into account all
relevant matters of fact and are therefore objective.
Thus probabilities are objective only if they are distributed over alternative
properties or values none of which are actually possessed, and only if they are
based on all relevant events or states of affairs, including those that are yet to
occur or obtain. In general the objective probabilities associated with
contrary-to-fact conditionals depend also on events that haven't yet happened
or states of affairs that are yet to obtain. Hence some kind of retroactive
causality appears to be at work. This necessitates a few remarks concerning
causality and the apparent `flow' of time.
But first let us note that nothing entails the existence of time-reversed causal
connections between {\it actual} events and/or states of affairs. To take a
concrete example, suppose that at $t_1$ the $x$ component $\sigma_x$ of the
spin of an electron is measured, that at $t_2>t_1$ $\sigma_y$ is measured,
and that the respective results are $\uparrow_x$ and $\uparrow_y$. Then a
measurement of $\sigma_x$ would have yielded $\uparrow_x$ if it had been
performed at an intermediate time $t_m$, and a measurement of $\sigma_y$
would have yielded $\uparrow_y$ if it had been performed instead. What would
have happened at $t_m$ depends not only on what happens at $t_1$ but also
on what happens at $t_2$. But if either $\sigma_x$ or $\sigma_y$ is actually
measured at $t_m$ (other things being equal), nothing compels us to take the
view that $\uparrow_y$ was obtained at $t_m$ {\it because} the same result
was obtained at $t_2$. We can stick to the idea that causes precede their
effects, according to which $\uparrow_y$ was obtained at $t_2$ {\it because}
the same result was obtained at $t_m$. The point, however, is that nothing in
the physics {\it prevents} us from taking the opposite view. The distinction we
make between a cause and its effect is based on the apparent `motion' of our
location in time -- the present moment -- toward the future. This special location
and its apparent `motion' are as extraneous to physics as are our location and
motion in space (Price, 1996). Equally extraneous, therefore, is the distinction
between causes and effects.
Physics deals with correlations between actual events or states of affairs,
classical physics with deterministic correlations, quantum physics with
statistical ones. Classical physics allows us to explain the deterministic
correlations (abstracted from what appear to be universal regularities) in terms
of causal links between individual events. And for some reason to be explained
presently, we identify the earlier of two diachronically correlated events as the
cause and the later as the effect. The time symmetry of the classical laws of
motion, however, makes it equally possible to take the opposite view,
according to which the later event is the cause and the earlier event the effect.
In a deterministic world, the state of affairs at any time $t$ determines the state
of affairs at any other time $t'$, irrespective of the temporal order of $t$ and
$t'$. The belief in a time-asymmetric {\it physical} causality is nothing but an
animistic projection of the perspective of a conscious agent into the inanimate
world, as I proceed to show.
I conceive of myself as a causal agent with a certain freedom of choice. But I
cannot conceive of my choice as exerting a causal influence on anything that I
knew, or could have known, at the time $t_c$ of my choice. I can conceive of
my choice as causally determining only such events or states of affairs as are
unknowable to me at $t_c$. On the simplest account, what I knew or could
have known at $t_c$ is everything that happened before $t_c$. And what is
unknowable to me at $t_c$ is everything that will happen thereafter. This is the
reason why we tend to believe that we can causally influence the future but not
the past. And this constraint on {\it our} (real or imagined) causal efficacy is
what we impose, without justification, both on the deterministic world of
classical physics and on the indeterministic world of quantum physics.
In my goal-directed activities I exploit the time-symmetric laws of physics.
When I kick a football with the intention of scoring a goal, I make (implicit or
explicit) use of my knowledge of the time-symmetric law that governs the ball's
trajectory. But my thinking of the kick as the cause and of the scored goal as its
effect has nothing to do with the underlying physics. It has everything to do with
my self-perception as an agent and my successive experience of the world.
The time-asymmetric causality of a conscious agent in a successively
experienced world rides piggyback on the symmetric determinisms of the
physical world, and in general it rides into the future because in general the
future is what is unknowable to us. But it may also ride into the past. Three
factors account for this possibility.
First, as I said, the underlying physics is time-symmetric. If we ignore the
strange case of the neutral kaon (which doesn't appear to be relevant to the
interpretation of quantum mechanics), this is as true of quantum physics as it is
of classical physics. If the standard formulation of quantum physics is
asymmetric with respect to time, it is because we think (again without
justification) that a measurement does more than yield a particular result. We
tend to think that it also {\it prepares} a state of affairs which evolves toward the
future. But if this is a consistent way of thinking -- it is {\it not} (Mohrhoff, 1999)
-- then it is equally consistent to think that a measurement `retropares' a state
of affairs that evolves toward the past, as Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz
(1964) have shown.
Second, what matters is what can be known. If I could know the future, I could
not conceive of it as causally dependent on my present choice. In fact, if I
could (in principle) know both the past and the future, I could not conceive of
myself as an agent. I can conceive of my choice as causally determining the
future precisely because I cannot know the future. This has nothing to do with
the truism that the future does not (yet) exist. Even if the future in some way
`already' exists, it can in part be determined by my present choice, provided I
cannot know it at the time of my choice. By the same token, a past state of
affairs can be determined by my present choice, provided I cannot know that
state of affairs before the choice is made.
There are two possible reasons why a state of affairs $F$ cannot be known to
me at a given time $t$: (i)~$F$ may obtain only after $t$; (ii)~at $t$ there may
as yet exist no matter of fact from which $F$ can be inferred. This takes us to
the last of the three factors which account for the possibility of retrocausation:
the contingent properties of physical systems are extrinsic. By a {\it contingent}
property I mean a property that may or may not be possessed by a given
system at a given time. For example, being inside a given region of space and
having a spin component of $+\hbar/2$ along a given axis are contingent
properties of electrons.
Properties that can be retrocausally determined by the choice of an
experimenter, cannot be intrinsic. [A property $p$ of a physical system $S$ is
{\it intrinsic} iff the proposition ${\bf p}=$~`$S$~is~$p$' is `of itself' (that is,
unconditionally) either true or false at any time.] If $p$ is an extrinsic property
of $S$, the respective criteria for the truth and the falsity of the proposition
${\bf p}=$~`$S$~is~$p$' are to be sought in the `rest of the world' ${\cal W}-S$,
and it is possible that neither criterion is satisfied, in which case $\bf p$ is
neither true nor false but meaningless. It is also possible that each criterion
consists in an event that may occur only after the time to which $\bf p$ refers.
If this event is to some extent determined by an experimenter's choice,
retrocausation is at work. On the other hand, if $p$ is an intrinsic property of
$S$, $\bf p$ has a truth value (`true' or `false') independently of what happens
in ${\cal W}-S$, so {\it a fortiori} it has a truth value independently of what
happens there after the time $t$ to which $\bf p$ refers. There is then no
reason why the truth value of $\bf p$ should be unknowable until some time
$t'>t$. In principle it is knowable at $t$, and therefore we cannot (or at any rate,
need not) conceive of it as being to some extent determined by the
experimenter's choice at $t'$.
A paradigm case of retrocausation at work (Mohrhoff, 1999) is the experiment
of Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994; Scully, Englert, and Walther, 1991). This
experiment permits the experimenters to choose between (i)~measuring the
phase relation with which a given atom emerges coherently from (the union of)
two slits and (ii)~determining the particular slit from which the atom emerges.
The experimenters can exert this choice after the atom has emerged from the
slit plate and even after it has hit the screen. By choosing to create a matter of
fact about the slit taken by the atom, they retroactively cause the atom to have
passed through a particular slit. By choosing instead to create a matter of fact
about the atom's phase relation, they retroactively cause the atom to have
emerged with a definite phase relation. The retrocausal efficacy of their choice
rests on the three factors listed above (in different order): (i)~The four
propositions ${\bf a}_1=$~``the atom went through the first slit,'' ${\bf
a}_2=$~``the atom went through the second slit,'' ${\bf a}_+=$~``the atom
emerged from the slits in phase,'' and ${\bf a}_-=$~``the atom emerged from
the slits out of phase'' affirm {\it extrinsic} properties. (ii)~There exist
{\it time-symmetric} correlations between the atom's possible properties at the
time of its passing the slit plate and the possible results of two mutually
exclusive experiments that can be performed at a later time. (iii)~The result of
the actually performed experiment is the first (earliest) matter of fact about
either the particular slit taken by the atom or the phase relation with which the
atom emerged from the slits. Before they made their choice, the experimenters
could not possibly have {\it known} the slit from which, or the phase relation
with which, the atom emerged.
Probabilities, I said, can be objective only if they are based on all relevant
matters of fact, including those still in the future. We are now in a position to
see clearly why it should be so. Our distinction between the past, the present,
and the future has nothing to do with physics. Physics knows nothing of the
experiential {\it now} (the special moment at which the world has the technicolor
reality it has in consciousness), nor does it know anything of the difference
between what happened before {\it now} (the past) and what will happen after
{\it now} (the future).
\longsection{\qmcc}The World According to Quantum Mechanics:
Fundamentally Inexplicable
Correlations Between Fundamentally Inexplicable Events
It is commonly believed that it is the business of quantum mechanics to
account for the occurrence/existence of actual events or states of affairs.
Environment-induced superselection (Joos and Zeh, 1985; Zurek, 1981, 1982),
decoherent histories (Gell-Mann and Hartle, 1990; Griffiths, 1984; Omn\`es,
1992), quantum state diffusion (Gisin and Percival, 1992; Percival 1994), and
spontaneous collapse (Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber, 1986; Pearle, 1989) are
just some of the strategies that have been adopted with a view to explaining
the emergence of `classicality.' Whatever is achieved by these interesting
endeavors, they miss this crucial point: quantum mechanics only takes us from
facts to probabilities of possible facts. The question of how it is that exactly one
possibility is realized must not be asked of a formalism that serves to assign
probabilities on the implicit {\it assumption} that exactly one of a specified set
of possibilities {\it is} realized. Even the step from probability~1 to factuality
crosses a gulf that quantum mechanics cannot bridge. Quantum mechanics
can tell us that $O$ is certain to be found in $R$ {\it given that} there is a
matter of fact about its presence or otherwise in $R$, but only the actual matter
of fact warrants the inference that $O$ is in $R$.
Quantum mechanics does not predict that a measurement will take place, nor
the time at which one will take place, nor does it specify the conditions in which
one will take place. And if quantum mechanics is as fundamental as I presume
it is, {\it nothing} allows us to predict that or when a measurement takes place,
or to specify conditions in which one is certain to take place, for there is nothing
that {\it causes} a measurement to take place. In other words, a matter of fact
about the value of an observable is a causal primary. A {\it causal primary} is
an event or state of affairs the occurrence or existence of which is not
necessitated by any cause, antecedent or otherwise.
I do not mean to say that in general nothing causes a measurement to yield this
rather than that particular value. Unless one postulates hidden variables, this is
a triviality. What I mean to say is that nothing ever causes a measurement to
take place. Measurements (and in clear this means detection events) are
causal primaries. No detector is 100\% efficient. Using similar detectors in
series, it is easy enough to experimentally establish a detector's (approximate)
likelihood to click when the corresponding Born probability is~1, but of this
likelihood no theoretical account is possible.\fnote{%
There are two kinds of probability, the probability {\it that} a detector will
respond (rather than not respond), and the probability that this (rather than any
other) detector will respond {\it given} that exactly one detector will respond.
The former probability cannot be calculated using the quantum formalism (nor,
if quantum mechanics is fundamental and complete, any other formalism). One
can of course analyze the efficiency of, say, a Geiger counter into the
efficiencies of its `component detectors' (the ionization cross sections of the
ionizable targets it contains), but the efficiencies of the `elementary detectors'
cannot be analyzed any further. This entails that a fundamental coupling
constant such as the fine structure constant cannot be calculated from `first
principles;' it can only be gleaned from the experimental data.}
{\it A fortiori}, no theoretical account is possible of why or when a detector is
certain to click. It never is.
Quantum physics thus is concerned with correlations between events or states
of affairs that are uncaused and therefore fundamentally inexplicable. As
physicists we are not likely to take kindly to this conclusion, which may account
for the blind spot behind which its inevitability has been hidden so long. But we
certainly {\it are} at a loss when it comes to accounting for the world of definite
occurrences. Recently Mermin (1998) advocated an interpretation of the
formalism of standard quantum mechanics according to which ``[c]orrelations
have physical reality; that which they correlate, does not.'' He does not claim
that there are no correlata, only that they are not part of {\it physical} reality.
The correlated events belong to a larger reality which includes consciousness
and which lies outside the scope of physics. Thus Mermin agrees that, where
physics is concerned, the correlata {\it are} fundamentally inexplicable.
The idea that the correlata are conscious perceptions (Lockwood, 1989; Page,
1996), or beliefs (Albert, 1992), or knowings (Stapp, 1993) has a respectable
pedigree (London and Bauer, 1939; von Neumann, 1955). If one thinks of the
state vector as representing a state of affairs that evolves in time, one needs
something that is `more actual' than the state vector -- something that bestows
`a higher degree of actuality' than does the state vector -- to explain why every
successful measurement has exactly one result, or why measurements are
possible at all. This is the spurious measurement problem all over again. It is
spurious because the state vector does {\it not} represent an evolving state of
affairs. If we were to relinquish this unwarranted notion, we would not need two
kinds of reality to make sense of quantum mechanics, such as a physical reality
and a reality that includes consciousness (Mermin, 1998), or a potential reality
and an actual reality (Heisenberg, 1958; Popper, 1982; Shimony, 1978, 1989),
or a mind-constructed `empirical' reality and a mind-independent `veiled' reality
(d'Espagnat, 1995), or an unrecorded `smoky dragon' reality and an irreversibly
recorded reality (Wheeler, 1983). We could confine ourselves to talking about
events that are causal primaries, the inferences that are warranted by such
events, the correlations between such events or such inferences, and the
further inferences that are warranted by these correlations.
I do not deny that there is a larger reality that includes consciousness and that
lies outside the scope of physics. What I maintain is that the interpretative
problems concerning quantum mechanics can be solved without appealing to
any larger reality, and that such an appeal does not help solving those
problems because it is neither necessary nor possible to account for the
occurrence of a causal primary. Theoretical physics is partly mathematics and
partly semantics. The semantic task is to name the fundamental
epistemological and/or ontological entities and/or relations represented by the
symbols of the formalism. I cannot think of a more satisfactory choice of a
basic (and therefore not further explicable) ontological entity for a physical
theory than a causal primary -- something that is inexplicable {\it by definition}.
Ever since the seminal paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935), it has
been argued that quantum mechanics is incomplete (Bell, 1966; Ford and
Mantica, 1992; Lockwood, 1989; Primas, 1990). In point of fact, no theory can
be more complete (with regard to its subject matter) than one that accounts for
everything (within its subject matter) but what is inexplicable by definition. If
there is anything that is incomplete, it is reality itself (that is, reality is
incomplete relative to our {\it description} of it, which is `overcomplete') -- but
I'm getting ahead of myself.
Because the occurrence/existence of actual events or states of affairs is
presupposed by the formalism, locutions such as `actual event,' `actual state of
affairs,' `matter of fact' cannot even be {\it defined} within the formalism. This
conclusion too is unlikely to be popular with physicists, who naturally prefer to
define their concepts in terms of the mathematical formalism they use. Einstein
spent the last thirty years of his life trying (in vain) to get rid of field sources --
those entities that have the insolence to be real by themselves rather than by
courtesy of some equation (Pais, 1982). Small wonder if he resisted Bohr's
insight that not even the {\it properties} of things can be defined in purely
mathematical terms. But Bohr was right. If Bohr (1934, 1963) insisted on the
necessity of describing quantum phenomena in terms of experimental
arrangements, it was because he held that the properties of quantum systems
are {\it defined} by the experimental arrangements in which they are displayed
(d'Espagnat, 1976).
For `experimental arrangement' read: what matters of fact permit us to infer
concerning the properties of a given system at a given time. The contingent
properties of physical systems are defined in terms of the actual events or
states of affairs from which they can be inferred. They `dangle' from what
happens or is the case in the rest of the world. They cannot be defined in purely
mathematical terms, for only intrinsic properties can be so defined. The scope
of physics is not restricted to laboratory experiments. {\it Any} matter of fact
that has a bearing on the properties of a physical system qualifies as a
`measurement result.' What is relevant is the occurrence or existence of an
event or state of affairs warranting the assertability of a statement of the form
`$S$ is $p$ (at the time $t$),' irrespective of whether anyone is around to
assert, or take cognizance, of that event or state of affairs, and irrespective of
whether it has been anyone's intention to learn something about $S$.
The following picture emerges. The world is a mass of events that are causal
primaries. Without any correlations between these events, it would be a total
chaos. As it turns out, the uncaused events are strongly correlated. If we don't
look too closely, they fall into neat patterns that admit of being thought of as
persistent objects with definite and continuously evolving positions. Projecting
our time-asymmetric agent-causality into the time-symmetric world of physics,
we think of the positions possessed at later times as causally determined by the
positions possessed at earlier times. If we look more closely, we find that
positions aren't always attributable, and that those that are attributable aren't
always predictable on the basis of past events. We discover that positions do
not `dangle' from earlier positions by causal strings but instead `dangle' from
position-defining events that are statistically correlated but (being causal
primaries) are not causally connected. Quantum mechanics describes the
correlations but does nothing to explain them. Not only the correlata but also
the correlations are incapable of (causal) explanation. Causal explanations are
confined to the familiar macroworld of deterministic processes and things that
evolve in time. This macroworld with its causal links is something we project
onto the correlations and their uncaused correlata, but the projection works only
to the extent that the correlations are not manifestly probabilistic.\fnote{%
This is discussed in the last two sections.}
There are no causal processes more fundamental than the correlations and
their correlata, processes that could in any manner account for the correlations
or the correlata.
\section{\uinex}Spatial Nonseparability
The remaining interpretative task thus consists not in explaining the
correlations but in understanding what they are trying to tell us about the world.
Here I will confine myself to discussing some of the implications of the
diachronic correlations (the correlations between results of measurements
performed on the same system at different times).\fnote{%
The implications of the synchronic (EPR) correlations have been discussed
elsewhere (Mohrhoff, submitted).}
Perhaps the first insight one gleans from the correlations is the existence of
persisting {\it entities}. If the correlations did not permit us to speak of such
entities, we could not think of the correlata as possessed properties, extrinsic or
otherwise. Suppose that we perform a series of position measurements. And
suppose that every position measurement yields exactly one result (that is,
each time exactly one detector clicks). Then we are entitled to infer the
existence of an entity $O$ which persists through time (if not for all time), to
think of the clicks given off by the detectors as matters of fact about the
successive positions of this entity, to think of the behavior of the detectors as
position measurements, and to think of the detectors as detectors. (The lack of
transtemporal identity among particles of the same type of course forbids us to
extend to such particles the individuality of a fully `classical' entity.) The
successive positions of $O$, however, are extrinsic: they are what can be
inferred from the pattern of clicks. All that can be inferred concerning $O$'s
positions at times at which no detector clicks, is counterfactual and
probabilistic.\fnote{%
The detectors of the present scenario are assumed to be time-specific: a click
not only indicates a position but also the time at which it is possessed.}
There is a persistent entity all right, but there is then no actually possessed
position to go with it.
The next lesson to be learned from the correlations is that the positions of
things are objectively indefinite or `fuzzy.' This does not mean that $O$ {\it has}
as fuzzy position. It means that statements of the form `$O$ is in $R$ at $t$'
are sometimes neither true nor false but meaningless. This possibility stands or
falls with the extrinsic nature of positions and the existence of objective
probabilities. Take the counterfactual `If there were a matter of fact about the
slit taken by the atom, the atom would have taken the first slit.' We can assign
to this counterfactual an {\it objective} probability iff the proposition `The atom
went through the first slit' is neither true nor false but meaningless. The reason
why this proposition {\it can} be meaningless is that positions are extrinsic. It {\it
is} meaningless just in case there isn't any matter of fact about the slit taken by
the atom.
If it is true that the atom went through the union of the slits (that is, if the atom
was emitted on one side of the slit plate and detected on the other side), and if
it is meaningless to say that the atom went through the first slit (in which case it
is also meaningless to say that it went through the second slit), then the
conceptual distinction we make between the two slits has no reality for the
atom. If that distinction were real for the atom (that is, if the atom behaved as if
the two slits were distinct), the atom could not behave as if it went -- as a
whole, without being divided into distinct parts -- simultaneously through both
slits. But (if quantum mechanics is fundamental and complete) this is what the
atom does when interference fringes are observed.
Thus there are objects for which our conceptual distinction between mutually
disjoint regions of space does not exist. It follows that the distinction between
such regions cannot be real {\it per se} (that is, it cannot be an intrinsic property
of the world). If it were real {\it per se}, the following would be the true: at any
one time, for every finite region $R$, the world can be divided into things or
parts that are situated inside $R$, and things or parts that are situated inside
the complement $R'$ of $R$. The boundary of $R$ would demarcate an
intrinsically distinct part of the world. But if this were the case, exactly one of
the following three propositions would be true of every object $O$ at any given
time: (i)~$O$ is situated wholly inside $R$; (ii)~$O$ is situated wholly inside
$R'$; (iii)~$O$ has two parts, one situated wholly inside $R$ and one situated
wholly inside $R'$. If there is anything that (standard) quantum mechanics is
trying to tells us about the world, it is that for at least some objects all of these
propositions are sometimes false.
It follows that the multiplicity and the distinctions inherent in our {\it
mathematical concept} of space -- a transfinite set of triplets of real numbers --
are {\it not} intrinsic features of {\it physical} space. The notion that these
features of our mathematical concept of space are intrinsic to physical space --
in other words, the notion that the world is {\it spatially separable} -- is a
delusion. This notion is as inconsistent with quantum mechanics as the notion
of absolute simultaneity is with special relativity. `Here' and `there' are not {\it
per se} distinct. Reality is {\it fundamentally nonseparable}. Like the positions of
things, spatial distinctions `dangle' from actual events or states of affairs.
Reality is not built on a space that is differentiated the way our mathematical
concept of space is differentiated. A description of the world that incorporates
such a space -- and {\it a fortiori} every description that identifies `the points of
space (or space-time)' as the carriers of physical properties -- is
`overcomplete.' Reality is built on matters of fact, and the actually existing
differences between `here' and `there' are the differences that can be inferred
from matters of fact. In and of itself, physical space -- or the reality underlying it
-- is undifferentiated, one.
\section{\mapicos}Macroscopic Objects
The extrinsic nature of positions appears to involve a twofold vicious regress.
To adequately deal with it, I need to talk about macroscopic objects. A {\it
macroscopic object} $M$ is an object that satisfies the following criterion: any
factually warranted inference concerning the position of $M$ at any time $t$ is
predictable (with certainty) on the basis of factually warranted inferences about
the positions of $M$ at earlier times. (A factually warranted inference is an
inference that is warranted by some matter of fact.) Thus, to the extent that
they can be inferred from actual events, the successive positions of a
macroscopic object evolve deterministically. This makes it possible to ignore
the fact that the positions of macroscopic objects, like all actually possessed
positions, depend for their existence on position-indicating events. We can treat
the positions of macroscopic objects as intrinsic properties and assume that
they follow definite and causally determined trajectories, without ever risking to
be contradicted by an actual event.
I do not mean to say that the position of $M$ really {\it is} definite. Even the
positions of macroscopic objects are fuzzy, albeit not manifestly so: the
positional indefiniteness of $M$ does not evince itself through unpredictable
position-indicating events. Nor do I mean to say that the positions of
macroscopic objects really {\it are} intrinsic. They too `dangle' from actual
events. But they do so in a way that is predictable, that does not reveal any
fuzziness. We may think of macroscopic objects as following definite
trajectories, or we may think of them as following fuzzy trajectories. Since all
matters of fact about their positions are predictable, it makes no difference: the
fuzziness has no factual consequences. Classical behavior results when the
factually warranted positions fuse into a not manifestly fuzzy trajectory. It has
little to do with the `classical limit' in which the wave packet shrinks to a
continuously moving point, for the wave packet (of whatever size) is a bundle
of probabilities associated with time-dependent counterfactuals, not the actual
trajectory of an object.\fnote{%
Good examples of how not to get from quantum to classical are the
unsuccessful attempts to obtain the exponential decay law, which pertains to
factually warranted inferences and is consistent with all experimental data, from
the Schr\"odinger equation, which tells us how the probabilities associated with
counterfactuals depend on time (Onley and Kumar, 1992; Singh and Whitaker,
1982).}
By saying that matters of fact about the positions of macroscopic objects are
predictable I do not mean that the {\it existence} of such a matter of fact is
predictable. Once again, a Born probability equal to~1 does not warrant the
prediction {\it that} an event will happen or {\it that} a state of affairs will obtain.
Only if it is {\it taken for granted} that exactly one of a range of possible events
or states of affairs will happen or obtain, does a Born probability equal to~1
allow us to predict {\it which} event or state of affairs will happen or obtain.
What I mean by saying that matters of fact about the (successive) positions of
a macroscopic object are predictable, is this: what an actual event or state of
affairs implies regarding the position of a macroscopic object is consistent with
what can be predicted with the help of some classical dynamical law on the
basis of earlier position-defining events. Everything a macroscopic object does
(that is, every matter of fact about its present properties) follows via the
pertinent classical laws from what it did (that is, from matters of fact about its
past properties).\fnote{%
The above definition of `macroscopic' does not stipulate that events indicating
departures from the classically predicted behavior occur with zero {\it
probability}. An object is entitled to the label `macroscopic' if no such event {\it
actually} occurs during its lifetime. What matters is not whether such an event
{\it may} occur (with whatever probability) but whether it ever {\it does} occur.}
When I speak of the {\it existence} of a matter of fact, I mean the occurrence of
an actual event or the existence of an actual state of affairs. It is worth
emphasizing that this is something that cannot be undone or `erased' (Englert,
Scully, and Walther, 1999; Mohrhoff, 1999). According to Wheeler's
interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation, `no elementary quantum
phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is registered, recorded, ``brought to a
close'' by an ``irreversible act of amplification,'' such as the blackening of a
grain of photographic emulsion or the triggering of a counter' (Wheeler, 1983).
In point of fact, there is no such thing as an `irreversible act of amplification.'
As long as what is `amplified' is counterfactuals, the `act of amplification' is
reversible. No amount of amplification succeeds in turning a counterfactual into
a fact. No matter how many counterfactuals get entangled, they remain
counterfactuals. On the other hand, once a matter of fact exists, it is {\it
logically} impossible to erase it. For the relevant matter of fact is not that the
needle deflects to the left (in which case one could `erase' it by returning the
needle to the neutral position). The relevant matter of fact is that {\it at a time}
$t$ the needle deflects (or points) to the left. This is a timeless truth. If at the
time $t$ the needle deflects to the left, then it always has been and always will
be true that at the time $t$ the needle deflects to the left.
Note that an apparatus pointer is not a macroscopic object according to the
above definition. In general there is nothing that allows one to predict which
way the needle will deflect (given that it will deflect). Only {\it before} and {\it
after} the deflection event does the needle behave as a macroscopic object. Is
not such a definition self-defeating? It would be so if it were designed to explain
why the needle deflects left {\it or} right (rather than both left {\it and} right). But
such an explanation is neither required nor possible. If past events allow us to
infer a superposition of the form
$a\ket{\hbox{left}}\otimes\ket{a}+b\ket{\hbox{right}}\otimes\ket{b}$, they allow
us to infer the following: {\it if} there is a matter of fact about the direction in
which the needle deflects, it warrants the inference `left' with probability
$\absosq{a}$, and it warrants the inference `right' with probability $\absosq{b}$.
Nothing allows us to predict the existence of such a matter of fact. The
deflection event is a causal primary, notwithstanding that it happens with a
measurable probability, and that by a suitable choice of apparatus this
probability can be made reasonably large.
As I have stressed elsewhere (Mohrhoff, 1999), what is true of particles in
double-slit experiments is equally true of cats in double-door experiments.
Except for the myriads of matters of fact about the door taken by the cat, `the
door taken by the cat' is objectively undefined. This seems to entail a vicious
regress. We infer the positions of particles from the positions of the detectors
that click. But the positions of detectors are extrinsic, too. They are what they
are because of the matters of fact from which one can (in principle) infer what
they are. Thus there are detector detectors from which the positions of particle
detectors are inferred, and then there are detectors from which the positions of
detector detectors are inferred, and so on {\it ad infinitum}. However, as we
regress from particle detectors to detector detectors and so on, we sooner or
later (sooner rather than later) encounter a macroscopic detector whose
position is not manifestly fuzzy. There the buck stops. The positions of things
are defined in terms of the not manifestly fuzzy positions of macroscopic
objects.
It is therefore consistent to think of the deflection of the pointer needle as one
of those uncaused actual events on which the (contingent) properties of things
depend. {\it Prima facie} we have another vicious regress: Like all contingent
properties, the initial and final positions of the needle are what they are
because of what happens or is the case in the rest of the world. They thus
presupposes other `deflection events,' which presuppose yet other `deflection
events,' and so on {\it ad infinitum}. But since before and after its deflection the
needle behaves as a macroscopic object, its initial and final positions are
quantitatively defined independently of what happens elsewhere. They are
positions of the kind that are used to define positions. Hence the deflection
event -- the transition from the initial to the final position -- is also independent
of what happens elsewhere.
\section{\conclu}Language and the Indefinite
My chief conclusion in this paper is that (ER1) and (ER2) are both false. The
sufficient and necessary condition for the existence of an element of reality
$A=a$ is the existence of an actual state of affairs, or the occurrence of an
actual event, from which $A=a$ can be inferred. The contingent properties of
all quantum systems -- and in clear this means the positions of all material
objects and whatever other properties can be inferred from them -- are
extrinsic. They are defined in terms of the goings-on in the `rest of the world.'
The reason why this does not send us chasing the ultimate property-defining
facts in neverending circles, is the existence of a special class of objects the
positions of which are not manifestly indefinite. Everything a macroscopic
object does (that is, every matter of fact about its present properties) follows
via the pertinent classical laws from what it did (that is, from matters of fact
about its past properties). This makes it possible to ignore the fact that the
properties of a macroscopic object, like all contingent properties, `dangle' from
external events and/or states of affairs. Instead of having to conceive of the
successive states of a macroscopic object as a bundle of statistically correlated
inferences warranted by a multitude of causal primaries external to the object,
we are free to think of the object's successive states as an evolving collection
of intrinsic properties fastened only to each other, by causal links.
The familiar macroworld with its causal links and deterministic processes is
something we project onto the fundamental statistical correlations and their
uncaused correlata. This projection works where the correlations are not
manifestly probabilistic (that is, where the statistical correlations evince no
statistical variations). Diachronic correlations that are not manifestly
probabilistic can be passed off as causal links. We can impose on them our
agent-causality with some measure of consistency, even though this results in
the application of a wrong criterion: temporal precedence takes the place of
causal independence as the criterion which distinguishes a cause from its
effect.
Quantum mechanics presupposes the macroworld: it assigns probabilities to
conditionals that refer to events or states of affairs either in the actual
macroworld or in a possible macroworld. This is the reason why Bohr (1934,
1958) insisted not only on the necessity of describing quantum phenomena in
terms of the experimental arrangements in which they are displayed, but also
on the necessity of employing classical language in describing these
experimental arrangements. Classical language is the language of causal
processes, of definite states that evolve deterministically, of definite objects
and of definite events -- in short, the language of the macroworld. Thus in one
sense the microworld is fundamental (macroscopic objects are made of
particles and atoms), and in another sense the macroworld is fundamental (the
contingent properties of particles and atoms are defined in terms of the
goings-on in the macroworld). The mutual dependence of the quantum and
classical `domains' has often been remarked upon (e.g., Landau and Lifshitz,
1977), but I'm not sure it has been adequately appreciated.
It seems to me that what is ultimately responsible for this mutual dependence is
the conflict between a real, objective indefiniteness and the intrinsic
definiteness of language. Language is inherently `classical.' Discourse is of
things -- the discrete carriers of significance that appear as the subjects of
predicative sentences. Things fall into mutually disjoint classes according to the
properties they possess or lack. For any two different classes $C_1$ and
$C_2$ there exists a property $p$ such that `$x$ has $p$' is true of all
members of $C_1$ and `$x$ lacks $p$' is true of all members of $C_2$. This
seems to warrant the following Principle of Completeness (Wolterstorff, 1980):
for every thing $x$ and every property $p$, $x$ either has $p$ or lacks $p$.
Reality, however, doesn't play along with this linguistic requirement.
Sometimes `$x$ has $p$' is neither true nor false but meaningless. There are
situations in which nothing in the real world corresponds to the linguistic (or
conceptual) distinction between `$x$ has $p$' and `$x$ lacks $p$'. In such
situations it is nevertheless meaningful to consider what would have happened
if one had found out whether $x$ has $p$ or lacks $p$, and to assign objective
probabilities to the alternatives `$x$ has $p$' and `$x$ lacks $p$.'
Given the intrinsic definiteness of language, the natural way to express an
objective indefiniteness is to use counterfactuals. One then has one
counterfactual for each alternative (`if $Q$ were measured, the result would be
$q_k$'), and at least one of them comes with a nontrivial objective probability
(that is, an objective probability other than 0 or 1). The linguistic requirement of
definiteness is met by the use of counterfactuals the respective consequents of
which conform to the Principle of Completeness: each consequent explicitly
affirms the truth of one alternative and implicitly denies the truth of the other
alternatives. The objective indefiniteness finds expression in the fact that the
counterfactuals are assigned nontrivial objective probabilities rather than truth
values.
Objective indefiniteness thus leads to the use of counterfactuals with nontrivial
objective probabilities, and nontrivial objective probabilities, as we have seen,
entail that the properties affirmed by the counterfactuals' consequents are
extrinsic: they are defined in terms of the goings-on in the macroworld,
notwithstanding that the objects of the macroworld are made up -- or shall we
say, manifested by means -- of nonmacroscopic objects. This mutual
dependence of the two `domains' would amount to a vicious circle if the
properties of the macroworld were in their turn defined in terms of the
microworld. But this is not the case.
Since the contingent properties of things are defined in terms
of events or states of affairs in the macroworld, quantum mechanics
presupposes the macroworld. In particular, it presupposes such matters of fact as `the needle deflects to the left' or `the needle is pointing left.' By itself this does not guarantee
that quantum mechanics is consistent with the existence of the macroworld - quantum mechanics
(or the interpretation of quantum mechanics put forward in this paper) could lack
self-consistency. But self-consistency only requires that the needle's
position too is fuzzy, and that it `dangles ontologically' from the goings-on in the
rest of the world. Quantum mechanics permits it to `dangle' from them in such a way that, before and after the deflection, it is not manifestly fuzzy. If the needle's position is not manifestly fuzzy, the needle behaves
as a macroscopic object, and we can consistently conceive of its successive
positions as `dangling causally' from each other -- except for one gap in the
causal chain, the deflection event. But being a (probabilistic) transition between
states embedded in the causal nexus of the macroworld, this too forms part of
the macroworld.
Quantum mechanics not only presupposes and admits of the existence of macroscopic objects, it also entails it. The existence of an unpredictable matter of fact about the position
of $O$ entails the existence of detectors with `sharper' positions; the existence
of an unpredictable matter of fact about the position of one of those detectors
entails the existence of detectors with yet `sharper' positions; and so on. It
stands to reason that one sooner or later runs out of detectors with `sharper'
positions. There are `ultimate' detectors the positions of which are not
manifestly fuzzy, and which therefore are macroscopic.
\vfill\break
\parindent=0pt\bigskip{\bf References}\par\smallskip
\baselineskip=14truept\parskip=3truept
Aharonov, Y., Bergmann, P.G., and Lebowitz, J.L. (1964) `Time Symmetry in
the Quantum Process of Measurement,' {\it Physical Review B} {\bf 134},
1410-1416.
Aharonov,Y., and Vaidman, L. (1991) `Complete Description of a Quantum
System at a Given Time,' {\it Journal of Physics} {\bf A 24}, 2315-2328.
Albert, D.Z. (1992) {\it Quantum Mechanics and Experience}, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bartley III., W.W. (1982) {\it Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics},
Totowa, NJ: Rowan \& Littlefield.
Bell, J.S. (1987) {\it Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics},
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J.S. and Nauenberg, M. (1966) `The Moral Aspect of Quantum
Mechanics,' in De Shalit, Feshbach, and Van Hove (1996), pp. 279-86.
Reprinted in Bell (1987), pp. 22-28.
Bohm, D. (1951) {\it Quantum Theory}, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bohr, N. (1934) {\it Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature}, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bohr, N. (1958) {\it Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge}, New York: Wiley,
p.~72.
Bohr, N. (1963) {\it Essays 1958-62 on Atomic Physics and Human
Knowledge}, New York: Wiley, p.~3.
Cassinello, A., and S\'anchez-G\'omez, J.L. (1996) `On the Probabilistic
Postulate of Quantum Mechanics,' {\it Foundations of Physics} {\bf 26},
1357-1374.
Davies, P. (1989) {\it The New Physics}, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
De Shalit, A., Feshbach, H., and Van Hove, L. (1966) {\it Preludes in
Theoretical Physics}, Amsterdam: North Holland.
d'Espagnat, B. (1976) {\it Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics}, 2nd
edition, Reading, MA: Benjamin, p. 251.
d'Espagnat, B. (1995) {\it Veiled Reality}, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935) `Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?,'' {\it Physical
Review} {\bf 47}, 777-780.
Englert, B.-G., Scully, M.O., and Walther, H. (1994) `The Duality in Matter and
Light,' {\it Scientific American} {\bf 271}, No. 6 (December), 56-61.
Englert, B.-G., Scully, M.O., and Walther, H. (1999) `Quantum Erasure
in Double-Slit Interferometers with Which-Way Detectors,'' {\it American
Journal of Physics} {\bf 67}, 325-329.
Ford, J., and Mantica, G. (1992) `Does Quantum Mechanics Obey the
Correspondence Principle? Is it Complete?', {\it American Journal of Physics}
{\bf 60}, 1068-1097.
Gell-Mann, M., and Hartle, J.B. (1990) `Quantum Mechanics in the Light of
Quantum Cosmology,' in Zurek (1990), pp. 425-458.
Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986) `Unified Dynamics for
Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems,' {\it Physical Review D} {\bf 34},
470-91.
Gisin, N., and Percival, I.C. (1992) `The Quantum-State Diffusion Model
Applied to Open Systems,' {\it Journal of Physiccs A} {\bf 25}, 5677-5691.
Griffiths, R.B. (1984) `Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics,' {\it Journal of Statistical Physics} {\bf 36}, 219-272.
Heisenberg, W. (1958) {\it Physics and Philosophy}, New York: Harper and
Row, Chapter 3.
Hilgevoord, J. (1998) `The Uncertainty Principle For Energy and Time. II,' {\it
American Journal of Physics } {\bf 66}, 396-402.
Jauch, J.M. (1968) {\it Foundations of Quantum Mechanics}, Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Joos, E., and Zeh, H.D. (1985) `The Emergence of Classical Properties
Through Interaction With the Environment,' {\it Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik B} {\bf
59}, 223-243.
Kastner, R.E. (1999) `Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory, Counterfactuals,
and ``Advanced Action'',' to be published in {\it Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science}.
Landau, L.D., and Lifshitz, E.M. (1977) {\it Quantum Mechanics}, Oxford:
Pergamon Press, pp.~2-3.
Langevin, P. (1939) {Actualit\'es scientifiques et industrielles: Expos\'es de
physique g\'en\'erale}, Paris: Hermann.
Lockwood, M. (1989) {\it Mind, Brain and the Quantum: The Compound `I'},
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
London, F., and Bauer, E. (1939) `La th\'eorie de l'observation en m\'ecanique
quantique,' in Langevin (1939), No. 775. English translation `The Theory of
Observation in Quantum Mechanics' in Wheeler and Zurek (1983), pp.
217-259.
L\"uders, G. (1951) `\"Uber die Zustands\"anderung durch den
Messprozess,' {\it Annalen der Physik (Leipzig)} {\bf 8}, 322-328.
Mermin, N.D. (1998) ``What is Quantum Mechanics Trying to Tell Us?,'' {\it
American Journal of Physics} {\bf 66}, 753-767.
Miller, A.I. (1990) {\it 62 Years of Uncertainty}, New York: Plenum Press.
Mohrhoff, U. (1999) `Objectivity, Retrocausation, and the Experiment of
Englert, Scully and Walther,' {\it American Journal of Physics} {\bf 67},
330-335.
Mohrhoff, U. (submitted) `What Quantum Mechanics is Trying to Tell Us.'
Omn\`es, R. (1992) `Consistent Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics,' {\it
Reviews of Modern Physics} {\bf 64}, 339-382.
Onley, D., and Kumar, A. (1992) `Time Dependence in Quantum
Mechanics -- Study of a Simple Decaying System,' {\it American Journal
of Physics} {\bf 60}, 432-439.
Page, D.N. (1996) `Sensible Quantum Mechanics: Are Probabilities Only in the
Mind?,' {\it International Journal of Modern Physics D} {\bf 5}, 583-596.
Page, D.N., and Wootters, W.K. (1983) `Evolution Without Evolution:
Dynamics Described by Stationary Observables' {\it Physical Review D} {\bf
27}, 2885-2891.
Pais, A., (1982) {\it `Subtle is the Lord...': The Science and the Life of Albert
Einstein}, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pearle, P. (1989) `Combining Stochastic Dynamical State-Vector Reduction
with Spontaneous Localization,' {\it Physical Review A} {\bf 39}, 2277-2289.
Percival, I.C. (1994) `Primary State Diffusion,' {\it Proceedings of the Royal
Society London} {\bf A447}, 189-209.
Peres, A., and Zurek, W.H. (1982) `Is Quantum Theory Universally Valid?,' {\it
American Journal of Physics} {\bf 50}, 807-810.
Popper, K.R. (1982) in Bartley III (1982).
Price, H. (1996) {\it Time's Arrow \& Archimedes' Point}, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Primas, H. (1990) `Mathematical and Philosophical Questions in the Theory of
Open and Macroscopic Quantum Systems,' in Miller (1990), pp. 233-257.
Redhead, M. (1987) {\it Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism}, Oxford:
Clarendon, p. 72.
Shimony, A. (1978) `Metaphysical Problems in the Foundations of Quantum
Mechanics,' {\it International Philosophical Quarterly} {\bf 18}, 3-17.
Shimony, A. (1989) `Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics' in Davies
(1989), 373-95.
Scully, M.O., Englert, B.-G., and Walther, H. (1991) `Quantum Optical Tests of
Complementarity,' {\it Nature} {\bf 351}, No. 6322, 111-116.
Singh, I., and Whitaker, M.A.B. (1982) `Role of the Observer in Quantum
Mechanics and the Zeno Paradox,' {\it American Journal of Physics} {\bf
50}, 882-887.
Stapp, H.P. (1993) {\it Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics}, Berlin:
Springer.
Vaidman, L. (1993) `Lorentz-Invariant ``Elements of Reality'' and the Joint
Measurability of Commuting Observables,' {\it Physical Review Letters} {\bf
70}, 3369-3372.
Vaidman, L. (1996a) `Defending Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory,' e-print
archive quant-ph 9609007.
Vaidman, L. (1996b) `Weak-Measurement Elements of Reality,' {\it
Foundations of Physics} {\bf 26}, 895-906.
Vaidman, L. (1997) `Time-Symmetrized Counterfactuals in Quantum Theory,'
e-print archive quant-ph 9807075, Tel-Aviv University Preprint TAUP-2459-97.
Vaidman, L. (1998) `Time-Symmetrized Quantum Theory,' {\it Fortschritte der
Physik} {\bf 46}, 729-739.
Vaidman, L. (1999) `Defending Time-Symmetrized Quantum Counterfactuals,'
to be published in {\it Studies in History and Philosophy of Science}.
von Neumann, J. (1955) {\it Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
Mechanics}, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wheeler, J.A. (1983) `On Recognizing ``Law Without Law'' (Oersted
Medal Response at the Joint APS-AAPT Meeting, New York, 25 January
1983),' {\it American Journal of Physics} {\bf 51}, 398-404.
Wheeler, J.A., and Zurek, W.H. (1983) {\it Quantum Theory and
Measurement}, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wolterstorff, N. (1980), {\it Works and Worlds of Art}, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zurek, W.H., (1981) `Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture
Does the Wave Packet Collapse?', {\it Physical Review D} {\bf 24}, 1516-1525.
Zurek, W.H., (1982) `Environment-Induced Superselection Rules,' {\it Physical
Review D} {\bf 26}, 1862-1880.
Zurek, W.H., (1990) {\it Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information},
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
\bye
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
St. W. acknowledges financial support by the {\em Schweizerische Nationalfonds}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Nature appears to be covariant
both under the discrete transformation CPT,
formed from the product of charge conjugation C,
parity inversion P, and time reversal T,
and under the continuous Lorentz transformations
including rotations and boosts.
The CPT theorem links these symmetries,
stating that under mild technical assumptions
CPT is an exact symmetry of local Lorentz-covariant field theories
of point particles.\cite{cpt,sachs}
High-precision tests of both CPT and Lorentz invariance exist.
According to the Particle Data Group\cite{pdg}
the best figure of merit for CPT tests
involves the kaon particle-antiparticle mass difference,
which has been bounded by experiments at Fermilab and CERN
to\cite{kexpt}
\begin{equation}
\fr{|m_K - m_{\overline K}|}{m_K}
\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 10^{-18}
\quad .
\label{a}
\end{equation}
Indeed,
at present CPT is the only combination of C, P, T
observed as an exact symmetry of nature at the fundamental level.
The existence of high-precision experimental tests and
of the general CPT theorem for Lorentz-covariant particle theories
means that the observation of CPT or Lorentz violation
would be a sensitive signal for unconventional physics
beyond the standard model.
It is therefore interesting to consider
possible theoretical mechanisms
through which CPT or Lorentz symmetry might be violated.
Most suggestions along these lines in the literature
either have physical features
that seem unlikely to be realized in nature
or involve radical revisions
of conventional quantum field theory, or both.
Nonetheless,
there does exists at least one promising theoretical possibility,
based on spontaneous breaking of CPT and Lorentz symmetry
in an underlying theory,\cite{ks,kp}
that appears to be compatible both with experimental constraints
and with established quantum field theory.
It suggests that apparent breaking of CPT and Lorentz symmetry
might be observable in existing or feasible experiments,
and it leads to a general phenomenology for
CPT and Lorentz violation
at the level of the standard model
and quantum electrodynamics (QED).
The formulation and experimental implications
of this theory are briefly described in this talk.
\section{Framework}
In principle,
one can attempt to circumvent
the difficult issue of developing a
satisfactory microscopic theory allowing CPT and Lorentz breaking
by adopting a purely phenomenological approach.
This can be done by identifying
and parametrizing observable quantities
that allow for CPT or Lorentz violation.
A well-known example is the phenomenology of CPT violation
in oscillations of neutral kaons.\cite{leewu}
In the neutral-kaon system,
linear combinations of the strong-interaction eigenstates
$K^0$ and $\overline{K^0}$
form the physical eigenstates $K_S$ and $K_L$.
These combinations contain
two complex parameters, $\epsilon_K$ and $\delta_K$,
parametrizing CP violation.
One, $\epsilon_K$, governs T violation with CPT symmetry
while the other, $\delta_K$, governs CPT violation with T symmetry.
The standard model of particle physics
has a mechanism for T violation,
and so $\epsilon_K$ is in this context
nonzero and in principle calculable.
However,
CPT is a symmetry of the standard model
and so $\delta_K$ is expected to vanish.
The possibility of a nonzero value of $\delta_K$
is from this prespective only a phenomenological choice.
It has no grounds in a microscopic theory
and $\delta_K$ is therefore not calculable.
Indeed,
in the absence of a microscopic theory,
it is even unclear whether this parametrization
makes physical sense.
Moreover,
without a microscopic origin
$\delta_K$ cannot be linked to other phenomenological parameters
for CPT tests in different experiments.
Evidently,
it is more attractive theoretically
to develop an explicit microscopic theory
for CPT and Lorentz violation.
With a theory of sufficient scope,
a general and quantitative
phenomenology for CPT and Lorentz violation
could then be extracted
at the level of the standard model.
This would allow
calculation of phenomenological parameters,
direct comparisons between experiments,
and perhaps the prediction of signals.
The development of a microscopic theory of this type
is feasible within the context
of spontaneous CPT and Lorentz breaking.\cite{ks,kp}
The idea is that the underlying theory of nature
has a Lorentz- and CPT-covariant action,
but apparent violations of these symmetries
could result from their spontanteous violation
in solutions to the theory.
It appears that this mechanism is viable from the theoretical viewpoint
and is an attractive way to
violate CPT and Lorentz invariance.
Since spontaneous breaking is a property of the solution
rather than the dynamics of a theory,
the broken symmetry plays an important role in establishing the physics.
In the case of CPT and Lorentz violation,
spontaneous breaking has the advantage
that many of the desirable properties of
a Lorentz-covariant theory can be expected.
This is in sharp distinction to
other types of CPT and Lorentz breaking,
which often are inconsistent
with theoretical notions such as causality
or probability conservation.
The physics of a particle in a vacuum
with spontaneous Lorentz violation
is in some respects similar to that of
a conventional particle moving inside a biaxial crystal.\cite{cksm}
This system typically breaks Lorentz covariance
both under rotations and under boosts.
However,
instead of leading to fundamental problems,
the lack of Lorentz covariance
is merely a result of the presence
of the background crystal fields,
which leaves unaffected features such as causality.
Indeed,
one can explicitly confirm microcausality
in certain simple models arising
from spontaneous CPT and Lorentz breaking.\cite{cksm}
In a Lorentz-covariant theory,
certain types of interaction among Lorentz-tensor fields
could trigger spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry.
The idea is that these
interactions could destabilize the naive vacuum
and generate nonzero Lorentz-tensor expectation values,
which fill the true vacuum
and cause spontaneous Lorentz breaking.\cite{ks}
This also induces spontaneous CPT violation
whenever the expectation values
involve tensor fields with an odd number
of spacetime indices.\cite{kp}
Provided components of the expectation values lie
along the four macroscopic spacetime dimensions,
apparent violations of CPT and Lorentz symmetry
could arise at the level of the standard model.\cite{kp2}
This could lead to observable effects,
some of which are described in the following sections.
Conventional four-dimensional renormalizable gauge theories
such as the standard model
lack the necessary destabilizing interactions
to trigger spontaneous Lorentz violation.
However,
the mechanism may be realized in some string (M) theories
because suitable Lorentz-tensor interactions occur.
This can be investigated using string field theory
in the special case of the open bosonic string,
where the action and equations of motion
can be analytically derived
for particle fields below some fixed level number $N$.
Obtaining and comparing solutions for different $N$
allows the identification of solutions
that persist as $N$ increases.\cite{ks}
For some cases this procedure has been performed
to a depth of over 20,000 terms in
the static potential.\cite{kp}
The solutions remaining stable as $N$ increases
include ones spontaneously breaking Lorentz symmetry.
In standard field theories,
spontaneous breaking of a continuous global symmetry
is accompanied by the appearance of massless modes,
ensured by the Nambu-Goldstone theorem.
Promoting a global spontaneously broken symmetry
to a local gauge symmetry leads to the Higgs mechanism:
the massless modes disappear
and a mass is generated for the gauge boson.
Similarly,
spontaneous breaking of a continuous global Lorentz symmetry
would also lead to massless modes.
However,
although the inclusion of gravity
promotes Lorentz invariance to a local symmetry,
no analogue to the Higgs effect occurs.\cite{ks}
The dependence of the connection on
derivatives of the metric rather than the metric itself
ensures that the graviton propagator is affected
in such a way that no graviton mass is generated
when local Lorentz symmetry is spontaneously broken.
\section{Standard-Model and QED Extensions}
Assuming spontaneous CPT and Lorentz violation does occur,
then any apparent breaking
at the level of the SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) standard model
and QED must be highly suppressed
to remain compatible with established experimental bounds.
If the appropriate dimensionless suppression factor
is determined by the ratio of
a low-energy (standard-model) scale
to the (Planck) scale of an underlying fundamental theory,
then relatively few observable effects
of Lorentz or CPT violation would arise.
To study these,
it is useful to develop an extension of the standard model
obtained as the low-energy limit
of the fundamental theory.\cite{kp2}
To gain insight about the construction of such an extension,
consider as an example
a possible coupling between one or more bosonic tensor fields
and fermion bilinears
in the low-energy limit of the underlying theory.
When the tensors acquire expectation values $\vev{T}$,
the low-energy theory gains additional terms of the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \sim \fr {\lambda} {M^k}
\vev{T}\cdot\overline{\psi}\Gamma(i\partial )^k\chi
+ {\textstyle h.c.}
\quad .
\label{aa}
\end{equation}
Here,
the gamma-matrix structure $\Gamma$
and the $k$ spacetime derivatives $i\partial$
determine the Lorentz properties of the
bilinear in the fermion fields $\psi$, $\chi$
and hence fix the type of apparent CPT and Lorentz violation
in the low-energy theory.
The effective coupling involves an expectation $\vev{T}$
together with a dimensionless coupling $\lambda$
and a suitable power of a large
(Planck or compactification) scale $M$
associated with the fundamental theory.
Proceeding along these lines,
one can determine all possible terms arising
at the level of the standard model
from spontaneous CPT and Lorentz breaking
in any underlying theory
(not necessarily string theory).
This leads to
a general Lorentz-violating extension
of the standard model
that includes both CPT-even and CPT-odd terms.\cite{cksm}
It contains
all possible allowed hermitian terms preserving both
SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) gauge invariance
and power-counting renormalizability.
It appears at present to be the sole candidate
for a consistent extension of the standard model
based on a microscopic theory of Lorentz violation.
Despite the apparent CPT and Lorentz breaking,
the standard-model extension exhibits several desirable properties of
conventional Lorentz-covariant field theories
by virtue of its origin in spontaneous symmetry breaking
from a covariant underlying theory.\cite{cksm}
Thus, the usual quantization methods are valid
and features like microcausality and positivity of the energy
are to be expected.
Also,
energy and momentum are conserved provided
the tensor expectation values are independent of spacetime position
(no soliton solutions).
Even one type of Lorentz symmetry remains: the theory is
covariant under rotations or boosts of the observer's inertial frame
(observer Lorentz transformations).
The apparent Lorentz violations appear
only when (localized) fields are rotated or boosted
(particle Lorentz transformations)
relative to the vacuum tensor expectation values.
In the case of the conventional standard model,
one can obtain the usual versions of QED
by taking suitable limits.
For the standard-model extension,
it can be shown that the usual
gauge symmetry breaking to the electromagnetic U(1) occurs,
and taking appropriate limits yields generalizations
of the usual versions of QED.
It turns out that the apparent CPT and Lorentz breaking
can arise in both the photon and fermion sectors.\cite{cksm}
These extensions of QED are of particular interest
because many high-precision QED tests
of CPT and Lorentz symmetry exist.
An explicit and relatively simple example
is the restriction of the standard-model extension
to an extension of QED involving
only photons, electrons, and positrons.
The usual lagrangian is:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\rm QED} =
\overline{\psi} \gamma^\mu ({\textstyle{1\over 2}} i \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial_\mu} - q A_\mu ) \psi
- m \overline{\psi} \psi
- \frac 1 4 F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
\quad .
\label{aaa}
\end{equation}
Apparent Lorentz violation
can occur in both the fermion and photon sectors,
and it can be CPT even or CPT odd.
The CPT-violating terms are:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\rm CPT}_{e} =
- a_{\mu} \overline{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi
- b_{\mu} \overline{\psi} \gamma_5 \gamma^{\mu} \psi \quad ,
$$
$$
{\cal L}^{\rm CPT}_{\gamma} =
{\textstyle{1\over 2}} (k_{AF})^\kappa \epsilon_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} A^\lambda F^{\mu\nu}
\quad .
\label{bbb}
\end{equation}
The CPT-preserving terms are:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{\rm Lorentz}_{e} =
c_{\mu\nu} \overline{\psi} \gamma^{\mu}
({\textstyle{1\over 2}} i \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^\nu} - q A^\nu ) \psi
+ d_{\mu\nu} \overline{\psi} \gamma_5 \gamma^\mu
({\textstyle{1\over 2}} i \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^\nu} - q A^\nu ) \psi
- {\textstyle{1\over 2}} H_{\mu\nu} \overline{\psi} \sigma^{\mu\nu} \psi
$$
$$
{\cal L}^{\rm Lorentz}_{\gamma} =
-\frac 1 4 (k_F)_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} F^{\kappa\lambda}F^{\mu\nu}
\quad .
\label{ccc}
\end{equation}
The reader is referred to the literature\cite{cksm}
for details of the notation and conventions
and for information about the properties of the extra terms.
Note, however,
that all these terms are invariant under observer Lorentz
transformations,
whereas the expressions in Eqs.\ (4) and (5) violate
particle Lorentz invariance:
the coefficients of the extra terms
behave as (minuscule) Lorentz- and CPT-violating couplings.
Note also that not all the components
of the coefficients appearing are physically observable.
For example,
field redefinitions can be used to eliminate some
coefficients of the type $a_\mu$
in the standard-model extension.
It turns out that these can be directly detected only
in flavor-changing experiments,
and so they are unobservable at leading order
in experiments restricted to electrons, positrons, and photons.
\section{Experimental Tests}
The standard-model extension described above
forms a quantitative framework
within which various experimental tests of
CPT and Lorentz symmetry
can be studied and compared.
Moreover,
potentially observable signals
can be deduced in some cases.
Evidently,
any tests seeking to establish
nonzero CPT- and Lorentz-violating terms
in the standard-model extension
must contend with the expected heavy suppression
of physical effects.
Although many tests of CPT and Lorentz symmetry
lack the necessary sensitivity to possible signals,
a few special ones
can already place useful constraints on
some of the new couplings in the standard-model extension.
Several of these tests are discussed elsewhere in
these proceedings.
Among the ones investigated to date are experiments with
neutral-meson oscillations,\cite{kexpt,kp,kp2}$^{\!-\,}$\cite{ak}
comparative tests of QED
in Penning traps,\cite{pennexpts,bkr}
spectroscopy of hydrogen and antihydrogen,\cite{antih,bkr2}
measurements of cosmological birefringence,\cite{cksm}
and observations of the baryon asymmetry.\cite{bckp}
The remainder of this talk provides a brief outline
of some of these studies.
Other work is in progress,
including an investigation\cite{kla}
of constraints from clock-comparison experiments.\cite{cc}
\subsection{Neutral-Meson Oscillations}
Flavor oscillations occur or are anticipated
in a variety of neutral-meson systems,
including $K$, $D$, $B_d$, and $B_s$.
A neutral-meson state evolves in time
according to a non-hermitian two-by-two effective hamiltonian
in the meson-antimeson state space.
The effective hamiltonian involves complex parameters
$\epsilon_P$ and $\delta_P$
that govern (indirect) CP violation,
where the neutral meson is denoted by $P$.
In the $K$ system,
$\epsilon_K$ and $\delta_K$
are the same phenomenological quantities
mentioned in section 2.
The parameter $\epsilon_P$ governs T violation,
while $\delta_P$ governs CPT violation.
Bounds on CPT violation can be obtained
by constraining the magnitude of $\delta_P$
in experiments with meson oscillations.
In the context of the usual standard model,
which preserves CPT,
$\delta_P$ is necessarily zero.
In contrast,
in the context of the standard-model extension
$\delta_P$ is a derivable quantity.\cite{ak}
It turns out that
at leading order $\delta_P$ depends only
on a single type of extra coupling
in the standard-model extension.
This type of coupling has the form
$- a^q_{\mu} \overline{q} \gamma^\mu q$,
where $q$ represents one of the valence quark fields
in the $P$ meson
and the quantity $a^q_{\mu}$ is spacetime constant
but depends on the quark flavor $q$.
Since Lorentz symmetry is broken
in the standard-model extension,
the derived expression for $\delta_P$
varies with the boost and orientation of the $P$ meson.\cite{ak}
Denoting by $\beta^\mu \equiv \gamma(1,\vec\beta)$
the four-velocity of the $P$-meson
in the frame in which the quantities $a^q_{\mu}$ are specified,
it can be shown that
$\delta_P$ is given at leading order in all coupling coefficients
in the standard-model extension by
\begin{equation}
\delta_P \approx i \sin\hat\phi \exp(i\hat\phi)
\gamma(\Delta a_0 - \vec \beta \cdot \Delta \vec a) /\Delta m
\quad .
\label{e}
\end{equation}
For simplicity,
subscripts $P$ have been omitted on the right-hand side.
In Eq.\ \rf{e},
$\Delta a_\mu \equiv a_\mu^{q_2} - a_\mu^{q_1}$,
where $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the valence-quark flavors
for the $P$ meson.
Also,
$\hat\phi\equiv \tan^{-1}(2\Delta m/\Delta\gamma)$,
where $\Delta m$ and $\Delta \gamma$
are the mass and decay-rate differences,
respectively,
between the $P$-meson eigenstates.
This result has several implications.
One is that tests of CPT and Lorentz symmetry with neutral mesons
are independent at leading order of
all other types of tests mentioned here.
This is because $\delta_P$ is sensitive only
to $a^q_{\mu}$
and because this sensitivity arises from flavor-changing effects.
None of the other experiments described here
involve flavor changes,
which can be shown to imply
that none are sensitive to any $a^q_{\mu}$.
The result \rf{e} also makes predictions about signals
in experiments with neutral mesons.
For example,
the real and imaginary parts of $\delta_P$
are predicted to be proportional.\cite{kp2}
Similarly,
Eq.\ \rf{e} suggests
that the magnitude of $\delta_P$
may be different for different $P$
due to the flavor dependence
of the coefficients $a_\mu^q$.
For example,
if the coefficients $a_\mu^q$ grow with mass
as do the usual Yukawa couplings,
then the heavier neutral mesons
such as $D$ or $B_d$ may exhibit
the largest CPT-violating effects.
The dependence of the result \rf{e}
on the meson boost magnitude and orientation
implies several notable effects
in the signals for CPT and Lorentz violation.\cite{ak}
For example,
two different experiments may have inequivalent
CPT and Lorentz reach
despite having comparable statistical sensitivity.
This could arise if the mesons for one experiment
are well collimated while those for the other
have a $4\pi$ distribution,
or if the mesons involved in the two experiments have
very different momentum spectra.
Another interesting effect is the possibility of
diurnal variations in the data,
arising from the rotation of the Earth relative to
the orientation of the coupling coefficients.\cite{ak}
This issue may be of some importance
because the data in neutral-meson experiments
are typically taken over many days.
At present,
the tightest clean experimental constraints on CPT violation
come from observations of the $K$ system.\cite{kexpt}
Some experimental results are now also available
for the heavier neutral-meson systems.
Two collaborations\cite{bexpt}
at CERN have performed analyses
to investigate whether\cite{ckv}
existing data suffice to bound CPT violation.
The OPAL collaboration has published the measurement
$\hbox{Im}\,\delta_{B_d} = -0.020 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.006$,
while the DELPHI collaboration has announced a preliminary
result of $\hbox{Im}\,\delta_{B_d} = -0.011 \pm 0.017 \pm 0.005$.
Further theoretical and experimental studies are underway.
\subsection{QED Experiments}
High-precision measurements of properties of particles
and antiparticles can be obtained by
trapping individual particles for extended time periods.
Comparison of the results provides sensitive CPT tests.
Such experiments can constrain the couplings in the
fermion sector of the QED extension.\cite{bkr}
Penning traps can be used to obtain
comparative measurements of particle and antiparticle
anomaly and cyclotron frequencies.\cite{pennexpts}
The QED extension predicts direct signals and
also effects arising from diurnal variations
in the Earth-comoving laboratory frame.\cite{bkr}
Appropriate figures of merit for the various signals
have been defined
and the attainable experimental sensitivity estimated.
As one example,
comparing the anomalous magnetic moments
of electrons and positrons would generate an interesting bound
on the spatial components of the coefficient $b^e_\mu$
in the laboratory frame.
Available technology could place a limit of order $10^{-20}$
on the associated figure of merit.
A related test involves the search for diurnal variations
of the electron anomaly frequency,
for which a new experimental result
with a figure of merit bounded at $6\times 10^{-21}$
is presented in these proceedings
by Mittleman, Ioannou, and Dehmelt.\cite{rm}
Analogous experiments with protons and antiprotons
may be feasible.
Particle and antiparticle cyclotron frequencies can also be compared.
In these proceedings,
Gabrielse and coworkers
present the results of
an experiment comparing the cyclotron frequencies of $H^-$ ions
and antiprotons in the same trap.\cite{gk}
The leading-order effects in this experiment
provide a test of Lorentz violation
in the context of the standard-model extension,
with an associated figure of merit
bounded at $4\times 10^{-25}$.
Tests of CPT and Lorentz symmetry are also possible
via high-precision comparisons of spectroscopic data from trapped
hydrogen and antihydrogen.\cite{antih}
An investigation of the possible experimental signals
within the context of the standard-model and QED extensions
has been performed.\cite{bkr2}
Direct sensitivity to CPT- and Lorentz-violating couplings,
without suppression factors associated with the fine-structure constant,
arises for certain specific 1S-2S and hyperfine transitions
in magnetically trapped hydrogen and antihydrogen.
In principle,
theoretically clean signals might be observed
for particular types of CPT and Lorentz violation.
The photon sector of the QED extension
can also be tightly constrained
from a combination of theoretical considerations
and terrestrial, astrophysical,
and cosmological experiments on electromagnetic radiation.
It is known that
the pure-photon CPT-violating term in Eq.\ \rf{bbb}
can generate negative contributions
to the energy,\cite{cfj}
which may limit its viability
and suggests the coefficient
$(k_{AF})^\kappa$ should be zero.\cite{cksm}
In contrast,
the CPT-even term in the following equation
maintains a positive conserved energy.\cite{cksm}
The solutions of the extended Maxwell equations
with CPT- and Lorentz-breaking effects
involve two independent propagating degrees of freedom,\cite{cksm}
as usual.
Unlike the conventional propagation of
electromagnetic waves in vacuum,
however,
in the extended Maxwell case
the two modes have different dispersion relations.
This means the vacuum is birefringent.
Indeed,
the effects of the CPT and Lorentz violation
on an electromagnetic wave traveling in the vacuum
are closely analogous to those exhibited by
an electromagnetic wave in conventional electrodynamics
that is passing through
a transparent optically anisotropic and gyrotropic crystal
with spatial dispersion of the axes.\cite{cksm}
The sharpest experimental limits on the extra coefficients
in the extended Maxwell equations
can be obtained by constraining the birefringence of radio waves
on cosmological distance scales.
Considering first the
CPT-odd coefficient $(k_{AF})_\mu$,
one finds\cite{cfj,hpk}
a bound of the order of $\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 10^{-42}$ GeV
on its components.
A disputed claim exists\cite{nr,misc}
for a nonzero effect at the level of
$|\vec k_{AF}|\sim 10^{-41}$ GeV.
For the CPT-even dimensionless coefficient $(k_F)_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}$,
the single rotation-invariant irreducible component
is constrained to $\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 10^{-23}$
by the existence of cosmic rays\cite{cg}
and other tests.
Rotation invariance is broken by all
the other irreducible components of $(k_F)_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}$.
Although in principle it might be feasible to constrain
these coefficients with existing techniques for
measuring cosmological birefringence,\cite{cksm}
no limits presently exist.
It is plausible that
a bound at the level of about $10^{-27}$
could be placed on components of $(k_F)_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}$.
The sharp experimental constraints obtained on $(k_{AF})_\mu$
are compatible with the zero value
needed to avoid negative-energy contributions.
However,
no symmetry protects a zero
tree-level value of $(k_{AF})_\mu$.
It might therefore seem reasonable to expect
$(k_{AF})_\mu$ to acquire a nonzero value
from radiative corrections
involving CPT-violating couplings
in the fermion sector.
Nonetheless,
this does \it not \rm occur:\cite{cksm}
an anomaly-cancellation mechanism can ensure that
the net sum of all one-loop radiative corrections is finite.
The situation is technically involved because
the contribution from each individual radiative correction
is ambiguous,\cite{cksm,jk}
but the anomaly-cancellation mechanism can hold
even if one chooses to define the theory
such that each individual radiative correction is nonzero.
Thus,
a tree-level CPT-odd term is unnecessary
for one-loop renormalizability.
Similar effects may occur at higher loops.
This ability to impose the vanishing
of an otherwise allowed CPT-odd term
represents a significant check
on the consistency of the standard-model extension.
For the CPT-even Lorentz-violating pure-photon term
there is no similar mechanism,
and in fact calculations have explicitly demonstrated\cite{cksm}
the existence of divergent radiative corrections
at the one-loop level.
This therefore leaves open the interesting possibility of
future detection of a nonzero effect via measurements of
cosmological birefringence.
Various other possible observable CPT effects have been identified.
For example,
under suitable conditions
the observed baryon asymmetry can be generated in thermal equilibrium
through CPT- and Lorentz-violating bilinear terms.\cite{bckp}
A relatively large baryon asymmetry produced at grand-unified scales
would eventually become diluted to the observed value
through sphaleron or other effects.
This mechanism represents one possible alternative
to the conventional scenarios for baryogenesis,
in which nonequilibrium processes
and C- and CP-breaking interactions are required.\cite{ads}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I thank Orfeu Bertolami, Robert Bluhm, Chuck Lane,
Don Colladay, Roman Jackiw, Rob Potting, Neil Russell, Stuart Samuel,
and Rick Van Kooten for collaborations.
This work was supported in part
by the United States Department of Energy
under grant number DE-FG02-91ER40661.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Neutral gas at high redshifts is most easily observed through
the Lyman-$\alpha$ transition of the hydrogen atom, which with current
technology can be detected in absorption against the UV continuum of
QSOs even at column densities as low as low as $10^{13}$ atoms/cm$^{-2}$.
The bulk (by mass) of the neutral gas however is found in the few
very high column density systems(Rao and Briggs, 1993), where one could
in principle expect a non trivial molecular fraction. However, quantitative
predictions of the molecular fraction are difficult to make since the
conversion of gas from atomic to molecular form depends on a variety of
environmental factors like the UV background, the metallicity and the dust
content, all of which are poorly constrained at high redshift. On the
observational front, despite searching a large sample, mm molecular lines
have been detected in absorption at high redshifts only from four sources
(of which two are gravitational lenses and two appear to arise from
gas associated with the AGN itself) (Wiklind \& Combes 1998). Here
we discuss the case of PKS~1830-21, which is the brightest known
radio lens.
PKS~1830-21 was identified as a candidate gravitational lens on
the basis of its peculiar radio spectrum and morphology (Rao \& Subhramanyan
1988, Subhramanyan et. al. 1990, Jauncey et. al. 1991). The radio structure
(see Figure~\ref{fig:ov}) consists of two compact flat spectrum components
separated by $\sim 1^{''}$ (henceforth called the northeast (NE) and
southwest (SW) components respectively), joined by a steep spectrum ring.
At a frequency of 1.7~GHz roughly one third of the observed flux comes
from the ring and each of two compact components. At the redshifted
frequencies of HI (753 MHz) and OH (884 MHz) the ring is expected to be even
more dominant. The lack of simultaneous multi-frequency flux density
measurements of sufficient angular resolution (in view of the strong
variability of 1830-21) makes a more accurate assessment of the ring
flux and the relative components fluxes at the low frequencies not
possible at present.
For long, no optical counter part has been found for 1830-21
(Djorgovski et. al. 1992), largely because of confusion arising from its
low galactic latitude, although there is now some evidence for one (Courbin
et. al. 1998). Two independent gravitational lensing models have been
proposed for PKS~1830-21, (Nair et. al. 1993, Kochanek \& Narayan 1992).
At the time that these models were made no redshift was available either
for the source or the lens.
The redshift of the lens is now known to be $0.89$ from molecular
line observations (Wiklind \& Combes 1996). The absorption spectra against
the NE and the SW image are very different (Frye et. al. 1996,
Wiklind \& Combes 1998), ruling out the possibility that the molecules at
$0.89$ are associated with the background quasar itself. The bulk of the
molecular absorption occurs against the SW component, although much weaker
absorption is also seen in some molecules against the NE component. The
velocity separation between the absorption seen against the NE image and
the SW image is 147 km/s. In addition to the molecules seen at $z=0.88582$,
HI absorption has also been seen towards PKS~1830-21, but at a lower reshift
of $0.19$ (Lovell et. al. 1996). The velocity width of this HI line is
$\sim 30$ km/s and it has been interpreted as arising due to absorption
in a dense spiral arm of a low redshift spiral galaxy. No molecular absorption
has been detected from this lower redshift system (Wiklind \& Combes 1997).
In what follows we report on WSRT observations of the HI and OH
absorption arising from the system at $z=0.89$. At mm wavelenghts only
the extremely compact, flat spectrum components of the background source
have sizeable flux. Consequently the spectra sample a region of order only
a few tens of parsecs across. At the HI and OH frequencies however,
the background source is considerably more extended. These lines are thus
more suited to probe the large scale kinematics of the absorbing system as
well as to determine the averaged physical properties on a kpc scale.
\section{ Observations and data reduction }
\label{sec:obs}
The observations were done with the broad band UHF receivers installed
at the WSRT as part of the on going WSRT upgrade. The HI observations are
summarized in Table~\ref{tab:hi} and the OH observations in
Table~\ref{tab:oh}
\begin{table}
\caption[]{HI Observations}
\label{tab:hi}
\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
Date & Bandwidth & Channel Separation \\
& MHz (km/s) & (km/s) \\ \hline
03/Nov/96 & 2.5 (996) & 31 \\
15/Nov/96 & 5.0 (1992) & 31 \\
08/Jan/97 & 2.5 (996) & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption[]{OH Observations}
\label{tab:oh}
\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
Date & Bandwidth & Channel Separation \\
& MHz (km/s)$^{\dagger}$ & (km/s)$^{\dagger}$ \\ \hline
17/Nov/96 & 5.0 (1696) & 26.5 \\
15/Dec/96 & 5.0 (1696) & 26.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[$^{\dagger}$] The velocity scale is for the 1667~MHz transition.
\end{list}
\end{table}
The OH observations were made using the standard interferometric
mode and the data were reduced using NEWSTAR, the WSRT data reduction
package. 1830-21 is spatially unresolved at the WSRT baselines. The data from
the two observing runs were added together (after applying the appropriate
heliocentric Doppler correction) and is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:oh}.
In addition, a lower resolution but larger total bandwidth spectrum was
also obtained. This spectrum (which is not included here) is substantially
the same as that shown in Figure 2. No
broader absorption features were detected.
The high resolution HI spectrum, Figure 1{c}
was obtained using the WSRT as a compound
interferometer~(CI), where the telescope was divided into two phased arrays
and the output of these phased arrays was fed into the correlator. This mode
achieves high spectral resolution at the expense of losing spatial information.
However since PKS~1830-21 is not resolved at the WSRT, there is no loss of
spatial information in the CI mode. The CI data was reduced using the WASP
package (Chengalur 1996).
The spectrum agrees well with that of Carilli et. al.
(1997), apart from the region near $v\sim 0$, where their spectrum is badly
affected by interference. The line is fully resolved and reaches a
peak optical depth of 5.5\%.
The lower resolution HI spectra
Figure 1a\&b were obtained in the standard interferometric
mode and reduced using NEWSTAR. The observation on 15/Nov/96 used a much
larger bandwidth, however again no new broad absorption feature was
detected. As in the case for OH (but this time with better sensitivty
and a longer time baseline), there is no measureable difference between
the spectra obtained over a period of $\sim 2$ months. The flux densities
were calibrated via reference to 3C48 for which we adopt a flux
of 25.5~Jy at 753~MHz and 22.7~Jy at 884~MHz, which are based on
the Baars et al. (1997) scale.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{hi.eps}}
\caption[]{HI spectrum at $z=0.89$ towards PKS~1830-21.
{\bf a}~The velocity resolution is $31$~km/s. The velocity
scale here and throughout the paper is with respect to the
molecular absorption towards the SW image at $z_{hel}=0.88582$. The
solid line is a two gaussian fit to the spectrum, the component
gaussians are shown by dotted and dashed lines respectively. The
position and FWHM of the narrow gaussian are $-148$~km/s and
$40$~km/s respectively. The position and FWHM of the broader
gaussian is $-80$~km/s and $120$~km/s respectively.
{\bf b}~The HI spectrum again at a resolution of $31$~km/s, but
with a total bandwidth of $\sim 2000$~km/s. No broad absorption
is seen, nor are any narrow absorption components seen at large
velocites. The overlaid solid line is the fit to spectrum in
part {\bf a}. {\bf c}~The CI spectrum with a resolution of
$\sim 1$~km/s. Once again the superimposed solid line is not a
separate fit, but the same fit as in panel {\bf a}. No new narrow
absorption features are seen. The continuum flux of 1830-211
at the observed frequency is about 10.5 Jy}
\label{fig:hi}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{oh.eps}}
\caption[]{OH spectrum at $z=0.89$ towards PKS~1830-21. The lower
axis shows the velocity scale (with respect to $z=0.88582$)
for the 1667~MHz transition, while the velocity scale for
the 1665~MHz transition is shown in the upper axis. The
velocity resolution is $\sim 27$~km/s. The continuum flux
at the observed frequency of 884 Mhz is about 10.1 Jy}
\label{fig:oh}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{ov1.ps}}
\caption[]{Schematic showing PKS~1830-21 superposed on a typical
galactic velocity field. The galaxy inclination and
position angle are close to that of the best fit model in
Nair et. al. 1993. The radio contours are from the 6cm
Merlin image of Patnaik et al. 1994. }
\label{fig:ov}
\end{figure}
\section{ Discussion }
\label{sec:dis}
With peak optical depths of only 0.007 and 0.005 in the two
OH absorption lines the profile shape is not so well defined
as that of the HI line.
However, it is clear that the OH spectrum and the HI spectrum
have similar overall velocity widths. Since the separation of the two
OH lines is 350 km/sec we conclude that they do not overlap,
consistent with the height of the continuum inbetween the two absorption
features.
The 1667~MHz transition has an integrated optical depth that is larger
than that of the 1665~MHz
transition. Within the measurement errors the ratio of the
optical depth is consistent with the 9:5 ratio expected in thermal
equilibrium. There is evidence that at zero velocity
the 1665 MHz line is deeper than the 1667 MHz line, suggesting
variations in opacity of the 1665/1667 transitions. This could be related
to the much larger molecular line optical depth at zero velocity than
at -147 km/sec.
We hope to address this issue with future more sensitive
observations of the OH lines.
The optical depth ($\sim 10^{-2}$), the velocity width, the overall
optical depth ratio, and the ratio of the OH column density to the excitation
temperature ($N_{OH}/T_{ex} \sim 4 \times 10^{14}$) are all within the
range of OH absorption seen towards the centers of low redshift galaxies
(Schmeltz et. al. 1986). Under the assumption that the absorption arises
from a rotating galaxy disk, the large OH velocity width implies that the
covering factor of the OH absorbing gas is $\sim 1$. In the Nair et. al.
model, the distances of the SW and NE images from the lens center are
1.8~kpc and 3.8~kpc respectively (for $H_0 = 75$~km/s/Mpc and $q_0 = 0.5$),
and hence OH would have to be widespread in the central 5--6 kpc of
the galaxy.
The HI spectrum is highly asymmetric, with a peak at $-148$~km/s,
the same velocity where weak molecular absorption is seen against the NE core.
The HI peak is then presumably gas seen in absorption against the very
compact NE component. If one assumes that this component has $\sim 1/3$
of the total flux then for the gas lying in front of the NE component
$N_H/T_{sys} \sim 10^{19}$, compatible with galactic numbers of
$N_H \sim 10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$, and $T_{sys} \sim 100$~K.
The red wing of the HI absorption profile shows a weak but resolved
feature at zero velocity, corresponding to the deep molecular absorption.
The contrast in the ratio of HI optical depth at the
two velocities, compared to that of the OH molecules, is striking.
One possibility is that the gas in front of the SW
component is primarily molecular, (i.e. similar to what is seen in many
early type spirals).
Because the size of the radio source at 753 MHz
is estimated to be at least 200
milliarcseconds (cf Patnaik and Porcas, 1995) corresponding about 1.5
kpc, several orders of magnitude larger than at mm
wavelengths, this lack of HI must indicate a genuine lack of HI
in a substantial part of the inner galaxy.
This, in conjunction with the OH spectrum, then suggests that the $z=0.89$
system is an early type spiral with a large central molecular disk,
at least 5--6~kpc in size. The broad component in
the HI spectrum is presumably the result of HI seen in absorption
primarily against the steep spectrum ring.
Since at low frequencies the ring has no gaps and the center
of the lensing galaxy must lie inside the ring, then without recourse
to any specific lensing model it follows that the ring must cut across
both the receding and approaching sides of
the major axis (Figure~3).
For reasonable rotation curves the ring will cut across the major axis well
beyond the rising part of the rotation curve. In principle then, the velocity
width of the HI spectrum ($\sim 260$~ km/s) corresponds to twice the rotation
velocity of the galaxy (apart from an inclination correction). In practice
however since the emission from the ring is weakest at the points where it
cuts across the major axis, the rotation velocity could be somewhat
underestimated. From the model in Nair et. al. (1993) it is straighforward
to compute the velocity that one should see in absorption against the SW and
the NE cores. The observed velocities are indeed obtained provided one
changes the position angle slightly. The inclination angle in the Nair et. al.
model is $\sim 40\degr$, however this gives the mass inside the central
4~kpc as $\sim 4\times 10^{10}~M\sun$, which is somewhat low for a
source redshift $\sim 1.5-2$. As suggested by Wiklind \& Combes (1998), the
inclination angle may be closer to $\sim 20\degr$, and the true rotation
velocity more like $\sim 300$~km/s, more typical of early type spirals.
In summary then, the OH and HI spectra are consistent with the
lens being an early type spiral at a redshift of $z\sim 0.89$.
|
\section{Introduction}
QED is the most successful quantum field theory in the phenomenological
point of view. In fact, QED perfectly describes the
electromagnetic interaction at low energies. However, there is a question
whether QED is a fully
consistent theory beyond the perturbation theory.
QED has the Landau ghost problem\cite{landau} and the renormalized
coupling constant vanishes.
This means QED may be trivial as a quantum field theory, and
it can only be regarded as a low energy effective theory.
On the other hand, Miransky suggested that QED is
non-trivial\cite{Miransky}. He investigated a truncated
Schwinger-Dyson equation for the fermion propagator and found a
continuous chiral
phase transition. He claimed that the chiral symmetry is spontaneously
broken in the strong coupling phase. After his work, non-perturbative studies of QED have
been done extensively\cite{leung,Kondo,yamawaki}.
Some of numerical simulations were carried out to understand whether QED is
trivial or not. Kogut et al. claimed that the
existence of a chiral phase transition was confirmed by numerical
studies\cite{kogut}. On the other hand, DESY-J{\"u}lich group claimed that QED is a
trivial theory which is described by a Gaussian fixed point, and the critical
behavior around it is similar to the one of the $\lambda\phi^4$
model\cite{DESY}. This controversy is not resolved yet.
Recently, there has been much progress in the understanding of the non-perturbative
dynamics of {\it N}=1 and {\it N}=2 supersymmetric four-dimension field
theories. The exact superpotential can be derived
in {\it N}=1 supersymmetric QCD (SQCD: supersymmetric SU$(N_c)$ gauge
theory with vector-like matters) \cite{Seiberg}, and the models with
various gauge symmetries and matter contents have been investigated. Seiberg and Witten derived
the exact low energy effective action for {\it N}=2 supersymmetric SU(2) Yang-Mills theory in Coulomb phase up to two
derivatives\cite{s-w1},
and generalized it to the case of {\it N}=2 SQCD \cite{s-w2}.
Their method was applied to the different gauge groups and the solution was obtained.
Since we can derive the exact low energy effective action (LEEA) of
{\it N}=2 supersymmetric gauge theories,
we can expect to extract the exact information of non-supersymmetric
gauge theories, QED and QCD, for example.
A simple way to break supersymmetry is to add soft supersymmetry breaking terms.
In Refs. \cite{masiero,peskin,sakai,hsu,martin,marino} soft breaking terms are used to explore {\it N}=1 supersymmetric
QCD and the phase structure of these theories in the absence of
supersymmetry.
We will focus on {\it N}=2 supersymmetric QED (SQED) with a massless matter to
explore {\it N}=0 QED. It is well known that
Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI)
term spontaneously breaks supersymmetry in {\it N}=2 SQED \cite{fayet,tree,Ivanov}. We
construct the exact LEEA of SQED with FI
term not introducing the soft breaking terms by hand.
In
Refs. \cite{s-w1,s-w2}\cite{masiero,peskin,sakai,hsu,martin,marino} {\it N}=1 superfields were
used to describe {\it N}=2 supersymmetric theories. Therefore, {\it N}=2
supersymmetry was not manifest in those works. We can use constrained superfields on the
standard {\it N}=2 superspace \cite{grimm}, but these are not
appropriate to the construction and the analysis of the LEEA, because
the description becomes extremely complicated when the
interaction is included on.
An elegant off-shell formulation of {\it N}=2 supersymmetry is the harmonic superspace
formalism, developed by Galperin et al. \cite{Galperin}. In this formalism
superfileds are unconstrained and we do not need to solve complicated
constraints. {\it N}=2 supersymmetry is manifest at each step of the
calculation. We will see that this formalism is very powerful for
constructing the LEEA in this paper.
The plan of this paper is as follows. In Sec.II we briefly review the
harmonic superspace formalism stressing some important points for our main. In Sec.III we construct the LEEA
of SQED without the FI term as the first step. In Sec.IV we extend the
discussion in the
previous section to the case with FI term. In Sec.V we analyze
the effective potential of the LEEA which is obtained in the previous
section, and discuss the vacuum structure of N=0 QED. Sec.VI is
devoted to the conclusion. Our notations and conventions are
summarized in Appendix.
\newcommand{\theta^+}{\theta^+}
\newcommand{{\bar{\theta}}^+}{{\bar{\theta}}^+}
\section{Harmonic Superspace Formalism}
We briefly review some of the basics of the harmonic superspace
formalism (HSS).
HSS is the formalism for {\it N}=2 extended
supersymmetry developed by Galperin et al. \cite{Galperin}. The
standard {\it N}=2 superspace is parameterized by the coordinates
\begin{eqnarray}
\{x^\mu, \theta_{\alpha i},{\bar{\theta}}_{\dot{\alpha}}^i \},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is the spinor index and $i$ is SU(2$)_{{\rm R}}$ index.
The key ingredient in HSS is the harmonic variables
$u_i^\pm$ which parameterize the coset space SU(2$)_{{\rm
R}}$/U(1). The variables satisfy the relation
\begin{equation}
u^{+i}u_i^-=1,
\end{equation}
where $\pm$ denote U(1) charge $\pm 1$. The variables of the harmonic
superspace in the central basis (CB) are
\begin{equation}
{\bf CB}:\{{x^\mu,\theta_{\alpha i},{\bar{\theta}}_{\dot{\alpha}}^i,u_i^\pm}\}.
\end{equation}
Harmonic superfields are the functions of these variables. In CB the
differentiation by the harmonic variables are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&D^{++}=u^{+i}\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{-i}},\hspace{2mm}
D^{--}=u^{-i}\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{+i}},&
\end{eqnarray}
and the integration over $u$ is defined by the following rules:
\begin{eqnarray}
&\displaystyle\int du\hspace{1mm}1 = 1,&\\
&\displaystyle\int du\hspace{1mm}u_{(i_1}^+\cdots u_{i_n}^+u_{j_1}^-\cdots u_{j_m)}^-=0,\hspace{3mm}n+m>0,
\end{eqnarray}
where the parenthesis mean symmetrization of SU(2$)_{{\rm R}}$
indices. Namely, the $u$
integration is defined to pick up the SU(2$)_{{\rm R}}$ singlet
part. The Lagrangian which is described by the harmonic superfields is
not manifestly real under the usual complex conjugation. However, it is
real under the conjugation which is the combination of the usual complex
conjugation and the star conjugation. The star conjugation for the harmonic
variables are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
(u_i^+)^*=u_i^-,\hspace{2mm}(u_i^-)^*=-u_i^+,
\end{eqnarray}
and other quantities are singlet under the conjugation. The harmonic
variables are transformed under the combined conjugation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle {\overline{u^{\pm i}}}^*=-u_i^\pm,\hspace{2mm}{\overline{u_i^\pm}}^*=u^{\pm i}.
\end{eqnarray}
There is another important basis called the analytic basis (AB):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf AB}&:&\{x^\mu_A,\theta_\alpha^\pm,{\bar{\theta}}_{\dot{\alpha}}^\pm,u_i^\pm\},\\
&&x^\mu_A=x^\mu-2i\theta^{(i}\sigma^\mu{\bar{\theta}^{j)}}u_i^+u_j^-, \nonumber\\
&&\theta^\pm=\theta^i u_i^\pm,\hspace{3mm}{\bar{\theta}}^\pm={\bar{\theta}}^i u_i^\pm. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Irreducible harmonic
superfields are not the function of the entire variables of AB or CB but
the function on their subspaces, the analytic subspace (ASS) or the
chiral subspace (CSS). ASS is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf ASS}:\zeta_A&=&\{x^\mu_A,\theta^+_\alpha,{\bar{\theta}}^+_{\dot{\alpha}},u^\pm_i\},
\end{eqnarray}
and it is an invariant subspace under {\it N}=2 supersymmetry
transformation. This fact allows one to define the
analytic superfields which satisfy the analyticity conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
D^+\phi^{(q)}(\zeta_A)={\bar{D}}^+\phi^{(q)}(\zeta_A)=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
D^+=D^i u_i^+=\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^-},\hspace{2mm}
{\bar{D}}^+={\bar{D}}^i u_i^+=\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bar{\theta}}^-},
\end{eqnarray}
and
$q$ denotes U(1) charge of the field.
There are two basic supermultiplets in the {\it N}=2 supersymmetry: the
hypermultiplet and the vectormultiplet. Fayet-Sohnius(FS) superfield
\cite{fs} describes the
complex hypermultiplet whose on-shell physical components are
$(f^i,\psi,\varphi)$, where $f^i$
is a complex scalar in SU(2$)_{{\rm R}}$ doublet, and $(\psi$, $\varphi)$ is a
Dirac spinor\footnote{There is another harmonic superfield,
Howe-Stelle-Townsend superfield, which describes real
hypermultiplet\cite{hst}.}. The superfield with U(1) charge $+1$ is written
down as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi^{+}(\zeta_A)&=&F^{+}(x_A,u^\pm)+\sqrt{2}\theta^+\psi(x_A,u^\pm)
+\sqrt{2}{{\bar{\theta}}^+}{\bar{\varphi}}(x_A,u^\pm)\nonumber\\
&+&\theta^+\ptheta M^{-}(x_A,u^\pm)+{\bar{\theta}}^+\bptheta N^{-}(x_A,u^\pm)\nonumber \\
&+&\theta^+\sigma^\mu{\bar{\theta}}^+ V_\mu(x_A,u^\pm)
+\sqrt{2}{\bar{\theta}}^+\bptheta\theta^+\xi_\alpha^{--}(x_A,u^\pm)\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{2}{\bar{\theta}}^+{\bar{\chi}}^{--}(x_A,u^\pm)
+\theta^+\ptheta{\bar{\theta}}^+\bptheta D^{---}(x_A,u^\pm),
\end{eqnarray}
where $F^+,M^-,N^-$ and $D^{---}$ are complex scalar fields,
$\psi,{\bar{\varphi}},\xi^{--}$ and ${\bar{\chi}}^{--}$ are Weyl fermion fields and $V_\mu$ is a complex
vector field.
Each component field can be expanded in $u^\pm_i$. For example,
\begin{eqnarray}
F^{+}(x_A,u^\pm)=\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^\infty f^{(i_1\cdots i_{n+1}j_1\cdots j_n)}(x_A)u^+_{(i_1}\cdots u^+_{i_{n+1}}u^-_{j_1}\cdots u^-_{j_n)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, FS superfield includes infinite number of auxiliary fields.
The action for a free complex FS hypermultiplet
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{{\rm FS}}=\displaystyle\int d\zeta_A^{(-4)}du \hspace{1mm}{\overline{\phi^+}}^*D^{++}\phi^+,\label{eq:hm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $D^{++}$ is a covariant derivative in AB given by Eq. (\ref{eq:cov})
and $d\zeta_A^{(-4)}$ is the analytic measure defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
d\zeta_A^{(-4)}=d^4 x_A d^2\theta^+ d^2{\bar{\theta}}^+ .
\end{eqnarray}
Solving the equation of motion $D^{++}\phi^+=0$, we can easily check
that only the physical components $(f^i,\psi,\varphi)$ remain and follow
free equation of motions.
The on-shell physical components of a vectormultiplet are
$(A,A_\mu,\lambda^i)$, where $A$ is a complex scalar, $A_\mu$
is a vector field and $\lambda^i$ is a
Majorana spinor in SU(2$)_{{\rm R}}$ doublet.
A vectormultiplet is described by the dimensionless analytic superfield $V^{++}$
of U(1) charge +2. It
transforms under gauge transformation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta V^{++}=-D^{++}\lambda(x_A,u^\pm)\label{eq:gtrans}
\end{eqnarray}
in abelian case, where $\lambda$ is an analytic superfield with U(1)
charge $0$.
Here $V^{++}$ is chosen to be real,
namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{++}={\overline{V^{++}}}^*.
\end{eqnarray}
If we take the Wess-Zumino-like gauge,
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{++}(\zeta_A)&=&\theta^+\ptheta\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A(x_A,u^\pm)+{\bar{\theta}}^+\bptheta\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A^*(x_A,u^\pm)+i\theta^+\sigma^\mu{\bar{\theta}}^+ A_\mu(x_A,u^\pm) \nonumber\\
&&+{\bar{\theta}}^+\bptheta\theta^+ 2\lambda^-(x_A,u^\pm)
+\theta^+\ptheta{\bar{\theta}}^+ 2{\bar{\lambda}}^-(x_A,u^\pm)
+\theta^+\ptheta{\bar{\theta}}^+\bptheta D^{--}(x_A,u^\pm),
\end{eqnarray}
where $D^{--}=D^{(ij)}u_i^- u_j^-$ is a real auxiliary field in
SU(2$)_{{\rm R}}$ triplet.
CSS is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf CSS}:\zeta_R&=&\{x^\mu_R,\theta_{\alpha i},u_i^\pm\},\\
&&x^\mu_R=x^\mu-i\theta^i\sigma^\mu{\bar{\theta}}_i, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and the gauge field strength superfield $W$
is described as a function on it.
\begin{eqnarray}
W(x_{R},\theta)&=&-\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\int du ({\bar{D}}^+)^2 V^{++}\\
&=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A^*(x_R)
-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}(\theta^i\theta^j)(\theta^k\theta^l)\Box A(x_R)
-\frac{1}{4}\theta^i\sigma^\mu{\bar{\sigma}}^\nu\theta_i F_{\mu\nu}(x_R) \nonumber \\
&&+\theta^i\lambda_i(x_R)+\frac{2}{3}i(\theta^i\theta^j)(\theta^k\sigma^\mu\partial_\mu{\bar{\lambda}}^l(x_R))\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jk}+\frac{1}{3}\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jk}(\theta^i\theta^j)D^{(kl)}(x_R).\label{eq:fieldst}
\end{eqnarray}
The superfield which is a function on CSS is called the chiral superfield.
Note that the chiral superfield $W$ does not explicitly depend on ${\bar{\theta}}_i$ and
$u_i^\pm$ and can not the function on ASS. Also note that the analytic
superfield can not be described as a function on CSS. The action of a vectormultiplet is
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{{\rm gauge}}=\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\tau\int d\zeta_R W^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau=i\frac{4\pi}{e^2}+\frac{\Theta}{2\pi}$ with that $e$ is the gauge
coupling and $\Theta$ is the vacuum angle. $d\zeta_R=d^4x_R d^4\theta du$ is the
chiral subspace measure.
We write down the tree-level action of SQED with single matter as
\begin{eqnarray}
S=\displaystyle\int d\zeta_A^{(-4)}du\hspace{1mm}{{\overline{\phi^+}}}^*(D^{++}+2iV^{++})
\phi^+ + \frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\tau\int d\zeta_R W^2.
\end{eqnarray}
The integrand of the first term (the analytic part) must have U(1) charge
$+4$ and does not explicitly depend on
$\theta^-$ and ${\bar{\theta}}^-$, i.e., it must be
analytic. The chiral superfield does not appear in the analytic
part, because the chiral superfield does not satisfy the analyticity.
Similarly, we find that the analytic superfield does not appear in
the integrand of the second term (the chiral part). The chiral part does
not explicitly depend on ${\bar{\theta}_i}$ and $u_i^\pm$. These facts are important
for constructing the LEEA.
\section{Construction of the LEEA without Fayet-Iliopoulos term}\label{leea1}
In this section we construct the LEEA of SQED with single
massless matter using the harmonic superspace formalism. In the next section
we apply the method used in this section to the case of including FI term.
The tree-level action leads the scalar potential
\begin{eqnarray}
V=|\sqrt{2}A|^2{\bar{f}}^i f_i+\displaystyle\frac{e_0^2}{2}({\bar{f}}^i f_i)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $e_0$ is the bare coupling constant, $A$ and $f^i$ are the complex
scalar fields in the vectormultiplet and FS
hypermultiplet, respectively. The classical moduli space is
parameterized by the vacuum expectation value of the complex scalar field $A$.
In case of single matter,
$f^i$ has no
vacuum expectation value and the gauge symmetry
is not broken. Namely, the theory is always in Coulomb phase. If we
consider multiple matter, the moduli space has Higgs branch in which
the gauge symmetry is broken.
Our strategy of getting the LEEA is the same which was developed in
Ref. \cite{Seiberg}. The LEEA must be invariant under the enlarged
symmetry transformation in which the parameters of the theory
transform. These parameters can be considered as the vacuum expectation
values of some external superfields. The holomorphy (or analyticity) also
constrains the LEEA. By using the information obtained in the weak
coupling limit, we can determine the LEEA.
The transformation laws of the fields and parameters in the fundamental theory is summarized in table \ref{sym1}.
We assume that there is no confiment at low
energies. If the resultant LEEA has no inconsistency, we can conclude
that this assumption is justified.
The general
form of the LEEA of the chiral part (lowest order in the derivative
expansion) is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm C}}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d^4\theta g(W,\Lambda),\label{eq:gauge1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g(W,\Lambda)$ is a holomorphic function which satisfies
the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item U(1) charge $0$.
\item mass dimension $2$.
\item U(1$)_{{\rm R}}$ charge 4.
\item gauge singlet.
\end{enumerate}
We stress again that
the FS superfield
can not appear in the chiral part. The parameter $\Lambda$ can be
understood as the vacuum expectation value of the lowest component of a
chiral superfield. The above conditions
restrict Eq. (\ref{eq:gauge1}) to be the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm C}}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d^4\theta G\left(\frac{\Lambda}{W}\right)W^2.
\end{eqnarray}
We can estimate $G$ at one-loop level in the weak coupling limit $\Lambda\rightarrow \infty$. Namely, we
can get
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\lim_{\Lambda\rightarrow \infty}G\left(\frac{\Lambda}{W}\right)=\frac{i}{\pi}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{W}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
G\left(\frac{\Lambda}{W}\right)=\frac{i}{\pi}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{W}+\tilde{G}\left(\frac{\Lambda}{W}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{G}$ includes the non-perturbative effect.
We assume that $\tilde{G}$ does not have
singularities, namely, all massless particles have been already included. Then, the Liouville theorem leads
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{G}\left(\frac{\Lambda}{W}\right)={\rm constant}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the chiral part is determined as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm C}}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d^4\theta \frac{i}{\pi}W^2\ln\frac{\Lambda}{W}.\label{eq:gauge}
\end{eqnarray}
This is exactly the same result given by Seiberg and Witten
\cite{s-w2}. Note that the singularity at $\langle W \rangle=0$ is not removed in
spite of considering the elementary matter field. The theory is not
defined at $\langle W \rangle=\langle A \rangle=0$ within our assumptions.
Next, we determine the LEEA of the analytic part. The general
form is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm A}}=\displaystyle\int d^2\theta^+ d^2{\bar{\theta}}^+ du \hspace{1mm}f^{(+4)}(\phi^+,{\overline{\phi^+}}^*,V^{++},{\cal D^{++}}),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal D^{++}}$ represents the covariant derivative ${\cal
D^{++}}=D^{++}+2iV^{++}$.
Analytic function $f^{(+4)}$ must satisfy the
following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item U(1) charge 4.
\item mass dimension 2.
\item U(1$)_{\rm R}$ charge 0.
\item gauge singlet.
\end{enumerate}
We stress again that the chiral superfield $W$ can not appear in
the analytic part. Considering the above conditions, we
obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm FS}}=\displaystyle\int d^2\theta^+ d^2{\bar{\theta}}^+ du \hspace{1mm}{\overline{\phi^+}}^*{\cal D^{++}}\phi^+.
\end{eqnarray}
Surprisingly, this is the same form of the tree-level one.
The first derivation of the LEEA of the hypermultiplet of
SQED and SQCD was done in Ref. \cite{ketov} using the harmonic
superspace formalism. In Ref. \cite{ketov} the self-interaction of the
massive FS hypermultiplet
is derived by the perturbative calculation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta{\cal L}=\lambda\displaystyle\int d^2\theta^+ d^2{\bar{\theta}}^+ du \hspace{1mm}
({\overline{\phi^+}}^*\phi^+)^2,\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda$ includes an infrared cutoff. The self-interaction term
does not appear in our method based on the symmetry and holomorphy even
in the massive case. It is expected that the infrared divergence
disappears by summing up all the one-loop diagrams with external FS
superfields, and only the higher order terms in the derivative expansion
are obtained.
The total LEEA of SQED is
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{{\rm eff}}=\displaystyle\int d\zeta_{A}^{(-4)} du \hspace{1mm}{\overline{\phi^+}}^*{\cal D^{++}}\phi^++\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d\zeta_R \frac{i}{\pi}W^2\ln\frac{\Lambda}{W}.
\end{eqnarray}
We remark the modification of the moduli space by the quantum effect.
The quantum effect forbids a part of the moduli space $\langle W
\rangle=\langle A \rangle >\Lambda$
where the effective coupling $\alpha_{{\rm eff}}$ is negative.
\section{Construction of the LEEA with Fayet-Iliopoulos term}
We construct
the LEEA of SQED with spontaneous supersymmetry breaking to get some exact results of
N=0 QED. In case of SQED, we can introduce
FI term
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L_{{\rm FI}}}=\displaystyle\int d^2\theta^+ d^2{\bar{\theta}}^+ du \hspace{1mm}\xi^{++}V^{++}=\frac{1}{3}\xi^{ij}D_{(ij)}, \hspace{2mm}\xi^{++}\equiv\xi^{ij}u_i^+u_j^+ \label{eq:F.I}
\end{eqnarray}
to break supersymmetry spontaneously, where $\xi^{ij}$ includes three
real parameters $\xi^{(a)}$ of mass dimension
2:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi&=&i\xi^{(a)}(\sigma^{a}\epsilon)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
i\xi^{(1)}+\xi^{(2)} & -i\xi^{(3)} \\
-i\xi^{(3)} & -i\xi^{(1)}+\xi^{(2)}
\end{array}
\right). \label{eq:xi}
\end{eqnarray}
The procedure of constructing the LEEA is the same as that in the
previous section. The transformation laws for the fields and parameters are summarized in table
\ref{sym2}. The parameters $\xi^{ij}$ can be understood as the vacuum
expectation value of the analytic superfield $\xi^{++}$.
First we consider the LEEA of the chiral part. Repeating the same arguments in the
previous section, we obtain the general form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm C}}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d^4\theta g(W,\Lambda)=\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d^4\theta G\left(\frac{\Lambda}{W}\right)W^2.
\end{eqnarray}
This is exactly the same form that is obtained in the case without FI
term. The
coefficient $\xi^{++}$ can not be included in $G$. After all, using the
one-loop result for $G$, the LEEA of the chiral part is given by Eq. (\ref{eq:gauge}).
Next we consider the LEEA of the analytic part. The general form is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{\rm A}}=\displaystyle\int d^2\theta^+ d^2{\bar{\theta}}^+ du \hspace{1mm}f\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right){\overline{\phi^+}}^*{\cal D^{++}}\phi^+.
\end{eqnarray}
We can estimate the function
$f\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right)$ in the weak
coupling limit $\xi^{++}\rightarrow 0$ using the perturbation theory. We
find that there is no one particle irreducible diagram which includes
$\xi^{++}$ and conclude
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\lim_{\xi\rightarrow 0} f\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right)={\rm constant}.
\end{eqnarray}
We can make the constant unity by rescaling the field
$\phi^+$. Including the non-perturbative effect, $f$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right)=1+\tilde{f}\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{f}$ describes non-perturbative effect.
Here, we assume again that all massless fields have been already included and
the analytic function has no singularity.
The Liouville theorem leads
\begin{eqnarray}
f\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right)=1.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, after all, the LEEA of the analytic part is exactly the same
with that is obtained in the case without FI term.
The FI term in Eq. (\ref{eq:F.I}) is the exact form.
An analytic function $h\left(\frac{\xi^{++}}{\phi^+{\overline{\phi^+}}^*}\right)$ seems to be allowed as the
coefficient function of FI term. However the function must be a constant
due to the gauge invariance. Note that $V^{++}$ is gauge invariant up to
the total derivative.
We conclude that the LEEA of SQED with FI term is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{{\rm eff}}=\displaystyle\int d \zeta_A^{(-4)} du \hspace{1mm}{\overline{\phi^+}}^*{\cal D^{++}}\phi^++\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi}{\rm Im}\int d\zeta_R \frac{i}{\pi}W^2\ln\frac{\Lambda}{W}+\displaystyle\int d\zeta_A^{(-4)} du \hspace{1mm}\xi^{++}V^{++}.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Potential analysis of N=0 QED }\label{potesec}
In this section, we write down and analyze the effective potential of the LEEA
which is obtained in the previous section.
We take the polar
decomposition
\begin{eqnarray}
A=a e^{i\sigma},
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ and $\sigma$ are real scalar fields.
The contribution to the potential from the analytic part including FI
term is
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{{\rm A}}=(\sqrt{2}a)^2{\bar{f}}^i f_i+\displaystyle\frac{2}{3}i{\bar{f}}^i f^j D_{(ij)}-\frac{1}{3}\xi^{ij}D_{(ij)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contribution from the chiral part is
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{{\rm C}}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left(\frac{1}{9}D^{(ij)}D_{(ij)}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{a}-\frac{1}{6}D^{(ij)}D_{(ij)}+{\rm h.c}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Using the equation of motion of the auxiliary field $D^{(ij)}$, we obtain
the total scalar potential as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{{\rm eff}}&=&V_{{\rm A}}+V_{{\rm C}}\nonumber\\
&=&(\sqrt{2}a)^2{\bar{f}}^i f_i-\displaystyle\frac{4\pi^2}{\ln\frac{\Lambda^\prime}{a}}\left({\bar{f}}^if^j+\frac{i}{2}\xi^{ij}\right)\left({\bar{f}}_if_j+\frac{i}{2}\xi_{ij}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda^\prime=\Lambda e^{-3/2}$.
Note that the potential is independent of the scalar field $\sigma$. The
vacuum expectation value of $\sigma$ is unphysical, since $\Theta$ term
in U(1) gauge theory has no meaning.
The extremal conditions for $a$ and $f$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\frac{\partial V_{{\rm eff}}}{\partial {\bar{f}}^i}&=&\left\{(\sqrt{2}a)^2\epsilon_{ij}-\displaystyle\frac{8\pi^2}{\ln\frac{\Lambda^\prime}{a}}\left({\bar{f}}_if_j+\frac{i}{2}\xi_{ij}\right)\right\}f^j=0,\\
\displaystyle\frac{\partial V_{{\rm eff}}}{\partial a}&=&2a{\bar{f}}^if_i+\frac{1}{a}\displaystyle\frac{4\pi^2}{(\ln\frac{\Lambda^\prime}{a})^2}\left({\bar{f}}^if^j+\frac{i}{2}\xi^{ij}\right)\left({\bar{f}}_if_j+\frac{i}{2}\xi_{ij}\right)=0.
\end{eqnarray}
The solution is
\begin{eqnarray}
f^1&=&f^2=0,\nonumber\\
a&\rightarrow&\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
This solution gives $V_{{\rm eff}}=0$ and {\it N}=2 supersymmetry seems to be
unbroken. However, such a solution is ruled out, since
$a>\Lambda$ is not allowed by the quantum deformation of the moduli space.
Therefore we conclude that there is no stable vacuum in the LEEA of SQED
with FI term under the assumption of no confinement\footnote{Without
FI term there is a stable vacuum, of course. We can define a theory on
a point in the moduli space except for a=0 and $a>\Lambda$.
For small $a$, the LEEA reduces to the one obtained in the perturbation theory.}
.
Here, we summarize how the moduli space has been deformed.
In the classical theory the moduli space is
parameterized by $a$, and any value of $a$ is possible
(fig.\ref{clas}(a)). By the quantum effect the region $a>\Lambda$ and
a point $a=0$ are forbidden (fig.\ref{clas}(b)). By including FI term
remaining moduli space is lifted up and slopes down to $a=0$ axis, and
no stable vacuum exists (fig.\ref{clas}(c)).
We interpret this results as follows. Recall that
we assume that the confinement does not occur at low energies.
Thus, the result no stable vacuum in the LEEA of SQED with FI term, suggests that the
confinement may occur at low energies. If we assume confinement at low
energies, we may be able to remove
the singularity at $a=0$ and may obtain a stable vacuum.
The shape of the scalar potential is given in fig.\ref{rittai}. The
vacuum energy incorrectly takes negative value for
$a>\Lambda^\prime$. For
$a<\Lambda^\prime$, the potential slopes down to $a=0$ axis where the
theory can not be
defined. The slice of the potential along
$f=0$ axis is shown in fig.\ref{danmen}. We have almost the same form
as in fig.\ref{danmen} for any slice along $f\neq 0$.
The structure along the axis of the constant $a$ is a little
complicated. We can understand it by referring the masses of two fields
$f^i$. They are obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
m^2_{f_1,f_2}=(\sqrt{2}a)^2\pm\displaystyle\frac{2\pi^2}{\ln\frac{\Lambda}{a}}\left\{\sum_{a=1}^3(\xi^{(a)})^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that one of the squared masses can become negative for small value of
$a$ satisfying condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle 2\pi^2\left\{\sum_{a=1}^3(\xi^{(a)})^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}>(\sqrt{2}a)^2 \ln\frac{\Lambda^\prime}{a}.\label{eq:cond}
\end{eqnarray}
Fig.\ref{danmen2} shows the typical shape of the slice along $a\neq 0$
for small $a$.
\section{Conclusion}
To obtain some exact results of QED, we constructed the LEEA of SQED
with single massless matter including FI term. We assumed that the
confinement does not occur at low energies and the LEEA is described by
elementary fields. We found that the harmonic
superspace formalism is
very useful for applying symmetry and holomorphy in the construction. We
reproduced the LEEA of the chiral
part which is coincide with the result given by Seiberg and Witten. We
constructed the LEEA
of the analytic part including FI term. This part was the tree-level
exact. We wrote down
the scalar potential of the LEEA and analyzed it.
We found that there is no stable vacuum, and could not define
the theory. We interpret this result as an evidence of the confinement
at low energies in non-supersymmetric QED.
If we assume there is confinement at low
energies, we may get rid of the singularity at $a=0$ and obtain a
stable vacuum.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The question of what happens to a compact object that is fed mass at
rates far higher than its Eddington limit has a long history (Shakura
\& Sunyaev, 1973; Kafka \& M\'esz\'aros, 1976; Begelman, 1979). In
the context of accreting binary systems, this problem is particularly
acute because of the possibility of common--envelope (CE) evolution at
such rates. That is, the accreting component may be unable either to
accept or to expel the mass at a sufficiently high rate to avoid the
formation of an envelope engulfing the entire binary system. The
frictional drag of this envelope can shrink the binary orbit
drastically. If the resulting release of orbital energy is enough to
unbind the envelope, the binary will emerge from the common envelope
with a smaller separation; if not, the binary components may
coalesce. CE evolution is probably required for the formation of
binaries such as cataclysmic variables, in which the binary separation
is far smaller than the radius of the accreting white dwarf's red
giant progenitor. However, it is in general an open question whether CE
evolution occurs in any given binary.
This question is thrown into sharp relief by recent work on the
evolution of the low--mass X--ray binary Cygnus X--2 (King \& Ritter,
1999), which has a period of 9.84~d. The rather precise spectroscopic
information found by Casares, Charles, \& Kuulkers (1998), together with the observed
effective temperature of the secondary, shows that this star has a
mass definitely below $0.7{\rm M_{\odot}}$ and yet a luminosity of order
$150{\rm L_{\odot}}$. King \& Ritter (1999) consider several possible
explanations and show that the only viable one is that Cygnus X--2 is
a product of early massive Case B evolution. Here `Case B' means that
the mass--losing star has finished core hydrogen--burning, and is
expanding across the Hertzsprung gap: `early' means that the stellar
envelope is radiative rather than convective, and `massive' that the
helium core is non--degenerate; see Kippenhahn \& Weigert, 1967. In
Cygnus X--2 an initially more massive ($M_{2i} \simeq 3.5{\rm M_{\odot}}$)
secondary transferred mass on a thermal timescale ($\sim 10^6$~yr) to
the neutron star. This idea gives a satisfying fit to the present
observed properties of Cyg X--2, as well as a natural explanation for
the large white dwarf companion masses found in several millisecond
pulsar binaries with short orbital periods. CE evolution cannot have
occurred, as Cyg X--2's long orbital period means that there was far
too little orbital energy available for the CE mechanism to have
ejected so much mass. Thus an inescapable feature of this picture is
that the neutron star is evidently able to eject essentially all of
the matter ($\ga 2 - 3{\rm M_{\odot}}$) transferred to it at highly super--Eddington
rates $\ga 10^{-6}{\rm M_{\odot}}$~yr$^{-1}$. Indeed, the neutron star mass in
Cyg X--2 is rather close to the canonical value of $1.4{\rm M_{\odot}}$. The aim
of this paper is to determine under what conditions such expulsion can
occur without the system going into a common envelope.
\section{EXPULSION BY RADIATION PRESSURE}
There are essentially two views as to the fate of matter dumped onto a
compact object at a highly super--Eddington rate. In
spherically--symmetric, dissipative accretion of an
electron--scattering medium, the luminosity generated by infall down
to radius $R$ will reach the Eddington limit at a radius
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm ex} \sim \biggl({\dot M_{\rm tr}\over \dot M_{\rm Edd}}\biggr)R_S,
\end{equation}
where $\dot M_{\rm tr}$ is the mass infall rate at large radius (i.e. the mass
transfer rate from the companion star in our case), $\dot M_{\rm Edd} =
L_{\rm Edd}/ c^2$ is
the Eddington accretion rate, and $R_S$ is the Schwarzschild radius
(Begelman, 1979). This is also the ``trapping radius", below which
photon diffusion outward cannot overcome the advection of photons
inward. If the compact object is a black hole, the radiation generated
in excess of the Eddington limit can thus be swept into the black hole,
and lost. If the compact object is a neutron star, however, radiation
pressure building up near the star's surface must resist inflow in
excess of $\dot M_{\rm Edd}$, causing the stalled envelope to grow
outward. This situation would lead to the formation of a common
envelope.
The outcome may be very different if the accretion flow has even a
small amount of angular momentum. Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973) suggested
that super--Eddington flow in an accretion disk would lead to the
formation of a strong wind perpendicular to the disk surface, which
could carry away most of the mass. Such a model
(an ``Adiabatic Inflow-Outflow Solution,", or ADIOS) was
elaborated by Blandford \& Begelman (1999: hereafter BB99), who
considered radiatively inefficient accretion flows in general. BB99
recalled that viscous transfer of angular momentum also entails the
transfer of energy outward. If the disk were unable to radiate
efficiently (as would be the case at $R < R_{\rm tr}$), the energy
deposited in the material well away from the inner boundary would
unbind it, leading to the creation of powerful wind. BB99 described a
family of self-similar models in which the mass inflow rate decreases
inward as $\dot M \propto r^n$ with $0<n<1$. The exact value of $n$
depends on the physical processes depositing energy and
angular momentum in the wind. If these are very efficient (e.g.,
mediated by highly organized magnetic torques) $n$ could be close to
zero, in which case little mass would be lost. However, if the wind
is produced inefficiently, $n$ would have to be close to 1 and the
mass flux reaching the central parts of the accretion disk would be
much smaller than the mass transferred from the secondary. For
example, two-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the evolution
of a non-radiative viscous torus (Stone, Pringle \& Begelman 1999)
show the development of a convectively driven circulation with little
mass reaching the central object, and $n\sim 1$. The development of this
strong mass loss is generic and is not related to the assumption of
self-similarity. In effect, what is happening is that the energy
liberated by a small fraction of the mass reaching the deep
gravitional potential serves to unbind the majority of the matter
which is weakly bound at large distances.
While the specific details of mass loss from super--Eddington flow have
not been worked out (in particular, radiation-dominated convection is
poorly understood), it is reasonable to assume that the wind will be
produced inefficiently, with $n\sim 1$ as in the case of hydrodynamic
convection. We also assume that most of the matter will be blown away
from $R_{\rm ex}$. Applying equation (1), we find
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm ex} \simeq 1.3\times 10^{14}\dot m_{\rm tr} \ {\rm cm},
\label{rex2}
\end{equation}
where $\dot m_{\rm tr}$ is the mass transfer rate expressed in ${\rm M_{\odot}}$
yr$^{-1}$. Note that $R_{\rm ex}$ is independent of the mass of the
compact accretor. Since we restrict attention to electron scattering
opacity only, we require that hydrogen should be strongly ionized at
$R_{\rm ex}$. This is ensured by requiring the radiation temperature
near $R_{\rm ex}$ to
exceed $T_H \sim 10^4$~K. Since the luminosity emerging from $R_{\rm
ex}$ is close to the Eddington limit, we require
$L_{\rm Edd} \ga 4\pi R_{\rm ex}^2\sigma T_H^4$, which is satisfied if
$R_{\rm ex}/R_S \la 10^7 m_1^{-1/2}$, or equivalently (using
equation[1])
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{\rm tr}\la 10^7 \dot M_{\rm Edd} m_1^{-1/2}
\simeq 2\times 10^{-2} m_1^{1/2} ~{\rm M_{\odot}}\ {\rm yr}^{-1}
\label{h}
\end{equation}
where $m_1 = M_1/{\rm M_{\odot}}$ is the mass of the compact accretor (black hole
or neutron
star).
CE evolution will be avoided if $R_{\rm ex}$ is smaller than the
accretor's Roche lobe radius $R_1$. If the accretor is the less
massive star (as will generally hold in cases of interest) we can use
standard formulae to write
\begin{equation}
r_1 = 1.9m_1^{1/3}P_{\rm d}^{2/3},
\label{roche}
\end{equation}
where $r_1 = R_1/{\rm R_{\odot}}$ and $P_{\rm d}$ is the orbital period measured
in
days. Combining with equation (\ref{rex2}) gives
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{\rm tr} \la
10^{-3}m_1^{1/3}P_{\rm d}^{2/3}~{\rm M_{\odot}}\ \ {\rm yr}^{-1}.
\label{lim1}
\end{equation}
This form of the limit can be compared directly with observation if we
have estimates of the transfer rate, orbital period and the accretor
mass.
For more systematic study it is useful to replace the dependence on the
accretor's Roche lobe by that on its companion's. Thus,
since the mass transfer rate
is specified by properties of the companion star, which is assumed
to fill its Roche lobe radius $R_2$, we eliminate $R_1$ from the
condition
$R_{\rm ex} \la R_1$ by using the relation
\begin{equation}
{R_1\over R_2} = \biggl({m_1\over m_2}\biggr)^{0.45},
\label{lobe}
\end{equation}
(cf King et al., 1997)
where $M_2 = m_2{\rm M_{\odot}}$ is the companion mass. Writing $R_2 = r_2{\rm R_{\odot}}$
we
finally get the limit
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{\rm tr} \la
5\times 10^{-4}m_1^{0.45}m_2^{-0.45}r_2~{\rm M_{\odot}}\ {\rm yr}^{-1}
\label{lim}
\end{equation}
on the mass transfer rate if CE evolution is not to occur.
\section{AVOIDANCE OF COMMON ENVELOPE EVOLUTION}
By specifying the nature of the companion star we fix $m_2, r_2$ and
$\dot M_{\rm tr}$ in (\ref{lim}), and so can examine whether CE
evolution is likely in any given case. Rapid mass transfer occurs if
the companion star is rather more massive than the accretor, since
then the act of transferring mass shrinks the donor's Roche lobe. The
mass transfer proceeds on a dynamical or thermal timescale depending
on whether the donor star's envelope is largely convective or
radiative (e.g. Savonije, 1983). In the first case, CE evolution is
quite likely to ensue, as the mass transfer rate rises to very high
values. However, even in this case it is worth checking the inequality
(\ref{lim}) in numerical calculations, as the e--folding time for the
mass transfer is $t_e\sim (H/R_2)t_M$, where $H$ is the stellar
scaleheight and $t_M$ is the mass transfer timescale set by whatever
process (e.g., nuclear evolution) brought the donor into contact with
its Roche lobe initially. For main--sequence and evolved stars we have
$H/R_2 \sim 10^{-4}, 10^{-2}$ respectively. Thus $t_e$ may be long
enough that the companion mass is exhausted before (\ref{lim}) is
violated.
Thermal--timescale mass transfer is rather gentler, and offers the
possibility of avoidance of CE evolution. In addition to the case
mentioned above, thermal--timescale mass transfer will also occur if
the donor star is crossing the Hertzsprung gap and has not yet
developed a convective envelope (i.e., is not close to the Hayashi
line), even if it is the less massive star. Detailed calculations
(Kolb, 1998) show that in both cases the mass transfer rate is given
roughly by
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{\rm tr} \sim {M_2\over t_{\rm KH}},
\label{th}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm KH} = 3\times 10^7{m_2^2\over r_2l_2}~{\rm yr}
\label{kh}
\end{equation}
was the Kelvin--Helmholtz time of the star when it left the main
sequence,
and $L_2 = l_2{\rm L_{\odot}}$ was its luminosity. (Note that by definition the donor
is not in thermal equilibrium, so an originally main--sequence donor
will develop a non--equilibrium structure as mass transfer proceeds.)
The condition of a radiative envelope requires a main--sequence mass
$m_2 \ga 1$, so we may take
\begin{equation}
r_2 \sim m_2^{0.8},\ \ l_2 \sim m_2^3.
\label{ms}
\end{equation}
Inserting in (\ref{kh}) and (\ref{th}) we find
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{\rm tr} \sim 3\times 10^{-8}m_2^{2.8},
\label{trmax}
\end{equation}
so comparing with (\ref{lim}) we require
\begin{equation}
m_2 \la 53 m_1^{0.18}
\label{mmax}
\end{equation}
and thus (from \ref{trmax})
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{\rm tr,\ max} \sim 2\times 10^{-3}m_1^{0.51}\ {\rm M_{\odot}}\ \ {\rm yr}^{-1}.
\label{mtrmax}
\end{equation}
Hence we expect CE evolution to be avoided in thermal--timescale mass
transfer from a main--sequence star,
or from a Hertzsprung gap star, provided that it
has a radiative envelope. This is
in agreement with the assumption of no CE evolution
in Cyg X--2 made by King \& Ritter (1999), where the initial donor mass
was about $3.5{\rm M_{\odot}}$.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
We have derived a general criterion for the avoidance of
common--envelope evolution in a binary in which the accretor is a
neutron star or a black hole. This shows that thermal--timescale mass
transfer from a main--sequence star is unlikely to lead to CE
evolution, as is mass transfer from a Hertzsprung gap star, provided
that the envelope is radiative. The first possibility allows the
early massive Case B evolution inferred by King \& Ritter (1999) for
the progenitor of Cyg X--2. SS433 may be an example of the second
possibility, with a fairly massive donor star. We will discuss this
possibility in detail in a future paper.
The considerations of this paper suggest that common--envelope
evolution with a neutron--star or black--hole accretor generally
requires an evolved donor with a deep convective envelope. This
represents a slight restriction on some of the routes invoked in the
possible formation of Thorne--$\dot {\rm Z}$ytkow objects.
\acknowledgements
This research was carried out at the Institute for Theoretical Physics
and supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant
No. PHY94--07194. ARK gratefully acknowledges support by the UK
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council through a Senior
Fellowship. MCB acknowledges support from NSF grant AST95--29170 and a
Guggenheim Fellowship.
\clearpage
|
\section{Proem}
The interpretation of extensive air shower (EAS) measurements in
the PeV domain and above relies strongly on the hadronic interaction
model applied when simulating the shower development in the
Earth's atmosphere. Such models are needed to describe the
interaction processes of the primary particles with the air nuclei
and the production of secondary particles.
In the EAS Monte Carlo codes the electromagnetic and weak
interactions can be calculated with good accuracy. Hadronic
interactions, on the other hand, are still uncertain to a large
extent. A wealth of data exists on particle production from
$p\overline{p}$ colliders up to energies which correspond to
2~PeV/c laboratory momentum and from heavy ion experiments up to
energies of 200~GeV/nucleon. However, almost all collider experiments
do not register particles emitted in the very forward direction
where most of the energy flows. These particles carry the
preponderant part of the energy and, therefore, are of utmost
importance for the shower development of an EAS. Since most of
these particles are produced in interactions with small momentum
transfer, QCD is at present not capable of calculating their
kinematic parameters.
Many phenomenological models have been developed to reproduce the
experimental results. Extrapolations to higher energies, to small
angles, and to nucleus--nucleus collisions have been performed under
different theoretical assumptions. The number of participant
nucleons in the latter case is another important parameter
which influences the longitudinal development of a shower.
Many EAS experiments have used specific models to determine the
primary energy and to extract information about the primary mass
composition. Experience shows that different models can lead to
different results when applied to the same data.
Therefore, it is of crucial importance to verify
the individual models experimentally as thoroughly as possible.
When planning the KASCADE experiment, one of the principal
motivations to build the hadron calorimeter was the intention to
verify available interaction models by studying the hadronic
central core. In the Monte Carlo code CORSIKA \cite{corsika} five different
interaction codes have been implemented and placed at the users'
disposal. By examining the hadron distribution in the very centre
these interaction models are tested. The propagation code itself, viz.
hadron transport, decay modes, scattering etc., is checked by
looking to the hadron lateral distribution further outside up to
distances of 100 m from the core.
\section{The apparatus}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/kalor.ps,width=\textwidth,
clip=,bbllx=73,bblly=333,bburx=504,bbury=620}
\caption{Sketch of the KASCADE central calorimeter. Detailed view (top)
and total view (bottom).}
\label{kalor}
\end{figure}
The KASCADE experiment consists of an array of 252 stations for
electron and muon detection and a calorimeter in its centre for
hadron detection and spectroscopy.
It has been described in detail elsewhere \cite{kascade}.
The muon detectors in the array are positioned directly below the
scintillators of the electron detectors and are shielded by
slabs of lead and iron corresponding to 20 radiation lengths in
total. The absorber imposes an energy threshold of about 300 MeV for muon
detection.
The calorimeter is of the sampling type, the energy being
absorbed in an iron stack and sampled in eight layers by ionisation
chambers. Its performance is described in detail by Engler
et al. \cite{kalorimeter}.
A sketch of the set--up is shown in Fig.~\ref{kalor}. The iron
slabs are 12--36~cm thick, becoming thicker in deeper parts of
the calorimeter. Therefore, the energy resolution does not scale
as $1/\sqrt{E}$, but is rather constant varying slowly from
$\sigma/E = 20\%$ at 100~GeV to 10\% at 10~TeV. The concrete
ceiling of the detector building is the last part of the
absorber and the ionisation chamber layer below acts as tail catcher.
In total, the calorimeter
thickness corresponds to 11 interaction lengths $\lambda_{I}$ for
vertical hadrons. On top, a 5~cm lead layer filters off the
electromagnetic
component to a sufficiently low level.
The liquid ionisation chambers use the room temperature liquids
tetramethylsilane (TMS) and tetramethylpentane (TMP). A detailed description
of their performance can be found elsewhere \cite{prototyp}. Liquid ionisation
chambers exhibit a linear signal behaviour with a very large dynamic range.
The latter is limited only by the electronics to about $5\times10^{4}$
of the amplifier rms--noise, i.e., the signal
of one to more than $10^{4}$ passing muons, equivalent to 10 GeV
deposited energy, is read out without saturation. This ensures
the energy of individual hadrons to be measured linearly up to
20\,TeV. At this energy, containment losses are at a level of two
percent. They rise and at 50 TeV signal losses of about 5\%
have to be taken into account. The energy calibration is performed by
means of through--going muons taking their energy deposition as standard.
Electronic calibration is repeated in regular intervals of 6 months by
injecting a calibration charge at the amplifier input. A stability of
better than 2\% over two years of operation has been attained. The
detector signal is shaped to a slow signal with $10~\mu$s
risetime in order to reduce the amplifier noise to a level less than
that of a passing muon. On the other hand, this makes a fast external
trigger necessary.
The principal trigger of KASCADE is formed by a coincident signal in at
least five stations in one subgroup of 16 stations of the array.
This sets the energy threshold to a few times $10^{14}$~eV depending
on zenith angle and primary mass.
An alternative trigger is generated by a layer of plastic scintillators
positioned below the third iron layer at a depth of $2.2~\lambda_{I}$.
These scintillators cover two thirds of the calorimeter surface and
deliver
timing information with 1.5~ns resolution.
\section{Simulations}
EAS simulations are performed using the CORSIKA versions 5.2 and 5.62
as described in \cite{corsika}. The interaction models chosen in the
tests are VENUS version 4.12 \cite{venus}, QGSJET \cite{qgsjet} and SIBYLL
version 1.6 \cite{sibyll}. We have chosen two models which are based on the
Gribov Regge theory because their solid theoretical ground allows best to
extrapolate from collider measurements to higher energies, forward
kinematical regions, and nucleus--nucleus interactions.
The DPMJET model, at the time of investigations, was not available in
CORSIKA in a stable version.
In addition, SIBYLL was used, a minijet model that is widely used in EAS
calculations, especially as the hadronic interaction model in the MOCCA code.
A sample of 2000 proton and iron--induced showers were simulated with SIBYLL
and 7000 p and Fe events with QGSJET.
With VENUS 2000 showers were generated, each for p, He, O, Si and
Fe primaries. The showers were distributed in the energy range of
0.1\, PeV up to 31.6\, PeV according to a power law with a
differential index of -2.7 and were equally spread in the interval of $15^o$ to
$20^o$ zenith angle. In addition, the changing of the index to -3.1 at the
{\it knee} position, which is assumed to be at 5~PeV, was taken into account.
The shower axes were spread uniformly over the calorimeter surface extended
by 2~m beyond its boundary.
In order to determine the signals in the
individual detectors, all secondary particles at ground level are passed
through a detector simulation program using the GEANT package \cite{geant}.
By these means, the instrumental response is taken into account and the
simulated events are analysed in the same way as the
experimental data, an important aspect to avoid systematic biases by
pattern recognition and reconstruction algorithms.
\section{Shower size determination}
The data evaluation proceeds via three levels. In a first step
the shower core and its direction of incidence are reconstructed and,
using the single muon calibration of the array detectors, their energy
deposits are converted into numbers of particles. In the next stage,
iterative corrections for electromagnetic
punch--through in the muon detectors and muonic energy deposits in
the electron detectors are applied. The particle densities are
fitted with a likelihood function to the Nishimura Kamata Greisen
(NKG) formula \cite{kamata}. A radius parameter of 89~m and 420~m is used
for electrons and muons, respectively. Because of limited statistics, the
radial slope parameter (age) is fixed for the muons.
The radius parameters deviate from the parameters originally proposed,
but have been found to yield the best agreement with the data.
The muon fit extends from 40~m to 200~m, the lower cut being imposed
by the strong hadronic
and electromagnetic punch--through near the shower centre. The upper
boundary reflects the geometrical acceptance. In a final step, the
muon fit function is used to correct the electron numbers and vice
versa.
The electromagnetic and muonic sizes $N_{e}$ and $N_{\mu}$ are
obtained by integrating the final NKG fit functions. For the
muons alternatively, integration within the range of the fit
results in a truncated muon number $N'_\mu$. This observable has
the advantage of being free of systematical errors caused by the
extrapolation outside the experimental acceptance. As
demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{eeichnmy}, it yields a good estimate
of the primary energy irrespective of primary mass. To a certain extent,
it is an integral variable indicating the sum of particles produced in the
atmosphere independently of longitudinal cascade development.
In the lefthand graph, the simulated values for the QGSJET model are plotted
together with fitted straight lines.
They show that in the $N'_\mu$ range given, the primary energy is
proportional to the muon number $E_0 \propto N_\mu'^{0.98}$ with an error
in the exponent of 0.06. This holds for the selected showers hitting
the central detector with their axes. (For all showers falling
into the area of the array a slightly higher coefficient of 1.10 is found.)
It has been checked that the particle numbers are evaluated correctly up to
values of $\lg N'_\mu=5$. At the highest energy of 100~PeV simulations
indicate that $N'_\mu$ is overestimated by about 10\%. By studying $N_\mu$
sizes at this energy experimentally, irregularities in the muon size
distribution may indicate an overestimation of 20\%. How well different
models agree among each other is shown on the righthand part of
Fig.~\ref{eeichnmy}, where the corresponding fitted lines are presented.
It is seen that the
SIBYLL model lies above the two others. In other words it generates
fewer muons with consequences that will be discussed below. It is
this truncated muon number $N'_\mu$ which we shall use throughout this
article to classify events according to the muon number, that
means approximately according to the primary energy.
The accuracy of the reconstructed shower sizes is estimated to be 5\%
for $N_{e}$ and 10\% for $N'_\mu$ around the {\it knee} position.
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/eeichnmy1_1.eps,width=0.48\textwidth}\hskip2mm%
\epsfig{file=eps/eeichnmy2_1.eps,width=0.48\textwidth}%
\caption{ Primary energy as determined by simulations from
the truncated muon number $N'_\mu$ using the interaction models
indicated. The vertical bars indicate the rms widths of primary energy
distribution for fixed number of muons.}
\label{eeichnmy}
\end{figure}
\section{Hadron reconstruction}
The raw data of the central detector are passed through a pattern
recognition program which traces a particle in the detector
and reconstructs its position, energy and incident angle. Two algorithms
exist. One of them is optimized to reconstruct unaccompanied hadrons
and to determine their energy and angle with best resolution. The
second is trained to resolve as many hadrons as possible in a shower core
and to reconstruct their proper energies and angles of
incidence. This algorithm has been used for the analyses
presented in the following. Grosso modo, the pattern recognition proceeds
as follows: Clusters of energy are searched
to line up and to form a track, from which roughly an angle of
incidence can be inferred. Then in the lower layers patterns of
cascades are looked for since these penetrating and late
developing cascades can be reconstructed most easily.
Going upwards in the
calorimeter, clusters are formed from the remaining energy and
lined up to showers according to the direction already found. The
uppermost layer is not used for hadron energy determination to evade
hadron signals, which are too much distorted by the electromagnetic component,
nor is the trigger layer used because of its limited dynamical range.
Due to a fine lateral segmentation of 25~cm, the minimal distance
to separate two equal--energy hadrons with 50\% probability
amounts to 40~cm. This causes the reconstructed hadron density to flatten
off at about 1.5~hadrons/m$^2$. The reconstruction efficiency with respect
to the hadron energy is presented in Fig.~\ref{effi}.
At 50~GeV an efficiency
of 70\% is obtained. This energy is taken as threshold in most
of the analyses in the following, if not mentioned otherwise.
We present the values on a logarithmic scale in order to
demonstrate how often high--energy radiating muons can mimic
a hadron. Their reconstructed hadronic energy, however, is much
lower, typically by a factor of 10. The fraction of non--identified
hadrons above 100\,GeV typically amounts to 5\%. This value
holds for a 1 PeV shower hitting the calorimeter at its centre and rises
to 30\% at 10 PeV. This effect is taken into account automatically, because
in the simulation it appears as the same token.
\section{Event selection}
About $10^8$ events were recorded from October 1996 to August 1998.
In $6\times10^6$ events, at least one hadron was reconstructed. Events
accepted for the present analysis have to fulfill
the following requirements: More than two hadrons are
reconstructed, the zenith angle of the shower is less
than $30^{\circ}$ and the core, as determined by the array stations, hits
the calorimeter or lies within 1.5 m distance outside its boundary. For
shower sizes corresponding to energies of more than about 1 PeV, the
core can also be determined in the first calorimeter layer by the
electromagnetic punch--through. The fine sampling of the
ionisation chambers yields 0.5~m spatial resolution for the core
position.
For events with
such a precise core position it has to lie within the calorimeter at 1 m
distance from its boundary. After all cuts, 40\,000 events were left
for the final analysis.
For non--centric showers, hadronic observables like the number of hadrons
have been corrected for the missing calorimeter surface by requiring
rotational symmetry. On the other hand, some
variables are used, for which such a correction is not obvious, e.g. the
{\it minimum--spanning--tree}, see Section 8.4. In these cases, only a
square
of $8\times8~\mbox{m}^2$ of the calorimeter with the shower core in its
centre is used and the rest of the calorimeter information neglected.
This treatment ensures that all events are analysed on the same
footing.
\section{Tests at large distances}
\begin{figure}\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=eps/effi.eps,width=\textwidth}
\caption{Reconstruction efficiency for hadrons for two different
zenith angles. The square symbols represent the probability of
radiating muons misidentified as hadrons.}
\label{effi}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=eps/rho2.eps,width=\textwidth}%
\caption{Density of hadrons (left scale) and of hadronic
energy (right scale) for showers of
truncated muon numbers as indicated corresponding to primary energies
of 3--10~PeV. The curves represent fits of the NKG formula to the data.}
\label{rho2}
\end{minipage}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/rho_s1.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/rho_s2.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\caption{Density of hadronic energy (filled circles) vs. core
distance for two intervals of primary energy. The indicated muon numbers
correspond to $1~\mbox{PeV}\le E_0 < 3~\mbox{PeV}$ and
$3~\mbox{PeV}\le E_0<10~\mbox{PeV}$.
The CORSIKA simulations (open symbols) represent
primary proton and iron nuclei with the QGSJET model.}
\label{rho}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=eps/ooty.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/tien.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
\caption{Lateral hadron density for electromagnetic shower sizes of $5.25 \le
\lg N_{e} < 5.5$. Thresholds for hadron detection are 50~GeV (left),
and 1~TeV (right). The dashed lines represent CORSIKA simulations with
the QGSJET model for primary proton and iron nuclei using an
exponential, see text.}
\label{ootytien}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/mlat1.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/mlat2.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\caption{The lateral hadron density for muonic shower sizes
corresponding to a mean primary energy of 1.2 PeV. Threshold for
hadron detection is 50~GeV. The data are compared with simulations using
VENUS (left) and SIBYLL (right), the curves represent fits according to
a modified exponential, see text.}
\label{mlat}
\end{figure}
Studying hadron distributions at large core distances
checks mainly the overall performance of the shower simulation
program CORSIKA. In the regions far away from the shower axis of an EAS,
the Monte Carlo calculations can be verified with respect to the
transport
of particles, their decay characteristics, etc. If the hadrons are well
described it
signifies that the shower propagation is treated properly. In these
outer
regions, where lower hadron energies and larger scattering angles dominate,
the underlying physics is sufficiently well known from accelerator
experiments, and the code in itself can be tested.
As an example of such a test, the hadron lateral distribution is
presented in Fig.~\ref{rho2} for $N'_\mu$ sizes corresponding to the primary
energy interval around and above the {\it knee}:
$3~\mbox{PeV}\le E_0<10~\mbox{PeV}$.
The distributions of the number of hadrons and of the hadronic
energy are given. In the very centre of the former, a saturation
as mentioned in chapter 5 can be noticed. Several
functions have been tried to fit the data points, among others
exponentials as suggested by Kempa \cite{kempa}. However, by far the best fit
was obtained when applying the NKG formula represented by the
curves shown in the graph. This finding is not particularly
surprising because hadrons of an energy of approximately 100~GeV \cite{kempa},
when passing through the atmosphere, generate the electromagnetic component,
and the NKG formula has been derived for electromagnetic cascades.
In addition, multiple scattering of electrons
determining the Moli\`ere radius resembles the scattering character
of hadrons with a mean transverse momentum of 400~MeV/c
irrespective of their energy. Replacing the mean multiple scattering
by the latter and the radiation length by the interaction length
one arrives at a radius $R_H$ of about 10~m. This
value we expect to take the place of the Moli\`ere radius in the
NKG formula for electron measurements. Indeed, values of this order are
found experimentally.
Lateral hadron distributions compared with CORSIKA simulations
are shown in Fig.~\ref{rho} for primary energies below and above the
{\it knee}. In the diagrams the hadronic energy density is plotted for
muon numbers corresponding to the primary energy intervals of
$1~\mbox{PeV}\le E_0<3~\mbox{PeV}$ and $3~\mbox{PeV}\le E_0<10~\mbox{PeV}$.
The data points are compared to primary proton and iron simulations
applying the QGSJET model. These two extreme assumptions about the masses
result in nearly identical hadron densities and the measured data coincide
with the simulations, thereby verifying the calculations. Similar good
agreement is found for the VENUS and SIBYLL
models. Simulations and data agree well up to 100~m distance
from the core. Only in the very inner region of 10~m, the simulations
yield deviating hadron densities for different primary masses.
Nevertheless, the measurements
here lie well in between the two extreme primary compositions of pure protons
or pure iron nuclei.
\section{Tests at shower core}
\subsection{Hadron lateral distribution}
To begin with, the lateral distributions are compared with values
published in the literature. Hadron
distributions in the core of EAS have been measured at Ooty by Vatcha
and Sreekantan \cite{vatcha} and at Tien Shan by
Danilova et al. \cite{danilova}. Results of
earlier experiments have been examined and discussed
by Sreekantan et al. \cite{sreekantan}.
In the experiments different techniques for hadron
detection have been applied: a cloud chamber at Ooty, long gaseous
ionisation tubes at Tien Shan and liquid ionisation chambers in the
present experiment. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the
respective results.
The experiments were performed at different altitudes, and a
priori they are expected to deliver deviating results. However, when
compared at the same electromagnetic shower size, hadron distributions should
be similar because electrons and hadrons, the latter of about 100 GeV,
are closely related to each other in an EAS when the shower passes through the
atmosphere. A sort of equilibrium turns up as has been pointed out by
Kempa \cite{kempa}. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{ootytien} demonstrates for electron
numbers $5.25 \leq \lg N_{e} < 5.5$ that the lateral hadron distributions
agree reasonably well. In particular, the measurements of the Ooty
group at an atmospheric depth of $800~\mbox{g}/\mbox{cm}^2$ coincide with the
present findings. The grey shaded band represents CORSIKA
simulations using the hadronic interaction model QGSJET, the lower
curve representing primary protons and the upper curve primary iron
nuclei. The curves are fits to the simulated density of hadrons
according to $\rho_H(r)\propto exp~(-(\frac{r}{r_0})^\kappa)$ with
values for $\kappa$ found to be between 0.7 and 0.9. The data lie well
between these two boundaries. The graph on the righthand side represents
hadron densities with a threshold of 1 TeV. Bearing
this high threshold in mind, the similarity in both distributions, Tien
Shan at $690~\mbox{g}/\mbox{cm}^2$ and KASCADE at sea--level,
is astonishing. In
conclusion, it can be stated that hadron densities, despite of being measured
with different techniques, agree reasonably well among different
experiments.
When classifying hadron distributions according to muonic shower sizes,
differences among the interaction models emerge. This becomes
apparent in Fig.~\ref{mlat}, where the central density is plotted
for truncated muon numbers which correspond to a mean energy of about 1.2 PeV.
On the left graph, the VENUS calculations enclose the data points leaving
the elemental composition
to be somewhere between pure proton or pure iron primaries. On the
right graph, the measured data points follow the lower boundary of the
SIBYLL calculations, suggesting
that all primaries are iron nuclei, at this energy obviously an
unprobable result.
The lateral distribution demonstrates, and other observables in a similar
manner as reported previously \cite{jrh}, that the SIBYLL code generates too low muon numbers thereby entailing
a comparison at a different estimate of the primary energy.
A hint has
already been observed in Fig.~\ref{eeichnmy} where the SIBYLL lines lie above
those of QGSJET and VENUS. When hadronic observables are classified
according to electromagnetic shower sizes, the disagreement vanishes as will be
discussed in the following.
\subsection{Hadron energy distribution}
\begin{figure}\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/mespec4.eps,width=\textwidth}%
\caption{Hadron energy distribution for fixed electron number
$N_{e}$ corresponding approximately to 6 PeV primary energy. The
lines represent CORSIKA simulations with three interaction models, the
lower curves for primary iron, the upper for protons.}
\label{mespec}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/nintne2.eps,width=\textwidth}%
\caption{Hadronic shower size vs. electromagnetic shower size.
Experimental values are
compared with simulations using VENUS (full lines) and QGSJET (shaded area),
both for primary protons and iron nuclei. The experimental error
bars are rms--values.}
\label{nintne}
\end{minipage}%
\end{figure}
The energy distribution of hadrons is shown in Fig.~\ref{mespec} for a
fixed electromagnetic shower size. Plotted is the number of hadrons in an
area of $8\times8~\mbox{m}^2$ around the shower core. As
already mentioned, in this way all showers are treated in the same
manner, independent of their point of incidence.
To avoid a systematic bias the
loss in statistics has to be accepted. The number of showers reduces to about
5000. The shower size bin of $5.5
\leq \lg N_{e} < 5.75$ corresponds approximately to a mean primary
energy of 6~PeV.
The lines represent fits to the simulations according to
$exp~(-(\frac{\lg E_H-a}{b})^c)$. Usually in the literature
$c=1$ is assumed, however, the present data, due to their large dynamical
range, yield values for $c$ from 1.3 to 1.6.
As can be inferred from the graph, all three interaction models
reproduce the measured data reasonably well, elucidating the fact
that electrons closely follow the hadrons in EAS propagation. But if
the same data are classified corresponding to the muon number, again
SIBYLL seems to generate too many hadrons and thereby mimics a
primary composition of pure iron nuclei.
For this reason SIBYLL will not be utilized any further.
In the figure also the energy spectrum is
plotted as measured with the Maket--ANI calorimeter by Ter--Antonian et
al.\ \cite{ter}. As already mentioned above, distributions are expected to
coincide when taken at the same electron number even if they have been
measured at different altitudes. In the present case the data have been
taken at sea level and at $700~\mbox{g}/\mbox{cm}^2$ on Mount Aragats.
The energy distributions, indeed, agree rather well with each other
indicating that in both data sets the patterns of hadrons are well
recognized and the energies correctly determined.
It was seen that SIBYLL encounters difficulties when the data are classified
according to muonic shower sizes. The model VENUS, on the other hand, cannot
reproduce hadronic observables convincingly well when they are binned into
electron number intervals. An example is given in Fig.~\ref{nintne}.
It shows the number
of hadrons, i.e. the hadronic shower size $N_h$,
as a function of the electromagnetic shower size
$N_e$. The experimental points match well to the primary proton line as
expected from QGSJET predictions. This phenomenon is easily understood
by the steeply falling flux
spectrum and the fact that primary protons induce larger electromagnetic
sizes at observation level than heavy primaries.
Hence, when grouping in $N_{e}$ bins ,
showers from primary protons will be enriched and we expect to have
predominantly proton showers in our sample.
This fact reduces any ambiguities in the results due to the absence of
direct information on primary composition.
Concerning the VENUS model the predicted hadron numbers are too high and
the two lines which mark the region between primary
protons and iron nuclei cannot explain the data. The point at the lowest
shower size is still influenced by the trigger efficiency of the array
counters.
\subsection{Hadron energy fraction}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/mefracl1.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/mefracl2.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\caption{The energy fraction of all hadrons vs. the most energetic
hadron in a shower. The data are compared to simulations using the
QGSJET model for primary protons (p) and iron nuclei (Fe). Shaded is
the physically meaningful region as obtained from the simulations.
Primary energies correspond to 2 PeV (left) and 12 PeV (right).}
\label{mefracl}
\end{figure}
A suitable test of the interaction models consists in investigating the
granular structure of the hadronic core concerning spatial as well as
energy distributions. As variables we have chosen the energy fraction of
hadrons and the distances in the {\it minimum--spanning--tree}
between them. Both will be dealt with in the following sections.
For each hadron its energy fraction with respect to the
most energetic hadron in that particular shower is calculated. For
primary protons, the leading particle effect is expected to produce
one particularly energetic hadron accompanied by hadrons with a broad
distribution of lower energies. Hence, we presume to find a rather large
dispersion of hadronic energies for primary protons, whereas for primary
iron nuclei the hadron energies should be more equally distributed.
The simulated distributions, indeed,
confirm this expectation as is shown in Fig.~\ref{mefracl}.
The lines --- to guide the eye --- represent fits to the simulations using two
modified exponentials as in the preceding section, which are connected to
each other at the maximum.
On the lefthand graph, the data seem to corroborate the simulations.
They are shown for a muon number range corresponding to a primary energy of
approximately 2 PeV, i.e., below the {\it knee} position. On the righthand
side, the results are shown for an interval above the {\it knee} for
muonic shower sizes corresponding to a primary energy of 12 PeV. The
reader observes
that the data cannot be explained by the simulations, neither by primary
protons nor by iron nuclei. On a logarithmic
scale the data exhibit a symmetric distribution around the value
$\lg (E_H/E_H^{max})\cong-1.5$, even more symmetric than
would be expected
for a pure iron composition. In particular,
energetic hadrons resulting from the leading particle effect
seem to be missing. They would shift the distribution to smaller values.
This absence of energetic hadrons in the observations will be confirmed
later when investigating other observables.
\subsection{Minimum--spanning--tree}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/mst35.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\caption{Example of a hadronic core in the calorimeter (top view).
The square marks the acceptance area of $8\times8~\mbox{m}^2$ around the
shower centre (star). The energy of each hadron is indicated by the
area of its point in a logarithmic scale.}
\label{mst}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/mmsts1.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/mmsts2.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\caption{The distances in a minimum--spanning--tree for a muon number
interval below (left) and above (right) the {\it knee}. The
measurements
are compared with simulations using the interaction model QGSJET for
primary protons (p) and iron nuclei (Fe). The lines are fits to the
simulations analogous to Fig.~\ref{mefracl}.}
\label{mmsts}
\end{figure}
When constructing the {\it minimum--spanning--tree} (MST), all hadrons are
connected to each other in a plane perpendicular to the shower axis.
The MST is that configuration where the sum of all connections
weighted by the inverse energy sum of its neighbours has a minimum.
The $1/E$ weighting has been found to separate iron and proton induced
showers the most.
Fig.~\ref{mst} shows as an example the central shower core of an event.
Plotted are the points of incidence on the calorimeter. The sizes
of the points mark the hadron energies on a logarithmic scale. The
shower centre and the fiducial area of $8\times8~\mbox{m}^2$ around
it are indicated as well.
For each event the distribution of distances is formed. Average distributions
from many events are given in Fig.~\ref{mmsts}.
As in Fig.~\ref{mefracl}, the muonic shower sizes correspond to
primary energy intervals below and
above the {\it knee}. It is observed that for the former, the data lie well
within the bounds of the primary composition but that above the
{\it knee} the measurements yield results which are not in complete agreement
with the model although they are close to the simulated iron data. The
distributions of Figs.~\ref{mefracl} and \ref{mmsts} have also been calculated
analysing the full calorimeter
surface and not only the $8 \times 8~\mbox{m}^2$ around the shower centre. No
remarkable difference could be obtained.
In both observables -- energy fraction and MST --
the data for higher primary energies cannot be interpreted by the simulations.
Additionally, in the M.C. calculations the {\it knee} in the primary energy
distribution has been omitted. Again, no remarkable change in the
distributions showed up. In fact, when investigating the distributions as a
function of muon number, the deviation between M.C. values and the
measured data develops smoothly with increasing energy.
When regarding the righthand graph in Fig.~\ref{mmsts} the question arises
whether the interaction model produces too small distances or too energetic
hadrons or both. In agreement with the observation in Fig.~\ref{mefracl} one
has to conclude that too energetic hadrons are generated as compared to the
data. Whether in the MSTs also the distances between the hadrons, in other
words the transverse momenta, are underestimated cannot be decided at the
moment. Also the number of hadrons plays a role. This issue is under further
investigations.
\subsection{Hadronic energy in large showers}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/nintnmy2_2.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\epsfig{file=eps/me1nmy_3.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
\caption{Hadronic shower size vs. muonic shower size (left)
and the maximum hadron
energy in a shower vs. its muonic shower size (right). The lines represent
simulations with the indicated interaction codes. The upper curves
represent primary protons, the lower primary iron nuclei.}
\label{nintnmy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\centering
\epsfig{file=eps/hzahl1.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}%
\caption{Hadron number at different thresholds, 50 GeV (diamonds),
200 GeV (triangles), and 1 TeV (squares) vs. electromagnetic shower size.
The dashed band
represents QGSJET simulations for primary protons (lower line) and iron nuclei (upper line).}
\label{hzahl}
\end{figure}
Deviations between measurement and simulations as in the
preceding sections are also observed when investigating the hadronic
energy in large showers. With rising muon numbers $N'_\mu$, the
experiment reveals an increasing part of missing hadronic energy in
the shower core. Fig.~\ref{nintnmy} (left) shows
the number of hadrons versus the muonic shower size.
At muon numbers corresponding to about 5 PeV
primary energy, the hadron numbers turn out to be
smaller than predicted for iron
by both interaction models VENUS and QGSJET. Again, one observes that the
latter model describes the experimental points somewhat better.
The conclusion that QGSJET reproduces the data best in the PeV region is
also confirmed by a recent model comparison performed by
Erlykin and Wolfendale \cite{wolfendale}.
The authors classify the models on the basis of consistency checks among
different observables, e.g.\ the depth of shower maximum $X_{max}$ and the
$N_\mu / N_e$ ratio.
The righthand graph of Fig.~\ref{nintnmy} presents the maximum hadron
energy found in showers with the indicated muon number.
The open symbols represent the QGSJET simulations, again QGSJET and VENUS
yield similar results.
Measurement and simulation
disagree also to some extent in this variable at large shower sizes.
The overestimation of muon numbers mentioned in section 4 cannot account for
the discrepancies. On a logarithmic scale it starts to be noticeable at
$\lg N'_\mu=5.5$ and amounts to $\Delta\lg N'_\mu=0.1$. A shift of this
size does not ameliorate the situation. The data have been
checked independently in the reduced fiducial area of $8\times8~\mbox{m}^2$.
But in this analysis, too, the data seem to fake pure iron primaries at
$\lg N'_\mu=4.3$ and are below that boundary for larger muonic sizes.
Factum is that we do not
observe the energetic hadrons expected from the M.C. calculations.
In the energy region 10 to 100~PeV even QGSJET fails to describe the
measurements.
Obviously, the question arises whether these experimentally detected
effects are artifacts caused, for instance, by saturation effects in the
calorimeter or by insufficient pattern recognition presumed to be different
in the simulation than present in
the experimental data. After all, the high--energy values
correspond to primary energies of about 100 PeV where 400 hadrons have
to be reconstructed. At this point, it may be noted again that
always the experimental and simulated data are compared with each
other on the detector signal level, hence, a possible hadron
misidentification applies to both data sets. As already pointed out in
section 2, individual hadrons up to 50~TeV
have been reconstructed and their saturation effects have been examined
thoroughly.
Some misallocation of energy to individual hadrons might occur, though,
if lateral distributions of hadrons in the core differ markedly between
simulations and reality. There may be indication from emulsion
experiments for this \cite{tamada}. However, from the results shown in
Fig.~\ref{ootytien} and \ref{mlat} we would not expect any dramatic effect.
Fig.~\ref{hzahl} demonstrates that for large electromagnetic shower sizes,
the number of hadrons compares well with other experiments as well as with
CORSIKA simulations. In the diagram the number of hadrons
above the indicated thresholds is presented with respect to the
shower size. The values obtained for hadrons above 1~TeV can be
related to two other experiments performed at Kiel by Fritze et al.
\cite{fritze} and on the Chacaltaya by C. Aguirre et al. \cite{aguierre}.
It is observed that
up to shower sizes which correspond to about 20 PeV for primary
protons all high--energy hadrons are reconstructed, i.e., more than
70~TeV energy are found in the calorimeter. When compared to QGSJET
simulations, the data lie within the physical boundaries as shown for
the 1~TeV line. On closer inspection the data indicate an increase of the mean
mass with rising energy.
Also in Fig. \ref{nintne} it has been seen that the hadron numbers are
well reproduced by QGSJET up to the highest electromagnetic shower
sizes.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the
hadron component compares well between different experiments and with
M.C. calculations when classified according to electromagnetic shower sizes,
and that the deviations observed in muon number binning
cannot be accounted for by experimental imperfections.
\section{Conclusion and outlook}
Three interaction models have been tested by examining the hadronic
cores of large EAS. It turned out that QGSJET reproduces the data
best, but at large muonic shower sizes, i.e.\ at energies above the {\it knee}
even this model fails to
reproduce certain observables. Most importantly, the model predicts more
hadrons than are observed experimentally.
The current investigation is a first
approach with a first data sample of the KASCADE experiment.
Better statistics, both in the data and in the Monte Carlo
calculations, are imperative, especially above the {\it knee} in the 10~PeV
region, and are expected from the further operation of the experiment.
In addition, other experimental methods have to be
developed to check the simulation codes even more rigorously. Such a
stringent check consists of verifying absolute particle fluxes at
ground level at energies where the primary flux is reasonably well known.
Improvements in the interaction models are also under way.
{\small NE}X{\small US} is
in statu nascendi, a joint enterprise by the authors of VENUS and
QGSJET \cite{werner}. It has become evident that a very precise
description of the shower development in the atmosphere is needed if
the mass of the primaries is to be estimated by means of ground
level particle
distributions.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank the members of the engineering and
technical staff of the KASCADE
collaboration who contributed with enthusiasm and engagement to the
success of the experiment.
The Polish group gratefully acknowledges support by the Polish State
Committee for Scientific Research (grant No. 2 P03B 16012).
The work has been partly supported by a grant of the Rumanian Ministry of
Research and Technology and by the research grant no. 94964 of the Armenian
Government and ISTC project A 116. The support of the experiment by the
Ministry for Research of the German Federal Government is gratefully
acknowledged.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Linearization of a dynamical system near a periodic orbit is one of the most
fruitful starting points for the analysis of classical motion. In its turn,
the symplectic group of linear Hamiltonian systems in plane phase space is
easily quantized to form the corresponding metaplectic quantum group.
Essentially, the generating function for the group of canonical
transformations is simply exponentiated to obtain a representation of the
quantum unitary transformation.
If the chosen orbit is a point of equilibrium, the corresponding linear
system belongs to the homogeneous symplectic group, characterized by a
single equilibrium, usually taken as the origin. Likewise, the Poincar\'{e}
map in the neighborhood of a periodic orbit is linearized into a homogeneous
symplectic map with discrete time. The essential character of the motion is
classified according to the eigenvalues of the symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$, that
determines the evolution of phase space points $x:$%
\begin{equation}
x^{\prime }={\cal M}x.
\end{equation}
There may be
\begin{description}
\item[(a)] pairs of eigenvalues ($\lambda ,\lambda ^{-1});$
\item[(b)] pairs of eigenvalues on the unit circle ($e^{i\theta
},e^{-i\theta })$
\item[(c)] quartets of general complex eigenvalues $\lambda ^{\pm 1}e^{\pm
i\theta }.$
\end{description}
\noindent On varying parameters, it is possible to obtain unit eigenvalues ,
or eigenvalue collisions, but the above classification is generic for a
given symplectic system \cite{quinze}.
It is always possible to decompose such a generic linearized system into
sub-systems in invariant subspaces of two dimensions, corresponding to cases
(a)\ and (b) above, or four dimensions in case (c). Case (b) is the {\it %
elliptic map, }which is trivially integrable, whereas case (a)\ defines {\it %
hyperbolic motion.} This is also very simple in the linear limit, but can
become a source of chaotic mixing as nonlinear perturbations are added.
Alternatively, this effect is achieved by wrapping the plane space itself
into a torus.
The resulting symplectomorphism of the torus is known colloquially as a {\it %
cat map}, characterized by a symplectic matrix with integer elements. A
hyperbolic cat map is structurally stable, i.e. the orbit structure is
invariant with respect to small nonlinear perturbations as a consequence of
Anosov's theorem \cite{quinze}. The same is true of a four dimensional {\it %
loxodromic cat map} with general complex eigenvalues in case (c). These
structurally invariant systems are known as {\it Anosov} systems, they are
ergodic and mixing.
It follows that four dimensions is the lower bound in which we can study
loxodromic periodic orbits \cite{quinze}, characterized by stable and
unstable manifolds where the orbits spiral inwards and outwards
respectively, and their effect on the quantum energy spectrum. This is the
reason for their absence in all previous studies of the quantization of cat
maps, though Greenman \cite{greenman} has recently analyzed the periodic
structure of higher dimensional classical cat maps. Dimension four is also
the least dimension for the analysis of the decomposition of the
neighborhood of orbits into elliptic and (real)\ hyperbolic components.
In some cases this decomposition is only local, because the canonical
transformation that achieves it is not itself a cat map. Then the quantum
quasienergy spectrum will not be decomposed into the corresponding lower
dimensional spectra. In any case, all cat maps derived from each other as a
result of similarity transformations involving other cat maps are
equivalent: they have the same (classical and quantum) eigenvalues and the
same number of fixed points. ( Note that, on the torus, a homogeneous linear
map may have multiple fixed points.)
For this reason, we discuss in the next section the integer subgroup of
symplectic transformations, nicknamed the feline group. For higher
dimensions than two, we encounter the problem of a priori identification of
a cat map. An alternative approach involves generating functions, of which
there are several choices. However there is a great advantage to using
generating functions that are invariant with respect to feline
transformations.
In section 3 we analyze the dynamics of classical cat maps and classify
four-dimensional cat maps, providing examples of various types. These
examples are then quantized in section 4. They share a simplifying property
that permits us to discuss the periodicity of the propagator and the
exactness of the Gutzwiller trace formula, without analyzing the subtleties
of general cat map quantization. This is the subject of section 5, where we determine
the set of Floquet angles that allow the quantization of a given map; and study the feline invariance of the quantization.
\section{ Feline-invariant generating functions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
A point in the even-dimensional {\it phase space} with $L$ degrees of
freedom on a $2L$-torus has coordinates separated into $L$ momenta and $L$
positions, so that $x=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p \\
q
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p_1,\cdots ,p_L \\
q_1,\cdots ,q_L
\end{array}
\right) $. All the $2L$ coordinates are periodic with periods $\Delta q_i$
and $\Delta p_i$. For simplicity we will treat the case where we can choose
units so that $\Delta q_i$ and $\Delta p_i$ are all equal to 1. The range of
values of $x$ is then the unit $2L$-hypercube denoted from now on by $\Box .$
Let us consider then a linear automorphism on the $2L$-torus generated by
the $2L\times 2L$ matrix ${\cal M}$, that takes a point $x_{-}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p_{-} \\
q_{-}
\end{array}
\right) $ to a point $x_{+}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p_{+} \\
q_{+}
\end{array}
\right) :$%
\begin{equation}
x_{+}={\cal M}x_{-}\quad \mbox{mod(1)}. \label{mapa0}
\end{equation}
In other words, there exists an integer $2L$-dimensional vector ${\bf m}%
=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
m_p \\
m_q
\end{array}
\right) ,$ such that
\begin{equation}
x_{+}={\cal M}x_{-}-{\bf m.} \label{mapa}
\end{equation}
The components of ${\bf m}$ denote the winding numbers made by the point $%
x_{-}$ around the respective irreducible circuit on the $2L$-torus after the
application of the map ${\cal M}.$ The torus will be divided into regions labeled
by their respective vector ${\bf m}$. For the map to be conservative, the ${\cal M}$
matrix must be symplectic, that is
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}^t{\frak J}{\cal M}={\frak J,} \label{msimple}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal M}^t$ is the transpose of ${\cal M}$ and
\begin{equation}
{\frak J}=\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
0 & -1 \\ \hline
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right] .
\end{equation}
The matrix ${\cal M}$ must have integer coefficients for the $2L$-torus to be
mapped onto itself.
For one degree of freedom ( $L=1$ ) these systems are known as Arnold's cat
maps \cite{quinze}. If $|tr({\cal M})|>2$ the map has two distinct real
eigenvectors, so it is ergodic, mixing and purely hyperbolic. For the case $%
|tr({\cal M})|<2$ there are no real eigenvectors, the map is then elliptic. For $%
|tr({\cal M})|=2$ there is only one real eigenvector and so the map is parabolic.
For more degrees of freedom richer structure may appear, as will be
discussed.
The set of matrices ${\cal M}$ satisfying (\ref{msimple}) form the symplectic
group, so that the matrix ${\cal M}^{\prime },$ obtained from ${\cal M}$ by the similarity
transformation
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}^{-1}{\cal M}{\cal N}={\cal M}^{\prime } \label{2.5}
\end{equation}
is also symplectic if the matrix ${\cal N}$ is itself symplectic and shares the
same eigenvalues as ${\cal M}$. Indeed, we may consider the symplectic
transformation corresponding to ${\cal M}^{\prime }$ as the same as ${\cal M}$, but viewed
in an alternative symplectic coordinate system.
Consider now a product of cat maps; this must be symplectic and all the
matrix elements will be integers. Since the inverse of a cat map is also a
symplectic integer transformation and the unit matrix likewise, the set of
cat maps is a subgroup of the symplectic group, appropriately nicknamed the
{\it feline group}. Again, we may consider similarity transformations of the
form (\ref{2.5}) among cat maps ${\cal M}$ and ${\cal N}$ as defining essentially maps
viewed by alternative symplectic coordinates on the torus.
The importance of defining equivalence classes of similar cat maps increases
with the dimension of the torus. It is easy to define integer matrices and the {\it a posteriori} condition (\ref{msimple}) merely restricts the value of
the determinant to unity when $L=1.$\ However, for $L=2$, the symplectic
property already implies ten independent conditions to be satisfied by the
sixteen integer matrix elements. An alternative procedure, that we adopt here, is to define the transformation
implicitly by means of a generating function, thus guaranteeing (\ref{msimple}). The
disadvantage is now that we need to ensure that the resulting matrix ${\cal M}$ has
integer entries, leading to additional restrictions on the allowed generating
functions (see below ) . Nevertheless, this approach has proved very fruitful, because the quantization relies heavily on the generating function, and not on the transformation matrix itself.
The generating function in position representation for the one degree of
freedom case is \cite{keat1}
\begin{equation}
S(q_{-},q_{+},{\bf m})=\frac 1{2{\cal M}_{21}}\left[
{\cal M}_{22}q_{-}^2-2q_{-}(q_{+}+m_q)+{\cal M}_{11}(q_{+}+m_q)^2-2{\cal M}_{21}m_pq_{+}\right] .
\end{equation}
This function generates the dynamics through
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{+} &=&\frac{\partial S(q_{-},q_{+},{\bf m})}{\partial q_{+}} \\
p_{-} &=&-\frac{\partial S(q_{-},q_{+},{\bf m})}{\partial q_{-}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the quadratic part of the generating function is common to the entire
torus, whereas the linear part depends on the winding vector ${\bf m}$ that
changes discontinuously on the boundary of each subregion of the torus.
The weakness of the position generating function is that it transforms in a
complicated way under feline similarity transformations. Only in the special
case of a point transformation, that does not mix momenta with positions,
will the generating function remain invariant. In contrast, the {\it center
and chord generating functions}, are known to be symplectically invariant
\cite{ozrep}. Adapted to the torus, we shall show that they can also be
chosen to be invariant under feline transformations.
The starting point is to define the center point $x$ and the chord $\xi $
such that
\begin{equation}
x_{\pm }=x\pm \frac 12\xi , \label{qqxcor}
\end{equation}
so that the center
\begin{equation}
x\equiv \frac{x_{+}+x_{-}}2 \label{xdef}
\end{equation}
and the chord
\begin{equation}
\xi \equiv x_{+}-x_{-}. \label{cordef}
\end{equation}
Given the initial point $x_{-}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
x &=&\frac 12\left( {\cal M}+1\right) x_{-}-\frac{{\bf m}}2 \label{xx-} \\
\xi &=&\left( {\cal M}-1\right) x_{-}-{\bf m.} \label{corx-}
\end{eqnarray}
Elimination of $x_{-}$, then establishes the direct relation between centers
and chords:
\begin{eqnarray}
x &=&\frac 12\frac{\left( {\cal M}+1\right) }{({\cal M}-1)}\xi +({\cal M}-1)^{-1}{\bf m}
\label{xcor} \\
\xi &=&2\frac{\left( {\cal M}-1\right) }{\left( {\cal M}+1\right) }x-2\left( {\cal M}+1\right)
^{-1}{\bf m}. \label{corx}
\end{eqnarray}
Center and chord generating functions respectively denoted by $S(x,{\bf m})$
and $S(\xi ,{\bf m})$ are defined in \cite{ozrep} so that the transformation
is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
x &=&{\frak J}\frac{\partial S(\xi ,{\bf m})}{\partial \xi } \label{xgenfu}
\\
\xi &=&-{\frak J}\frac{\partial S(x,{\bf m})}{\partial x}. \label{corgenfu}
\end{eqnarray}
In analogy to the dynamics in the plane, we may consider that use of the
center representation identifies the orbit with the reflection (or
inversion) through $x$, because of (\ref{xdef}). Hence we shall also refer
to $x$ as the reflection point. The chord representation is locally
equivalent to the uniform translation of phase space by the chord (\ref
{cordef}). Equating (\ref{xcor}) with (\ref{xgenfu}) and (\ref{corx}) with (%
\ref{corgenfu}), we obtain the quadratic generating functions
\begin{eqnarray}
S(x,{\bf m}) &=&xBx+x(B-{\frak J)}{\bf m}+f({\bf m}) \label{sxf} \\
S(\xi ,{\bf m}) &=&\frac 14\xi \beta \xi +\frac 12\xi (\beta +{\frak J)}{\bf %
m}+g({\bf m}) \label{scorg}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B$ and $\beta $ are symmetric matrices; they are the Cayley
parametrization of ${\cal M}:$%
\begin{eqnarray}
{\frak J}B &=&\frac{\left( 1-{\cal M}\right) }{\left( 1+{\cal M}\right) } \label{jbm} \\
{\frak J}\beta &=&\frac{\left( {\cal M}+1\right) }{\left( {\cal M}-1\right) }
\label{jbetam}
\end{eqnarray}
If ${\cal M}$ has an eigenvalue equal to $1$ then the $\beta $ matrix will be
singular. This corresponds to a caustic of the center generating function.
Whereas if ${\cal M}$ has an eigenvalue equal to $-1$, then $B$ will be a singular
matrix which corresponds to a caustic of the chord generating function \cite
{ozrep}.Some useful relations obtained from (\ref{jbm}) and (\ref{jbetam})
are
\begin{eqnarray}
(B-{\frak J}) &=&-2{\frak J}\left( 1+{\cal M}\right) ^{-1}, \\
(\beta +{\frak J}) &=&-2{\frak J}\left( {\cal M}-1\right) ^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
{\frak J}B=-\frac 1{{\frak J}\beta } \label{jbbeta}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}=\frac{\left( 1-{\frak J}B\right) }{\left( 1+{\frak J}B\right) }=\frac{%
\left( {\frak J}\beta +1\right) }{\left( {\frak J}\beta -1\right) }.
\label{mbbeta}
\end{equation}
The functions $f({\bf m})$ and $g({\bf m})$ are arbitrary, since they only
depend on the winding number ${\bf m}$, so they do not affect the
transformation (\ref{xcor}) or (\ref{corx}). However, the center generating
function for cat maps can also be obtained directly from the map (\ref{mapa}%
). This is a composition of the symplectic map on the plane ${\cal M}$ , whose
center generating function is $S_1(x)=xBx,$ with the uniform translation $%
T_{-{\bf m}}$ of vector $-{\bf m}$ that pulls back the final point to the
unit cell $\Box .$ The generating function of such a translation is \cite
{ozrep} $S_2(x)=-{\bf m\wedge }x$ , also symplectically invariant. Then,
using the composition law for center generating functions \cite{ozrep} we
obtain the generating function (\ref{sxf}) with
\begin{equation}
f({\bf m})=\frac 14{\bf m}B{\bf m.} \label{3.30}
\end{equation}
As in the plane case \cite{ozrep} generating functions are related among
themselves by Legendre transformations. Thus, $S(x,{\bf m})$ is obtained
from the more familiar position generating function $S(q_{-},q_{+},{\bf m})$
as
\begin{equation}
S(x,{\bf m})=S(q_{-},q_{+},{\bf m})+\frac 12(p_{-}+p_{+})(q_{+}-q_{-}),
\label{legqx}
\end{equation}
whereas the relation between the chord and center generating function is
\begin{equation}
S(\xi ,{\bf m})=\xi \wedge x-S(x,{\bf m}). \label{legxcor}
\end{equation}
In each case, the variable absent on the left side is eliminated by
requiring the right side to be stationary with respect to it. The skew
product in (\ref{legxcor}) ,
\begin{equation}
\xi \wedge \eta \ \equiv \sum_{\ell =1}^L\left( \xi _{p_\ell }\eta _{q_\ell
}-\xi _{q_\ell }\eta _{p_\ell }\right) =({\frak J}\xi ).\eta =-\xi {\frak J}%
\eta ,
\end{equation}
is the symplectic area of the parallelogram formed by any pair of vectors $%
\xi $ and $\eta $. Then, using (\ref{legxcor}), for the center function with
the term (\ref{3.30}), we obtain the chord generating function (\ref{scorg})
with
\begin{equation}
g({\bf m})=\frac 14{\bf m}\beta {\bf m.} \label{3.30g}
\end{equation}
We shall label periodic points of period $l$ as $x_l.$ Thus, fixed points $%
x_1$ are such that the chord $\xi =0,$ or the center $x=x_1=({\cal M}-1)^{-1}{\bf m,%
}$ which inserted in (\ref{legxcor}) leads to
\begin{equation}
S(\xi =0,{\bf m})=-S(x_1,{\bf m}). \label{spcorx}
\end{equation}
There follows the restriction that the terms in $S(\xi ,{\bf m})$ and $S(x,%
{\bf m})$ that depend only on ${\bf m}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
f({\bf m})+g({\bf m})=\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta +B){\bf m.}
\end{equation}
The choice (\ref{3.30}) and (\ref{3.30g}) obviously satisfy this criterion,
but another possibility is
\begin{equation}
f({\bf m})=\frac 14{\bf m}(B+\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m\quad }\mbox{and}%
\quad g({\bf m})=\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta -\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m,}
\label{gm}
\end{equation}
where we define the symmetric matrix
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{{\frak J}}=\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
0 & 1 \\ \hline
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right] .
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{gm}), we match the value of the action for a fixed point
previously proposed by Keating \cite{keat1}, for the position representation
\begin{equation}
S(q_{-}=q_f,q_{+}=q_f,{\bf m})=S(x_1,{\bf m}).
\end{equation}
In conclusion, the center and chord generating functions for
multidimensional cat maps are
\begin{eqnarray}
S(x,{\bf m}) &=&xBx+x(B-{\frak J)}{\bf m}+\frac 14{\bf m}(B+\widetilde{%
{\frak J}}){\bf m} \label{sx} \\
S(\xi ,{\bf m}) &=&\frac 14\xi \beta \xi +\frac 12\xi (\beta +{\frak J)}{\bf %
m}+\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta -\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m.} \label{scor}
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding generating functions for the transformation $x_{+}={\cal M}x_{-}$
in the plane are just $S(x,0)$ and $S(\xi ,0)$. It is important to note that
all the reflections of the torus can be obtained with center points whose
coordinates are in $[0,\frac 12].$ It would thus be possible to define such
center points $x^{\prime }$ as
\begin{equation}
x^{\prime }\equiv \frac{x_{+}+x_{-}}2\qquad \mbox{mod}(\frac 12).
\end{equation}
This choice would not lead to the explicit relation (\ref{xx-}) with the
winding number of the transformation, but instead
\begin{equation}
x^{\prime }=\frac 12\left( {\cal M}+1\right) x_{-}-\frac{{\bf m}^{\prime }}2,
\label{xpm}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf m}^{\prime }$ has coordinates ${\bf m}_i^{\prime }=({\bf m}_i$
or ${\bf m}_i{\bf +1}),$ so that all the coordinates of $x^{\prime }$ would
be in $[0,\frac 12].$ Hence, we allow instead the center points $x,$ defined
as in (\ref{xdef}), to have coordinates in the full interval $[0,1],$
keeping the explicit relation with the winding number of the transformation.
As a consequence, the chords defined as in (\ref{cordef}),\ have coordinates
lying in the extended range $[-1,1].$ Thus, center points differing by
integer loops around the torus are equivalent and so are chords differing by
two integer loops.
\begin{eqnarray}
x &\equiv &x+{\bf k} \label{xequi} \\
\xi &\equiv &\xi +2{\bf k.} \label{corequi}
\end{eqnarray}
We find that (\ref{xequi}) and (\ref{corequi}) imply that, in (\ref{xcor})
and (\ref{corx}) respectively, the winding number ${\bf m}\,$ is equivalent
to:
\begin{equation}
{\bf m}\equiv {\bf m}^{\prime }={\bf m}+({\cal M}-1){\bf k} \label{mprim}
\end{equation}
in (\ref{xcor}) and
\begin{equation}
{\bf m}\equiv {\bf m}^{\prime \prime }={\bf m}-({\cal M}+1){\bf k}. \label{m2prim}
\end{equation}
in (\ref{corx}). This implies that replacing $\,$ ${\bf m}$ by ${\bf m}%
^{\prime }$ in the generating function $S(\xi ,{\bf m})$ will lead to
equivalent center points related by (\ref{xequi}). To obtain equivalent
chords related by (\ref{corequi}), it is necessary to replace ${\bf m}$ by $%
{\bf m}^{\prime \prime }\,$in the center generating function $S(x,{\bf m})$.
Performing the mentioned replacements we will obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
S(\xi ,{\bf m}^{\prime }) &=&S(\xi ,{\bf m})+\xi \wedge {\bf k-}\frac 12{\bf %
m}\Gamma _1{\bf k-}\frac 14{\bf k}\Delta _1{\bf k} \label{scorper} \\
S(x,{\bf m}^{\prime \prime }) &=&S(x,{\bf m})-2x\wedge {\bf k-}\frac 12{\bf m%
}\Gamma _2{\bf k-}\frac 14{\bf k}\Delta _2{\bf k,} \label{sxper}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma _1 &=&\left[ \left( {\frak J}+\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) {\cal M}+\left(
\widetilde{{\frak J}}-{\frak J}\right) \right] \label{gama1} \\
\Delta _1 &=&\left[ \left( {\cal M}^t\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\cal M}+\widetilde{{\frak J}}%
\right) +{\cal M}^t\left( \widetilde{{\frak J}}-{\frak J}\right) +\left( {\frak J}+%
\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) {\cal M}\right] \label{delta1} \\
\Gamma _2 &=&\left[ \left( {\frak J-}\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) {\cal M}+\left(
{\frak J}+\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) \right] \label{gama2} \\
\Delta _2 &=&\left[ \left( {\cal M}^t\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\cal M}+\widetilde{{\frak J}}%
\right) -{\cal M}^t\left( {\frak J}+\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) -\left( {\frak J}-%
\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) {\cal M}\right] . \label{delta2}
\end{eqnarray}
In this way we can restrict ${\bf m}$ to integer component vectors that lie
in one of the two fundamental parallelepipeds
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\begin{array}{cc}
\Diamond _\xi =({\cal M}-1)\Box & \qquad \mbox{for }S(\xi ,{\bf m})
\end{array}
\label{para1} \\
&&
\begin{array}{cc}
\Diamond _x=({\cal M}+1)\Box & \qquad \mbox{for }S(x,{\bf m})
\end{array}
\label{para2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Box $ is the unit hypercube that denotes the $2L$-torus. Hence, the
different orbits denoted by a given chord $\xi $ are given by all the
integer ${\bf m}$ lying in $\Diamond _\xi $. The number of such orbits is
independent of $\xi $, so taking $\xi =0$, we equate this to the number of
fixed points $\tau _\xi $, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\tau ({\cal M})=|\det ({\cal M}-1)|=\frac{2^{2L}}{|\det ({\frak J}\beta -1)|}\equiv \tau
_\xi . \label{d1}
\end{equation}
The different orbits that have the point $x$ as its center are denoted by
all the integers ${\bf m}$ lying now in $\Diamond _x.$ The number of these
orbits is given by the volume of $\Diamond _x$ which is
\begin{equation}
\tau (-{\cal M})=\left| \det ({\cal M}+1)\right| =\frac{2^{2L}}{|\det ({\frak J}B+1)|}%
\equiv \tau _x. \label{gama}
\end{equation}
Note that the number of periodic points of period two is $\tau _\xi \tau _x.$
For the matrix ${\cal M}$ to represent a $2L$-cat map it must be symplectic, so
that the map is area preserving, and ${\cal M}$ must have integer entries. Let us
now translate both the conditions for the $B$ and $\beta $ matrices. The
first condition implies that $B$ and $\beta $ are symmetric matrices, and
any symmetric matrix is associated through (\ref{mbbeta}) to a symplectic
matrix. The second condition restricts the $B$ and $\beta $ matrices to have
rational entries. Indeed, following (\ref{jbm}) and(\ref{jbetam}) we will
have
\begin{eqnarray}
B &=&\frac{\overline{B}}{\det ({\cal M}+1)}\equiv \pm \frac{\overline{B}}{\tau _x}
\label{bbbar} \\
\beta &=&\frac{\overline{\beta }}{\det ({\cal M}-1)}=\pm \frac{\overline{\beta }}{%
\tau _\xi } \label{betabar}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\overline{B}$ and $\overline{\beta }$ are symmetric matrices with
integer entries and the denominators are defined by (\ref{d1}) and (\ref
{gama}). It can happen that all the coefficients of the matrix $\overline{B}$
( or $\overline{\beta }$ ) have a common factor that is not coprime with $%
\tau _x$ (respectively $\tau _\xi $ ). Dividing by this common factor the
fraction in (\ref{bbbar}) ( or in (\ref{betabar}) ) is reduced to the form
\begin{eqnarray}
B &=&\pm \frac{\overline{B}^{\prime }}{\tau _x^{\prime }} \label{bbbar1} \\
\beta &=&\pm \frac{\overline{\beta }^{\prime }}{\tau _\xi ^{\prime }}.
\label{betabar1}
\end{eqnarray}
But not any symmetric $B$ or $\beta $ matrix with rational entries
guarantees that the associated symplectic matrix will have integer elements.
So we must find conditions on $B$ and $\beta $ for this to occur.
The characterization of the matrices $B$ or $\beta $ requires that the
corresponding transformation on the plane maps the points of an integer
lattice among themselves. We will examine the case $L=1$, as the extension
for many number of degrees of freedom follows easily. There are two
fundamental chords corresponding to fixed points on the torus:
\begin{equation}
\xi _1=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \mbox{ \qquad and \qquad }\xi _2=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,
\end{equation}
leading to the fixed points:
\begin{equation}
x_j=\frac 12({\frak J}\beta + 1)\xi _{j\qquad ,}\mbox{ with }j=1,2.
\end{equation}
Of course, there is also $\xi _0=0$, but this ''plane fixed point'' makes no
restriction on the torus map. For the transformation to be a cat map, all
the corners of the fundamental parallelogram $\Box $ must be fixed points,
so, for any integers $r$ and $s$, there are integers $m_1$ and $m_2$ such
that:
\begin{equation}
m_1x_1+m_2x_2=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
r \\
s
\end{array}
\right) =\frac 12({\frak J}\beta + 1)\left(
\begin{array}{l}
{m_1} \\
{m_2}
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{equation}
This is true if only if $2({\frak J}\beta + 1)^{-1}$ has integer entries. This condition is general for any degrees of freedom. Similarly, we find that $2({\frak J}\beta - 1)^{-1}$ having integer entries is also a necessary and sufficient condition for the corresponding ${\cal M}^{-1} $ to define a cat map.
But , if ${\cal M}$ defines a cat map, so does $-{\cal M}$ with the associated chord
matrix $-B.$ Therefore, it is also a necessary and sufficient condition, for
a center generating function to determine a cat map, that the associated
center matrix $B$ have the property that $2({\frak J}B\pm 1)^{-1}$ be an
integer matrix. Evidently we easily find a subclass of cat maps by restricting their Cayley parametrization to $B$ (or $ \beta$ ) matrices of the form (\ref{bbbar}) such that $
det(1\pm{\frak J}B)=\pm 1, \pm 2
$, then $2(1+{\frak J}B)^{-1}$ is an integer matrix.
Although the conditions on the symmetric matrices $B$ or $\beta \,\,$to
denote a cat map are not as trivial as the ones on the symplectic matrix ${\cal M},$
it is simpler to find rational symmetric matrices that fulfill the condition
on $\beta $ and $B$ than to find integer symplectic matrices. The fact that $%
B$ or $\beta $ are symmetric and of the form (\ref{bbbar}) allows us to find cat maps by sampling $\left[ (L)\times (2L+1)+1\right] $ integer numbers. Otherwise,
to fulfill the condition (\ref{msimple}), needs a loop over $(2L)^2$ integer
coefficients.
To conclude this section, we verify the property of feline invariance for
the chord and center generating functions. First, we note that, symplectic
invariance in the plane \cite{ozrep} implies that under a symplectic
coordinate transformation $x\rightarrow x^{\prime }={\cal N}x,$ $S(x,0)=S(x^{\prime
},0)$ and $S(\xi ,0)=S(\xi ^{\prime },0),$ with $\xi ^{\prime }={\cal N}\xi .$ But
it is also evident that the winding number ${\bf m}$ transforms in the same
manner: ${\bf m}^{\prime }={\cal N}{\bf m.}$ As far as the $x$ dependent term in $%
S(x,{\bf m}),$ we thus find that the effect of the feline transformation is
merely that of substituting $B\rightarrow {\cal N}^tB{\cal N},$ and similarly the change
in $S(\xi ,{\bf m})$ is obtained from $\beta \rightarrow {\cal N}^t\beta {\cal N}.$ The
constant terms $f({\bf m})$ and $g({\bf m})$ in (\ref{sxf}) and (\ref{scorg}%
) are not invariant under a feline transformation in the form (\ref{gm})
that we have chosen to match reference \cite{keat1}, so that it is
preferable to use (\ref{3.30}) and (\ref{3.30g}) when dealing with
equivalence classes of cat maps.
It is important to note that, unlike the symmetric matrices $B$ and $\beta $%
, ${\frak J}B\rightarrow {\cal N}^{-1}{\frak J}B{\cal N}$ and ${\frak J}\beta \rightarrow
{\cal N}^{-1}{\frak J}\beta {\cal N}$, under a similarity transformation ${\cal M}\rightarrow
{\cal N}^{-1}{\cal M}{\cal N}.$ Therefor, the eigenvalues of ${\frak J}B$ and ${\frak J}\beta $
are feline invariant, just as those of ${\cal M}$, and can thus be used to classify
cat maps.
\section{Classification of classical cat maps}
The periodic orbits of cat maps have been studied in great details by
Percival and Vivaldi \cite{parcivivaldi} and also by Keating in \cite{keat1}
for one degree of freedom and their results were recently extended to an
arbitrary number of degrees of freedom \cite{greenman}. It is shown that a
point on the unit $2L$-torus is periodic if and only if all its coordinates
are rational and any grid of points with rational coordinates is invariant
under the action of the map. From (\ref{mapa}) we can see that the periodic
points $x_l$ of integer period $l$ are labeled by the winding numbers ${\bf %
m,}$ so that
\begin{equation}
x_l=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
{p_l} \\
{q_l}
\end{array}
\right) =({\cal M}^l-1)^{-1}{\bf m=}({\frak J}\beta ^{\left( l\right) }-1)\frac{%
{\bf m}}2. \label{xfix}
\end{equation}
Here $\beta ^{\left( l\right) }$ denotes the symmetric matrix associated to $%
{\cal M}^l$ through (\ref{jbetam}). To have $x_l$ on the unit $2L$-hypercube $\Box $%
, ${\bf m}$ must lie within the parallelepiped formed by the action of the
matrix $({\cal M}^l-1)$ on $\Box .$ Hence, the number of integer points ${\bf m}$
is given by its hypervolume, so that the number of periodic points with
period $l$ is
\begin{equation}
\tau ({\cal M}^l)=|\det ({\cal M}^l-1)|=\frac{2^{2L}}{|\det ({\frak J}\beta ^{\left(
l\right) }-1)|}. \label{npfix}
\end{equation}
According to (\ref{xfix}) the periodic points of period $l$ form a lattice
in phase space with rational coordinates.
The motion of any point $x_{-}=x_1+\delta _{-}$ near a fixed point $x_1$
will be
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}x_{-}={\cal M}(x_1+\delta _{-})=x_1+{\cal M}\delta _{-}=x_1+\delta _{+}=x_{+}.
\end{equation}
To determine the character of such a motion we have to study the eigenvalues
and eigenvectors of the matrix ${\cal M}$: $\,$
\begin{equation}
\lambda _{\cal M}^k=\left| \lambda _{\cal M}^k\right| e^{i\theta _k}
\end{equation}
The modulus $\left| \lambda _{\cal M}^k\right| $ indicates that the motion is
stretching while the argument $e^{i\theta _k}$ indicates rotation around the
fixed point $x_1.$ For a symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$, if $\lambda _{\cal M}$ is an
eigenvalue of ${\cal M}$ then $\lambda _{\cal M}^{*}$, $\frac 1{\lambda _{\cal M}}$ and $\frac
1{\lambda _{\cal M}^{*}}$ will also be eigenvalues of ${\cal M}.$
The classification of the eigenvalues is possible in either the ${\cal M},B,$ or $%
\beta $ descriptions. Using (\ref{mbbeta}) we obtain the relation with the
eigenvalues of ${\frak J}B$ and ${\frak J}\beta $ denoted respectively as $%
\lambda _{{\frak J}B}$ and $\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta },$%
\begin{equation}
\lambda _{\cal M}=\frac{\left( 1-\lambda _{{\frak J}B}\right) }{\left( 1+\lambda _{%
{\frak J}B}\right) }=\frac{\left( \lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }+1\right) }{%
\left( \lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }-1\right) } \label{lmbbeta}
\end{equation}
and inversely:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda _{{\frak J}B} &=&\frac{\left( 1-\lambda _{\cal M}\right) }{\left( 1+\lambda
_{\cal M}\right) } \label{ljbm} \\
\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta } &=&\frac{\left( \lambda _{\cal M}+1\right) }{\left(
\lambda _{\cal M}-1\right) }=-\frac 1{\lambda _{{\frak J}B}}. \label{ljbetam}
\end{eqnarray}
In this way, if $\lambda _{{\frak J}B}$ is an eigenvalue of ${\frak J}B,$
then $\lambda _{{\frak J}B}^{*}$, $-\lambda _{{\frak J}B}$ and $-\lambda _{%
{\frak J}B}^{*}$ will also be. In the same way, if $\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta
}$ is an eigenvalue of ${\frak J}\beta ,$ then $\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta
}^{*}$, $-\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }$ and $-\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }^{*}$
also are.
For cat maps with $L=2$ the matrices ${\cal M},B,$ and $\beta $ will be $4\times 4$
and we then have the following generic cases for the eigenvalues
\begin{enumerate}
\item Elliptic: there is a conjugate pair of $\lambda _{\cal M}$ both on the unit
circle and conjugate pairs of purely imaginary $\lambda _{{\frak J}B}$ and $%
\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }.$
\item Hyperbolic: there is a pair $(\lambda _{\cal M},\frac 1{\lambda _{\cal M}})$ on the
real axis and pairs $(\lambda _{{\frak J}B},-\lambda _{{\frak J}B})$ and $%
(\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta },-\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta })$ on the real axis.
\item Parabolic: there are degenerate eigenvalues $\lambda _{\cal M}=\pm 1$. Then
for $\lambda _{\cal M}=1,$ $\beta $ is singular and $\lambda _{{\frak J}B}=0$; for $%
\lambda _{\cal M}=-1,$ $B$ is singular and $\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }=0$.
\item Mixed: each pair belongs to a different one of the above categories.
\item Loxodromic: the eigenvalues of ${\cal M},B,$ or $\beta $ matrices form
quartets of complex eigenvectors of the form $(\lambda _{\cal M},\frac 1{\lambda
_{\cal M}},\lambda _{\cal M}^{*},\frac 1{\lambda _{\cal M}^{*}})\,$ for the ${\cal M}$ matrix and $%
(\lambda _{{\frak J}S},-\lambda _{{\frak J}S},\lambda _{{\frak J}%
S}^{*},-\lambda _{{\frak J}S}^{*})\,$ for $S$ being one of the symmetric
matrices $B$ or $\beta .$
\end{enumerate}
The first three cases arise also for one degree of freedom cat maps. The
case $L=2$ is the lowest number of degrees of freedom where not only
elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic fixed points will appear, but also
loxodromic ones. For more degrees of freedom no new cases will occur; there
is only a greater variety of mixed cases. Nongeneric possibilities arise for
any dimension for continuous families of systems \cite{quinze}, but we do
not know if there exists any corresponding cat map.
In the general case, the motion is the composition of stretching and
rotation, but if the angles of the rotation are of the form $\theta _k=\frac
ij2\pi ,$ after $j\,$ applications of the map, the matrix ${\cal M}^j$ has only
real eigenvalues that come in pairs $\left| \lambda _{\cal M}^k\right| ^j$ and $%
\left| \lambda _{\cal M}^k\right| ^{-j}$. The dynamics has then an ignorable
coordinate; the angles are constants of the motion for ${\cal M}^j.$ For one degree
of freedom systems, where there are only two eigenvalues, $\lambda _{\cal M}$ and $%
\lambda _{\cal M}^{*},$\ the condition
\begin{equation}
Tr\left( {\cal M}\right) =\lambda _{\cal M}+\lambda _{\cal M}^{*}=\mbox{integer}
\end{equation}
implies that in the elliptic case only angles of the form $\theta _k=\frac
ij\pi $ with $j=2$ or $3$ are allowed. This is an example of a rational
restriction on $\theta _k$, that is, ${\cal M}^j$ will be the identity map. This
result is in accordance with Ma\~{n}e's theorem \cite{mane} that
two-dimensional symplectomorphisms are either Anosov or they have zero
entropy. Nonetheless, irrational rotation angles do exist in the loxodromic
or mixed cases for $L>1$.
We now turn our attention to the classification of four-dimensional cat
maps. Recalling that the characteristic polynomial for any $k\times k$
matrix $A$ is
\begin{equation}
P_A(\lambda )=\det (A-\lambda )=\sum_{n=1}^k\alpha _n\lambda ^{k-n},
\end{equation}
where the $\alpha _n$ coefficients are given by the recurrence relation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha _0 &=&1, \\
\alpha _n &=&-\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha _{n-i}a_i\qquad \mbox{ with }%
a_i=Tr(A^i),
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain that for any symmetric matrix $B$ (i.e. $B$ and $\beta $ ),
\begin{equation}
P_{{\frak J}B}(\lambda )=P_{{\frak J}B}(-\lambda ) \label{psym}
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
P_{{\frak J}B}(\lambda )=\lambda ^4-\frac 12b_2\lambda ^2+\det B \label{pbl}
\end{equation}
with $b_2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J}B\right) ^2\right] ,($ note that $\det
{\frak J}B=\det B)$. There is a similar expression for $P_{{\frak J}\beta
}(\lambda )$, required when the center representation is singular,
\begin{equation}
P_{{\frak J}\beta }(\lambda )=\lambda ^4-\frac 12\beta _2\lambda ^2+\det
\beta . \label{pbetal}
\end{equation}
where $\beta _2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J}\beta \right) ^2\right] .$ For the
symplectic case, we obtain
\begin{equation}
P_{\cal M}(\lambda )=\lambda ^4-Tr({\cal M})\lambda +\frac 12\left[ Tr({\cal M}^2)-Tr({\cal M})^2\right]
\lambda ^2-Tr({\cal M})\lambda ^3+1 \label{pml}
\end{equation}
which is harder to analyze, so we will perform the classification of the
different behaviors using ${\frak J}B$ or ${\frak J}\beta $. Solving $P_{%
{\frak J}B}(\lambda )=0$ using (\ref{pbl}), leads to
\begin{equation}
\lambda _{{\frak J}B}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{b_2}4\pm \sqrt{\left( \frac{b_2}%
4\right) ^2-\det B}},
\end{equation}
whereas
\begin{equation}
\lambda _{{\frak J}\beta }=\pm \sqrt{\frac{\beta _2}4\pm \sqrt{\left( \frac{%
\beta _2}4\right) ^2-\det \beta }}.
\end{equation}
We can now classify the different behaviors according to the feline
invariants of the matrix ${\frak J}B\,$ or ${\frak J}\beta $, the
eigenvalues of the symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$ being obtained with the help of (%
\ref{lmbbeta}). The loxodromic behavior corresponding to four complex
eigenvalues will appear if the square root term $\left[ \left( \frac{b_2}%
4\right) ^2-\det B\right] $ inside the square root is negative. That is, the
loxodromic behavior will appear only if
\begin{equation}
\det B>\left( \frac{b_2}4\right) ^2\qquad \mbox{ or equivalently }\qquad
\det \beta >\left( \frac{\beta _2}4\right) ^2. \label{loxcond}
\end{equation}
In fig~\ref{fig.1} we find a complete classification of the different
types of behavior according to the feline invariants of ${\frak J}\beta $
and the same arises for the invariants of ${\frak J}B.$ These invariants
also allow us to obtain $\tau _\xi ,\,$the number of orbits for any chord $%
\xi ,$%
\begin{equation}
\tau _\xi =\left| \frac{2^4}{P_{{\frak J}\beta }(1)}\right| =\left| \frac{%
2^4\det B}{P_{{\frak J}B}(1)}\right| ,
\end{equation}
or $\tau _x$ the number of orbits centered on $x$ as
\begin{equation}
\tau _x=\left| \frac{2^4}{P_{{\frak J}B}(1)}\right| =\left| \frac{2^4\det
\beta }{P_{{\frak J}\beta }(1)}\right| .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centerline {\epsfxsize=5in \epsffile{fig1.eps} }
\caption{ A classification of the different cat maps for two degrees of
freedom according to the feline invariants of the ${\frak J}\beta $ matrix.
The parabolic boundary is $\det \beta =\left( \frac{\beta _2}4\right) ^2.$ A
similar picture exist for the ${\frak J}B$ matrix. }
\label{fig.1}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Examples}
We here show some examples of different types of cat maps. The examples are
such that the $\beta $ matrix, that denotes the chord representation, has
integer elements.
\subsubsection*{ The Hannay and Berry Cat}
It is important to see that the first cat map to be quantized ( the Hannay
and Berry cat map) \cite{hanay} can also be treated with the formalism
described here . For a $2\times 2$ matrix, the characteristic polynomial
reads,
\begin{equation}
P_{{\frak J}\beta }(\lambda )=\lambda ^2-\frac 12\beta _2.
\end{equation}
For the symplectic matrix
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}_{hb}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 1 \\
3 & 2
\end{array}
\right] \mbox{, with the associated symmetric matrix }\beta _{hb}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
3 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right] , \label{mhb}
\end{equation}
so that
\[
\beta _2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J}\beta _{hb}\right) ^2\right] =6,
\]
the number of fixed points is
\[
\tau _\xi ^{hb}=\left| \frac{2^2}{P_{{\frak J}\beta }(\lambda )}\right| =2
\]
and the eigenvalues of the matrix ${\cal M}_{hb}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda _1^{hb} &=&2+\sqrt{3} \\
\lambda _2^{hb} &=&2-\sqrt{3}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The map is then hyperbolic.
\subsubsection*{ The double hyperbolic case}
Let us now study cat maps that have two pairs of eigenvalues both in the
real axis, that is, maps belonging to the first quadrant in figure \ref{fig.1}%
. The $\beta _{hh}\,$ matrix below describes this case, the associated
symplectic matrix being ${\cal M}_{hh}$ :
\begin{equation}
\beta _{hh}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2 & 1 & 2 \\
2 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
2 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right] \quad \mbox{and }\quad {\cal M}_{hh}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
2 & -2 & -1 & 0 \\
-2 & 3 & 1 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\
2 & -2 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right] . \label{mhh}
\end{equation}
The invariants are
\[
\det \beta _{hh}=17\quad \mbox{and }\quad \beta _2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J}%
\beta _{hh}\right) ^2\right] =20.
\]
Thus, the number of fixed points $\tau _\xi ^{hh}=2$ and the eigenvalues of
the symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda _1^{hh} &=&2.112388 \\
\lambda _2^{hh} &=&0.4739 \\
\lambda _3^{hh} &=&5.22 \\
\lambda _4^{hh} &=&0.1914.
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsubsection*{ The mixed case}
We consider here the case where the eigenvalues of the map are of mixed
nature, i.e. there is a couple of real eigenvalues and a complex conjugated
pair on the unit circle. This corresponds to $\beta $ matrices that belong
to the third and fourth quadrant in figure ~\ref{fig.1}.
One matrix of this kind is $\beta _{eh1}$, the associated symplectic matrix
being ${\cal M}_{eh1}:$
\begin{equation}
\beta _{eh1}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2 & 1 & 2 \\
2 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 0 & 2 \\
2 & 1 & 2 & 0
\end{array}
\right] \quad \mbox{and }\quad {\cal M}_{eh1}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
1 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 2
\end{array}
\right] . \label{meh1}
\end{equation}
The invariants are
\[
\det \beta _{eh1}=-15\quad \mbox{and }\quad \beta _2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J%
}\beta _{eh1}\right) ^2\right] =4.
\]
Thus, the number of fixed points $\tau _\xi ^{eh1}=1$ and the eigenvalues of
the symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda _1^{eh1} &=&2.6180 \\
\lambda _2^{eh1} &=&0.381966 \\
\lambda _3^{eh1} &=&\exp \left( i\frac{2\pi }6\right) \\
\lambda _4^{eh1} &=&\exp \left( -i\frac{2\pi }6\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
This example shows rotation angles that are fractional multiples of $\pi $,
for which the dynamics are equivalent to that of hyperbolic systems with one
degree of freedom . Another example of a mixed system is given by the matrix
$\beta _{eh2}$, the associated symplectic matrix being ${\cal M}_{eh2}:$
\begin{equation}
\beta _{eh2}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2 & 1 & 2 \\
2 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 0 & 2 \\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1
\end{array}
\right] \quad \mbox{and }\quad {\cal M}_{eh2}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & -1 & -2 \\
1 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
0 & 2 & 2 & 3
\end{array}
\right] . \label{meh2}
\end{equation}
Now we have
\begin{equation}
\det \beta _{eh2}=-7\quad \mbox{and }\quad \beta _2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J}%
\beta _{eh2}\right) ^2\right] =4.
\end{equation}
Thus, the number of fixed points $\tau _\xi ^{eh2}=2$ and the eigenvalues of
the symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda _1^{eh2} &=&3.0906578 \\
\lambda _2^{eh2} &=&0.32355571 \\
\lambda _3^{eh2} &=&\exp \left( i1.27354496\right) \\
\lambda _4^{eh2} &=&\exp \left( -i1.27354496\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
In this example there are no rotations with angles that are a fraction of $%
\pi ,$ the dynamics will then be ergodic and mixing in the whole phase space.
\subsubsection*{ The loxodromic case}
We choose now a $\beta $ matrix that belongs to the loxodromic region in Fig
~\ref{fig.1}, for example $\beta _{lox}$, whose associated symplectic
matrix being ${\cal M}_{eh1}:$
\begin{equation}
\beta _{lox}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\
2 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 1
\end{array}
\right] \quad \mbox{and }\quad {\cal M}_{lox}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1 & -2 & 0
\end{array}
\right] \label{mlox}
\end{equation}
whose invariants are
\begin{equation}
\det \beta _{lox}=5\quad \mbox{and }\quad \beta _2=Tr\left[ \left( {\frak J}%
\beta _{lox}\right) ^2\right] =-4. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus, the number of fixed points $\tau _\xi ^{lox}=2$ and the eigenvalues of
the symplectic matrix ${\cal M}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda _1^{lox} &=&1.7000157\exp \left( i1.1185178\right) \\
\lambda _2^{lox} &=&1.7000157\exp \left( -i1.1185178\right) \\
\lambda _3^{lox} &=&0.5882298\exp \left( i1.1185178\right) \\
\lambda _4^{lox} &=&0.5882298\exp \left( -i1.1185178\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
There are no rational rotations, so the dynamics is ergodic and mixing in
the whole phase space.
\subsubsection*{The double elliptic case}
In this case, the eigenvalues are characterized by two rotation angles. An
interesting feature is that the condition that the ${\cal M}$ matrix have integer
elements, prevents either angle from being an irrational multiple of $\pi .$
This restricts the dynamics to the trivial integrability observed for one
degree of freedom systems.
In conclusion, any symplectomorphism on the $4$-torus belongs to one of the
following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Ergodic on the full phase space (a manifold of 2 degrees of freedom).
For the double hyperbolic, mixed or loxodromic cases with irrational
rotation angles.
\item Ergodic in a $2$-dimensional manifold . We have a constant of the
motion, then the ergodicity is restricted to a low dimensional manifold (a
manifold with $L=1).$ For the mixed or loxodromic cases with rational
rotation angles.
\item A root of unity: that is, we have two constants of the motion. All
orbits are periodic and have the same period for this double elliptic cases.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Simple Quantum Cat maps}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Quantum dynamics is characterized by a unitary evolution operator, or
propagator. It is possible to obtain the center and chord representation of
an operator on the torus from its counterpart on the plane. This will be the
way that we quantize cat maps, leaving the general construction for the next
section. In some cases the quantum propagator denoting cat maps in the
center or chord representation acquires simple expressions; in this section
we will treat these special cases. More details about torus Hilbert space
and its center and chord representations based on reference \cite{opetor}
are available in Appendix A.
It is well known that torus quantization implies that the Hilbert space $%
\left[ {\cal H}_N^\chi \right] ^L$ associated to the $2L$-torus has finite
dimension $N^L$ and is characterized by a vector Floquet parameter $\chi
=(\chi _p,\chi _q)$ whose components are real numbers belonging to $\left[
0,1\right] .$ The fact that $\left[ {\cal H}_N^\chi \right] ^L$ has finite
dimension, implies that position and momentum eigenstates can only take on a
set of discrete values that form a discrete lattice called {\it quantum
phase space} (QPS). Any point $x$ in this QPS has coordinates,
\begin{equation}
x=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p_m \\
q_n
\end{array}
\right) =\frac 1N\left(
\begin{array}{c}
m+\chi _p \\
n+\chi _q
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{equation}
The center and chord representations are based on translation and reflection
operators on this QPS as we show in \cite{opetor}. Chords are of the form
\begin{equation}
\xi _{r,s}=\frac 1N\left(
\begin{array}{c}
r \\
s
\end{array}
\right) =\frac 1N\bar{\xi},
\end{equation}
with $r$ and $s$ integer numbers and $\bar{\xi}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
r \\
s
\end{array}
\right) $, while the center points $x_{a,b}$ are labeled by half-integer
numbers $a$ and $b,$
\begin{equation}
x_{a,b}=\frac 1N\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a+\chi _p \\
b+\chi _q
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{equation}
At a first stage we restrict our attention to those maps that can be
quantized on the Floquet parameters $\chi =(0,0).$ As we will see in section
5 this implies that the matrix ${\cal M}$ must satisfy
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^L{\cal M}_{i,j}{\cal M}_{i,j+L}=\mbox{even integer for all }i. \label{Mquanti1}
\end{equation}
As we will show in section 5, if $2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }$, defined in (\ref
{betabar1}), and $N$ are coprime numbers, a complete representation of the
propagator is obtained having the symbol on a lattice of chords $\Xi $ such
that
\begin{equation}
\Xi =\xi +{\bf n=}\frac{2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }}N\overline{\Xi },
\label{corN1}
\end{equation}
where the components of $\overline{\Xi }$ are integer numbers up to $N.$ So
for any chord $\xi $ there is an equivalent chord $\Xi .$ For the allowed
values of $N$, the propagator for cat maps in the chord representation takes
the form
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(\Xi )=2^L\left( \tau _\xi \right) ^{-\frac 32}e^{-i2\pi N\left[
\frac 14\Xi \beta \Xi \right] }\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_\xi }e^{-i2\pi
N\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta -\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m}}, \label{ugcorimp}
\end{equation}
where $\tau _\xi $ is the number of fixed points of the classical map. For $%
\beta $ matrices that fulfill the feline conditions, the symbol ${\bf U}%
_{\cal M}^0(\Xi )$ must represent an unitary operator. In that case (\ref{unitcor})
shows that it must has the form
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(\Xi )=\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M})}}{\sqrt{N}^L}e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \frac
14\Xi \beta \Xi \right] },
\end{equation}
which restricts
\begin{equation}
\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M})}}{\sqrt{N}^L}=2^L\left( \tau _\xi \right) ^{-\frac
32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_\xi }e^{-i2\pi N\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta -%
\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m}}.
\end{equation}
At first sight, the phase $\varphi _N({\cal M})$ is only an unimportant global
phase factor, but the interference of the different $\varphi _N({\cal M}^l)$ for
the different powers $l$ of the map will have a crucial importance for the
density of states.
As $\xi $ and $\Xi $ are equivalent chords, the symbol ${\bf U}_{\cal M}(\xi )\,$
and ${\bf U}_{\cal M}(\Xi )$ are related by symmetry relations (\ref{eq:Acorsim})
so that
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(\xi )=\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M})}}{\sqrt{N}^L}e^{-i2\pi N\left[ S(\xi
,{\bf n})\right] }, \label{ucors}
\end{equation}
where $S(\xi ,{\bf n})$ is the action of the classical orbit whose chord is $%
\xi $ and that performs ${\bf n}$ loops around the torus as defined in (\ref
{scor}).
If we chose the symplectically invariant form (\ref{3.30g}) for the $\xi $%
-independent part of the chord generating function, instead of (\ref{gm}),
we would have in (\ref{ucors}) a supplementary phase factor $e^{i2\pi N\frac
14{\bf n}\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\bf n}}=e^{i\gamma _{{\bf n}}}$ with $\gamma
_{{\bf n}}$ a "Maslov index" for the orbit. This observation is true for
all the following quantum theory.
In the case of the center representation, for $2\tau _x^{\prime }\,,$
defined in (\ref{bbbar1}), and $N$ coprime numbers, a complete representation of the
propagator is obtained by performing a transformation to center points $X$
that are integer multiples of $\frac{\tau _x^{\prime }}N$,
\begin{equation}
X=x+\frac 12{\bf j=}\frac{\tau _x^{\prime }}N\overline{X}, \label{xN1}
\end{equation}
where the components of $\overline{X}$ are integer numbers up to $N$ \cite
{opetor}$.$ On these points the center representation of the propagator
takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(X) &=&2^L\tau _x^{-\frac 32}e^{i2\pi N\left[ XBX\right] }\sum_{%
{\bf m\in \Diamond }_x}e^{i2\pi N\frac 14{\bf m}(B+\widetilde{{\frak J}})%
{\bf m}} \label{ugxd} \\
&=&e^{i\varphi _N^{\prime }({\cal M})}e^{i2\pi N\left[ XBX\right] },
\end{eqnarray}
where the last equality is obtained by imposing the unitarity of ${\bf \hat{U%
}}_{\cal M}$ and using (\ref{unitx}). Hence, we define the angle $\varphi
_N^{\prime }({\cal M})$ so
\begin{equation}
e^{i\varphi _N^{\prime }({\cal M})}=2^L\tau _x^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }%
_x}e^{i2\pi N\frac 14{\bf m}(B+\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m}}.
\end{equation}
From the symmetry relations (\ref{eq:Acensim}), we find that the symbols on
the original points $x$ are
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(x)=e^{i\varphi _N^{\prime }({\cal M})}e^{i2\pi N\left[ S(x,{\bf j}%
)\right] },
\end{equation}
where here $S(x,{\bf j})\,$ is the center generating function, defined in (%
\ref{sx}), on a center point $x$ for an orbit performing ${\bf j}$ loops.
The cases above are then special cases where the propagator on the torus has
the same form as its equivalent on the plane; thus, they are ideally suited
for the comparison of classical and quantum motion.
To obtain the more familiar position representation of the propagator from
its chord representation, we use (\ref{eq:AQcor}),
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}{\bf (q}_m,{\bf q}_n)=\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M})}}{(N)^{\frac{3L}2}}%
\sum_{\xi _p=0}^{N-1}\exp \left\{ -i2\pi N\left[ S(\xi _{p,m-n},{\bf n)+}%
\frac{q_m+q_n}2\xi _p\right] \right\} ,
\end{equation}
While (\ref{eq:AQx}) allows us to obtain the position representation from
the center one:
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}{\bf (q}_m,{\bf q}_n)=\frac{e^{i\varphi _N^{\prime }({\cal M})}}{N^L}%
\sum_{x_p=0}^{\frac{N-1}2}\exp \left\{ i2\pi N\left[ S(x_{p,\frac{m+n}2},%
{\bf j)+}\left( q_m-q_n\right) x_p\right] \right\} . \label{eq:UQx}
\end{equation}
For the case of one degree of freedom, this leads to the Hannay and Berry
propagator.
As we will see in section 5, condition (\ref{Mquanti1})\ is preserved for
the different powers of the map, hence, if a map is quantizable on the
Floquet parameters $\chi =(0,0),$ all its powers also are. Furthermore, the
propagator for ${\cal M}^l$ has the form
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(\Xi )=\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M})}}{\sqrt{N}^L}e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \frac
14\Xi \beta ^{(l)}\Xi \right] }, \label{ugcorl}
\end{equation}
in the chord representation, where $\beta ^{(l)}$ denotes the symmetric
matrix associated to ${\cal M}^l$ through (\ref{jbetam}) and $\Xi $ are points on a
lattice of the form
\begin{equation}
\Xi {\bf =}\frac{\tau ({\cal M}^l)}N\overline{\Xi }.
\end{equation}
As we discussed in section 2, lattices of rational points are invariant
under classical cat maps. The denominator $g$ of these rational points can
then be used to label the lattice, i.e. there exists a minimal period $l_g$
under which all the points on the lattice are fixed for ${\cal M}^{l_g}.\,$In other
words, ${\cal M}^{l_g},$ restricted to the mentioned lattice, is the identity. We
will call $l_g$ the classical periodicity function of the lattice. As we can
see in the appendix, torus quantization is performed on a lattice of
rational points whose denominator is $N$. Under these considerations we find
that the quantum propagator is also periodic.
It is now possible to define conditions on the matrix ${\cal M}$ and the dimension
of the Hilbert space $N\,$ under which $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}\,$ reduces to
the identity operator, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}=\widehat{{\bf 1}}_Ne^{i\phi }.
\end{equation}
This is best seen in the center representation, where we have (\ref{unox})
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(x)={\bf 1}_N(x)e^{i\phi }=e^{i\phi }f_N(x), \label{uxident}
\end{equation}
with $f_N(x)$ defined in (\ref{eq:trRT}). For the case where $N$ is an odd
integer, we can perform the quantization on points $X$ that are integer
multiples of $\frac{\tau _x^{\prime }}N$ , as we already discussed$.$ We can
see that if the $B$ matrix has all its elements that are multiples of $\frac
N{\tau _x^{\prime }},$ then the propagator given by (\ref{ugxd})\ has the
form (\ref{uxident}), where $f_N(X)=1$ and $\phi =\varphi _N^{\prime }({\cal M})$.
Hence, the $B$ matrix denotes the identity if all its coefficients are
multiples of $\frac N{\tau _x^{\prime }}.$ This implies through (\ref{mbbeta}%
)\ that the ${\cal M}$ matrix must have the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}={\bf 1\quad }\mbox{mod}(N),
\end{equation}
in agreement with reference \cite{hanay} for the $L=1$ case.
For any matrix ${\cal M}\,$ and for a given odd value of $N$, there is some
smallest integer $k(N)$ such that
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}^{k(N)}={\bf 1\quad }\mbox{mod}(N) \label{qpf}
\end{equation}
and in this way
\begin{equation}
\left[ \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^0\right] ^{k(N)}={\bf 1}e^{i\phi (N)}.
\end{equation}
In this sense, we may call the quantum propagator periodic with a period
equal to $k(N)\,$ that we then call the {\it quantum period function} (QPF)
although it is completely determined by the classical map through (\ref{qpf}%
). Note that $k(N)=l_N$, i.e., the quantum and classical period function
coincide for $N$ an odd number, as we would expect. It is now easy to see
that the $N^L\,$ eigenangles $\theta _m$ of the unitary propagator $\widehat{%
{\bf U}}_{\cal M}$ are then restricted to lie on the $k(N)$ possible sites
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \alpha _j=\left[ \frac{2j\pi +\phi (N)}{k(N)}\right] \right\} ,1\leq
j\leq k(N). \label{alfa}
\end{equation}
The eigenangle spectrum may be related to the traces of the propagator
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Tr}\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right]
&=&\sum_{m=1}^{N^L}e^{il\theta _m} \\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^{k(N)}d_je^{il\alpha _j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d_j$ is the degeneracy of the $j$th site defined by (\ref{alfa}). The
density of states,
\begin{equation}
\rho (\theta )=\sum_{i=l}^{N^L}\sum_{l=-\infty }^\infty \delta (\theta
-\theta _i+2\pi l)
\end{equation}
is clearly invariant under $\theta \rightarrow \theta +2\pi .$ Use the
Poisson summation formula, leads to the trace formula,
\begin{equation}
\rho (\theta )=\frac{N^L}{2\pi }+\frac 1\pi \mbox{Re}\sum_{l=1}^\infty {\bf %
Tr}\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right] e^{-il\theta },
\label{romapa}
\end{equation}
which holds for all maps on the $2L$-torus. Now, for the cat map, the fact
that the propagator has periodicity $k(N)$ means that the density of states
can also be written in the form \cite{keat2}
\begin{equation}
\rho (\theta )=\sum_{l=1}^{k(N)}{\bf Tr}\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}%
_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right] e^{-il\theta }\sum_{j=-\infty }^\infty \delta (\phi
(N)+2\pi j-k(N)\theta ). \label{rogato}
\end{equation}
That is, the eigenangles are restricted to the sites $\alpha _j$ in (\ref
{alfa}), with the degeneracy at the $j$th site being given by
\begin{equation}
d_j=\frac 1{k(N)}\sum_{l=1}^{k(N)}{\bf Tr}\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}%
_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right] e^{-il\alpha _j}.
\end{equation}
This last equation then leads to simple expressions for several important
properties of the eigenangle distribution; for example
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{k(N)}d_j^2=\frac 1{k(N)}\sum_{l=1}^{k(N)}\left| {\bf Tr}\left[
\left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right] \right| ^2.
\end{equation}
It is important to note that the $\delta $-functions appear explicitly in (%
\ref{rogato}), because the propagator is periodic. The different powers of
the quantum map in (\ref{rogato}) contribute only to the finite
degeneracies, not to the $\delta $-function form of the trace formula.
Moreover, for all finite $N$, only a finite number of these powers are
required to determine the degeneracy at every available site, and hence give
the whole spectrum. However, $k(N)\rightarrow \infty $ as $N\rightarrow
\infty $, thus more terms are required to determine the spectrum as the
semiclassical limit is approached.
We now take the trace of (\ref{ugcorl}), using (\ref{TRA}), to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Tr}\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right] &=&{\bf U}%
_{{\cal M}^l}(\xi =0) \\
&=&2^L\left( \tau ({\cal M}^l)\right) ^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_\xi
^l}\exp \left[ -i2\pi N\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta ^{(l)}-\widetilde{{\frak J}})%
{\bf m}\right] =\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M}^l)}}{\sqrt{N}^L},
\end{eqnarray}
where we recognize the action of the periodic orbits in the summation
exponent, so
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Tr}\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}\right) ^l\right] &=&2^L\left| \det
({\cal M}^l-1)\right| ^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_\xi ^l}e^{-i2\pi
N\left[ S_f^l({\bf m})\right] } \label{guttrf} \\
&=&\frac{e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M}^l)}}{\sqrt{N}^L}. \label{inter}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that ${\bf m\in \Diamond }_\xi ^l$ implies that we are summing over the
periodic orbits of period $l$. Equation (\ref{guttrf}) represents the {\it %
Gutzwiller-Tabor trace formula} \cite{tabor} for the cat map, though we must
note that, instead of being a semiclassical approximation, it is exact in
this case. We must also note that the expression (\ref{inter}) for the
traces of the propagator implies that in the expression (\ref{rogato}) for
the density of states, we have interference of the different phase factors $%
e^{i\varphi _N({\cal M}^l)}$ for the different powers $l$ of the map.
\subsection*{Examples :}
We will now study some quantum features of the classical examples studied in
section 3. All of them fulfill condition (\ref{Mquanti1}), so that their
symmetric $\beta $ matrix has integer entries. Then quantization can be
performed for all odd values of $N,$ for which the quantum propagator will
have the form
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(\Xi )=\sqrt{\frac 1{N^L}}e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \frac 14\Xi \beta \Xi
\right] }
\end{equation}
in the chord representation. In this case, the chords $\Xi $, defined in (%
\ref{corN}), form a lattice of spacing $\frac 2N.$ In the following, we will
study the quantum period function for these maps.
We take cat maps of two degrees of freedom already studied in section 2.
These include all the possible classical behaviors and we will study their
effect on the QPF defined in (\ref{qpf}).
\subsubsection*{ The Hannay and Berry cat map}
To compare the different types of behavior that occur for two degrees of
freedom, it is important to present the already known QPF for the Hannay and
Berry cat map whose symplectic matrix is ${\cal M}_{hb}$ defined in (\ref{mhb}).
The QPF\ is shown in figure ~\ref{fig.2}, where we can then see that,
although it has an irregular behavior as a whole, most of the points lie in
families of straight lines which admit a maximum slope. Indeed, this
indicates that there exists an increasing sequence of primes $p$ such that $%
\frac p{k(p)}<C$ for some $C$ independent of $N.$ According to Degli Esposti
et al \cite{degli}, this implies that the quantum map is ergodic and mixing
in the semiclassical limit, within the definition of Von Neumann \cite
{vonneum}. The average behavior of the QPF was established by Keating \cite
{keat2} and it is shown that in the semiclassical limit ($N\rightarrow
\infty $)
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \log \frac{k(N)}N\right\rangle \approx \frac{-2\sqrt{\pi }}{e^2}%
\left( \log \log N\right) \left( \log \log \log N\right)
\end{equation}
that is, the degeneracy grows very slowly with $N.$
\begin{figure}[th]
\centerline {\epsfxsize=6in \epsfysize=4in \epsffile{fig2.ps} }
\caption{ The QPF for the Hannay and Berry cat map, chaotic with one degree
of freedom, whose symplectic matrix is ${\cal M}_{hb},$ defined in (\ref{mhb}). }
\label{fig.2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{ The double hyperbolic case}
We now choose the symmetric matrix $\beta _{hh}\,$ whose associated
symplectic matrix is given by ${\cal M}_{hh}$ defined in (\ref{mhh}). The QPF of
this map is shown in figure ~\ref{fig.3}. As we can see, the behavior is very
different of that obtained for the Hannay and Berry Cat map. There are now
families of parabolas instead of straight lines. The role played by $N$ in
figure ~\ref{fig.2} is here played by $N^2$, because there are here $N^2$
states for this system. We conjecture that this kind of behavior implies
quantal ergodicity and mixing for two degrees of freedom systems in the
semiclassical limit, although a more formal study of this conjecture will be
realized in a future work.
\begin{figure}[th]
\centerline {\epsfxsize=6in \epsfysize=4in \epsffile{fig3.ps} }
\caption{ The QPF for the double hyperbolic map, whose symplectic matrix is $%
{\cal M}_{hh},$ defined in ($\ref{mhh}$). }
\label{fig.3}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{ The mixed case}
We first consider the map whose symmetric matrix is $\beta _{eh1},$ defined
in (\ref{meh1}), whose QPF is shown in figure ~\ref{fig.4}. This is compared
to $\beta _{eh2}$, defined in (\ref{meh2}), characterized by irrational
rotation angles, whose QPF is now shown in figure ~\ref{fig.5}. There is a
marked difference in the behavior between figure ~\ref{fig.4}. and figure ~\ref
{fig.5}. While the former is very similar to the one obtained in figure ~\ref
{fig.2} for a chaotic one degree of freedom system, the one of figure ~\ref
{fig.5}. is close to figure ~\ref{fig.3}. for a system of two degrees of
freedom. The very different behavior, as was explained in section 3, is due
to the fact that the classical eigenvalues $\lambda _3^{eh1}$ and $\lambda
_4^{eh1}$ denote rotation by angles that are a fraction of $\pi .$ Then the
behavior of the system will be equivalent a hyperbolic system with a single
degree of freedom and it is ergodic only in a subspace. On the contrary, $%
\lambda _3^{eh2}$ and $\lambda _4^{eh2}$ denote rotation angles that are
irrational fractions of $\pi ,$ so that classical and semiclassically the
ergodicity appears in the whole phase space.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centerline {\epsfxsize=6in \epsfysize=3.5in \epsffile{fig4.ps} }
\caption{ The QPF for the mixed map , with rational rotations, whose
symplectic matrix is ${\cal M}_{eh1},$ defined in (\ref{meh1}). }
\label{fig.4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centerline {\epsfxsize=6in \epsfysize=3.5in \epsffile{fig5.ps} }
\caption{ The QPF for the mixed map, with irrational rotations, whose
symplectic matrix is ${\cal M}_{eh2},$ defined in (\ref{meh2}) .}
\label{fig.5}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection*{ The loxodromic case}
Let us now study the map denoted by the $\beta _{lox}$ matrix defined by (%
\ref{mlox}). The corresponding QPF is shown in figure ~\ref{fig.6}. The
behavior is then similar to the one obtained for ergodic systems with two
degrees of freedom. This map then manifests classical and semiclassical
ergodicity on the whole phase space or the corresponding Hilbert space.
Similarly to the previous example, we found that rotation angles that are a
fraction of $\pi $ behave similarly to hyperbolic one degree of freedom maps
shown in figure ~\ref{fig.5}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline {\epsfxsize=6in \epsfysize=3.5in \epsffile{fig6.ps} }
\caption{ The QPF for the double loxodromic map of two degrees of freedom,
with irrational rotations, whose symplectic matrix is ${\cal M}_{lox},$ defined in (%
\ref{mlox}).}
\label{fig.6}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{The quantum feline group}
In this section we present the general quantization of multidimensional cat
maps constructed in section two. In a first step we establish the conditions
for the maps to be quantizable and then we construct their center and chord
representations, based on the formalism developed in reference \cite{opetor}
and summarized in the Appendix.
The classical automorphism generated by ${\cal M}\,$ in plane phase space being
linear, its quantization on the Hilbert space $\left[ {\cal {H}_{{\Bbb R}}}%
\right] ^L$ ,associated to the Euclidean phase space, will have the crucial
property that
\begin{equation}
\widehat{U}_{\cal M}\widehat{T}_\xi \widehat{U}_{\cal M}^{\dagger }=\widehat{T}_{{\cal M}\xi }
\label{utu}
\end{equation}
for any translation operator $\widehat{T}_\xi $. We now show how to
associate to any $\widehat{U}_{\cal M}$ a unitary operator on $\left[ {\cal H}%
_N^\chi \right] ^L$, the torus Hilbert space characterized by the Floquet
parameter $\chi .$ For this purpose let us study the restriction of $%
\widehat{U}_{\cal M}$ to $\left[ {\cal H}_N^\chi \right] ^L.$ We then have:
{\bf Proposition}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{U}_{\cal M}\left[ {\cal H}_N^\chi \right] ^L\subset \left[ {\cal H}%
_N^{\chi ^{\prime }}\right] ^L
\end{equation}
{\it where }
\begin{equation}
\chi ^{\prime }={\cal M}\chi -\frac N2{\frak J}\left( {\cal M}\otimes {\cal M}\right) \quad %
\mbox{mod(1)} \label{xixip}
\end{equation}
{\it where we have defined the vector product of two matrices as the vector
whose components are }
\begin{equation}
\left( A\otimes B\right) _i=\sum_{j=1}^LA_{i,j}B_{i,j+L}
\end{equation}
{\bf Proof: }Equation (\ref{utu}) implies
\begin{equation}
\widehat{U}_{\cal M}\widehat{T}_\xi =\widehat{T}_{{\cal M}\xi }\widehat{U}_{\cal M}. \label{tuut}
\end{equation}
We now restrict considerations to chords that perform integer loops around
the torus, $\xi ={\bf m,}$ with ${\bf m\,\,}$ an integer vector with $2L$
components,i.e., chords that generate translations that are equivalent to
the identity on the torus. We thus act on a given state of $\left[ {\cal H}%
_N^\chi \right] ^L$ on each side of (\ref{tuut}), so that inserting (\ref
{tNQ}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
e^{\left[ i2\pi N\left( \frac 14{\bf m}\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\bf m}+{\bf m}%
\wedge \frac \chi N\right) \right] }\widehat{U}_{\cal M}|{\bf \Psi }>=e^{\left[
i2\pi N\left( \frac 14{\bf m}{\cal M}^t\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\cal M}{\bf m}+{\cal M}{\bf m}\wedge
\frac{\chi ^{\prime }}N\right) \right] }\widehat{U}_{\cal M}|{\bf \Psi }>,
\end{equation}
for any vector ${\bf m}$. Now we chose ${\bf n}={\cal M}{\bf m}$ , hence, we find
that
\begin{equation}
{\bf n}\wedge \chi ^{\prime }={\cal M}^{-1}{\bf n}\wedge \chi +\frac N4{\bf n}%
\left[ \left( {\cal M}^{-1}\right) ^t\widetilde{{\frak J}}\left( {\cal M}^{-1}\right) -%
\widetilde{{\frak J}}\right] {\bf n}\qquad \mbox{mod}(1) \label{xixipk}
\end{equation}
and we specify $2L\,$independent integer vectors ${\bf n}\,=e_j%
\,(j=1,...,2L),$ such that each of them denotes one loop around one of the $j
$-irreducible circuit on the torus. In this case $e_j\widetilde{{\frak J}}%
e_j=0,$ using the symplectic property of ${\cal M}$ (\ref{msimple}), and the fact
that ${\frak J}\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\frak J}=\widetilde{{\frak J}}$, we
obtain
\begin{equation}
e_j\wedge \chi ^{\prime }={\cal M}^{-1}e_j\wedge \chi +\frac N4e_j{\frak J}{\cal M}%
\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\cal M}^t{\frak J}e_j\mbox{mod(1)}.
\end{equation}
Remarking that
\begin{equation}
\frac N4\left( {\frak J}{\cal M}\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\cal M}^t{\frak J}\right) _i=-\frac
N2\sum_{j=1}^L{\cal M}_{i,j}{\cal M}_{i,j+L},
\end{equation}
we finally obtain (\ref{xixip}) after straightforward manipulations.
In the case $L=1$, (\ref{xixip}) reduces to the already known result \cite
{degli},\cite{debievre},
\begin{equation}
\chi ^{\prime }={\cal M}\chi -\frac N2{\frak J}\left(
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal M}_{11}{\cal M}_{12} \\
{\cal M}_{21}{\cal M}_{22}
\end{array}
\right) \quad \mbox{mod(1)}.
\end{equation}
For two degrees of freedom ($L=2$) we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\chi ^{\prime }={\cal M}\chi -\frac N2{\frak J}\left(
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal M}_{11}{\cal M}_{13}+{\cal M}_{12}{\cal M}_{14} \\
{\cal M}_{21}{\cal M}_{23}+{\cal M}_{11}{\cal M}_{24} \\
{\cal M}_{31}{\cal M}_{33}+{\cal M}_{32}{\cal M}_{34} \\
{\cal M}_{41}{\cal M}_{43}+{\cal M}_{42}{\cal M}_{44}
\end{array}
\right) \quad \mbox{mod(1)}. \label{xixip4}
\end{equation}
Given ${\cal M},$ there exists for each $N$ a set of solutions of (\ref{xixip})
such that $\chi ^{\prime }=\chi $. This Floquet set of parameters is
determined by
\begin{equation}
\chi =\frac N2\left( {\cal M}-1\right) ^{-1}{\bf i}_{\cal M}+\left( {\cal M}-1\right) ^{-1}{\bf m,%
} \label{xiquanti}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf i}_{\cal M}={\frak J}\left( {\cal M}\otimes {\cal M}\right) \mbox{mod(4)}\,$ is an
integer vector. For this set of parameters the propagator $\widehat{U}_{\cal M}$ is
such that
\begin{equation}
\left[ \widehat{U}_{\cal M},\widehat{{\bf 1}}_N^\chi \right] =0, \label{[u,1]}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{{\bf 1}}_N^\chi $ is the unit operator in $\left[ {\cal H}%
_N^\chi \right] ^L$ defined in (\ref{eq:1toro})$.$ Evidently we cannot
change the Floquet parameters at each iteration of the map, so (\ref
{xiquanti}) defines the {\it quantizability set of the map}. For this set of
parameters, we can then restrict the unitary operators $\widehat{U}_{\cal M}\,$ to
the Hilbert space of the $2L$-torus $\left[ {\cal H}_N^\chi \right] ^L$ and
thus define the corresponding torus propagator as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi =\widehat{U}_{\cal M}\widehat{{\bf 1}}_N^\chi =\widehat{%
{\bf 1}}_N^\chi \widehat{U}_{\cal M}\widehat{{\bf 1}}_N^\chi . \label{ugato}
\end{equation}
Operators defined through (\ref{ugato}) inherit the unitary from their plane
counterpart and we will call them {\it quantum cat maps. }
The fact that the quantum symplectic map commutes with projections on the
torus (\ref{eq:abpt}) leads to;
\begin{equation}
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}^l}^\chi =\left[ \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \right] ^l.
\label{uml}
\end{equation}
The unitarity of $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi $ and (\ref{uml}) implies that
\begin{equation}
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi =\left[ \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \right]
^{-1}=\left[ \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \right] ^{\dagger }.
\end{equation}
Having two cat maps ${\cal M}_A$ and ${\cal M}_B$ that are quantizable on the same Floquet
parameter $\chi ,$ implies that (\ref{eq:abpt})
\begin{equation}
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}_A}^\chi \widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}_B}^\chi =\widehat{{\bf U}}%
_{{\cal M}_A{\cal M}_B}^\chi , \label{ucompoL}
\end{equation}
that is, the quantization of the composition of different cat maps is
equivalent to the composition of the quantization of each map. This shows
that quantum cat maps form a group, the quantum propagator preserving the
classical composition laws. This{\it \ feline quantum group} is at the same
time a projection onto the torus of the metaplectic group and a subgroup of
the classical feline group. It then follows that, for any power $l$, the map
${\cal M}^l$ is also quantizable.
The quantizability set of the map can be made independent of $N$ if the
inhomogeneous term in (\ref{xixip})\ vanishes. This will be the case for
matrices ${\cal M}$, such that
\begin{equation}
{\bf m}\left( {\cal M}^t\widetilde{{\frak J}}{\cal M}\pm \widetilde{{\frak J}}\right) {\bf %
m=}0\qquad \mbox{mod}(2) \label{Mquanti}
\end{equation}
for any integer vector ${\bf m.}$ This condition is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^L{\cal M}_{i,j}{\cal M}_{i,j+L}=\mbox{even}, \label{Mxi0}
\end{equation}
so that the allowed Floquet parameters are
\begin{equation}
\chi =\left( {\cal M}-1\right) ^{-1}{\bf m.}
\end{equation}
In conclusion, the Floquet parameters are then denoted by the fixed points
of the map (\ref{xfix}). The QPS can thus have any of the fixed points of
the map as its origin; without loss of generality, one can take $\chi =0.$
For the one degree of freedom case (\ref{Mxi0}) implies that the ${\cal M}$ matrix
must be restricted to the family of maps
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mbox{even} & \mbox{odd} \\
\mbox{odd} & \mbox{even}
\end{array}
\right) \qquad \mbox{or\qquad }\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mbox{odd} & \mbox{even} \\
\mbox{even} & \mbox{odd}
\end{array}
\right)
\]
selected as quantizable by Hannay and Berry \cite{hanay}.
Let us now provide an explicit construction of quantum cat maps based on the
center and chord representations of operators. We start with the
quantization of the linear automorphism ${\cal M}$ on the Hilbert space $\left[
{\cal {H}_{{\Bbb R}}}\right] ^L$ associated to the Euclidean phase space.
The linearity of the ${\cal M}$ map implies in the exactness of the Van Vleck
construction of the propagator \cite{van vleck}. This propagator in the
chord representation has the form \cite{ozrep}
\begin{equation}
U_{\cal M}(\xi )=\left| \det \left[ 1\pm {\frak J}\frac{\partial ^2S(\xi )}{%
\partial \xi ^2}\right] \right| ^{\frac 12}e^{-\frac i\hbar S(\xi )}
\label{upcor}
\end{equation}
where $S(\xi )\equiv S(\xi ,0)$ is the chord generating function of the
automorphism in the plane phase space. In the center representation, the Van
Vleck propagator is
\begin{equation}
U_{\cal M}(x)=\left| \det \left[ 1\pm {\frak J}\frac{\partial ^2S(x)}{\partial x^2}%
\right] \right| ^{\frac 12}e^{\frac i\hbar S(x)}, \label{upx}
\end{equation}
where now $S(x)\equiv S(x,0)$ is the center generating function of the
transformation in the plane. Inserting (\ref{scor}) and (\ref{sx}) for the
respective generating functions, we have \cite{ozrep}
\begin{equation}
U_{\cal M}(x)=\left| \det \left( 1\pm {\frak J}B\right) \right| ^{-\frac
12}e^{\frac i\hbar xBx} \label{ugatox}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
U_{\cal M}(\xi )=\left| \det \left( 1\pm {\frak J}\beta \right) \right| ^{-\frac
12}e^{-\frac i\hbar \frac 14\xi \beta \xi }. \label{ugatocor}
\end{equation}
We may now project these representations on the $2L$-torus. For this purpose
we must restrict our construction to the quantizability set of Floquet
parameter $\chi $ defined through (\ref{xiquanti}) and take the chord and
center symbols of the projected operator. This is performed substituting (%
\ref{ugatocor}) and (\ref{ugatox}) respectively in (\ref{eq:Acorprom}) and (%
\ref{eq:Axplator}). Then we obtain the chord representation of the quantum
cat map as an average over winding vectors:
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}^\chi (\xi )=\left| \det \left( 1\pm {\frak J}\beta \right) \right|
^{-\frac 12}\left\langle e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \frac 14\xi \beta \xi +\frac
12\xi (\beta +{\frak J}){\bf m}+\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta -\widetilde{{\frak J}})%
{\bf m+}\frac \chi N\wedge {\bf m}\right] }\right\rangle _{{\bf m}}.
\label{ugatocor2}
\end{equation}
There are various classical objects present in this formula. Recalling
section 2, $S(\xi ,{\bf m}),$ the chord generating function of the cat map
defined in (\ref{scor}) appears in the exponent of (\ref{ugatocor2}). In the
amplitude we recognize $\tau _\xi ,$ the number of fixed points of the map
defined in (\ref{d1}), so that,
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}^\chi (\xi )=2^L\frac 1{\sqrt{\tau _\xi }}\left\langle e^{-i2\pi
N\left[ S(\xi ,{\bf m}){\bf +}\frac \chi N\wedge {\bf m}\right]
}\right\rangle _{{\bf m}}. \label{ugatocors}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for the center representation we obtain
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}^\chi (x)=\left| \det \left( 1\pm {\frak J}B\right) \right|
^{-\frac 12}\left\langle e^{i2\pi N\left[ xBx+x(B-{\frak J}){\bf m}+\frac 14%
{\bf m}(B+\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m-}\frac \chi N\wedge {\bf m}\right]
}\right\rangle _{{\bf m}}, \label{ugatox2}
\end{equation}
where we recognize $S(x,{\bf m}),$ the center generating function of the cat
map (\ref{sx}), and $\tau _x,$ the number of orbits centered on $x$ defined
by (\ref{gama}), so that
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}^\chi (x)=2^L\frac 1{\sqrt{\tau _x}}\left\langle e^{i2\pi N\left[
S(x,{\bf m}){\bf -}\frac \chi N\wedge {\bf m}\right] }\right\rangle _{{\bf m}%
}. \label{ugatoxs}
\end{equation}
Both (\ref{ugatocors}) and (\ref{ugatoxs}) are representations of quantum
cat maps of general dimension, showing that the quantum propagator is
entirely defined in terms of classical objects, except for the term $\frac
\chi N\wedge {\bf m}$ in the exponent that denotes the quantum features of
the boundary conditions. However, we have to perform the average on ${\bf m}$
to make the representation explicit. Given that the quantizability set (\ref
{xiquanti}) only admits rational values of $\chi $, (\ref{ugatocors}) and (%
\ref{ugatoxs}) are Gaussian sums. The quantizability condition (\ref{Mquanti}%
) for the map ${\cal M}$ is equivalent to the condition that the Gaussian sums do
not vanish for $L=1.$ We do not know of a similar verification for $L>1.$
In the following we will restrict our attention to maps that fulfill the
condition (\ref{Mquanti}), such that the inhomogeneous term in (\ref{xixip})
vanishes. As we have already discussed, we can then choose $\chi =0$ without
loss of generality. The quantum cat maps associated with these Floquet
parameters will be denoted by $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}$. All the examples in
section 4 are of this type.
We now use the periodicity properties (\ref{scorper}) of $S(\xi ,{\bf m})$
to show that the exponential function in (\ref{ugatocors}) is periodic.
Indeed, for ${\bf m}^{\prime }$ defined in (\ref{mprim}) and the generating
function $S(\xi ,{\bf m}^{\prime })$ defined in (\ref{scorper}) we have that
\begin{equation}
e^{-i2\pi N\left[ S(\xi ,{\bf m}^{\prime })\right] }=e^{-i2\pi N\left[ S(\xi
,{\bf m})\right] }e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \xi \wedge {\bf k-}\frac 12{\bf m}\Gamma
_1{\bf k-}\frac 14{\bf k}\Delta _1{\bf k}\right] },
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma _1$ and $\Delta _1$ were respectively defined in (\ref{gama1})
and (\ref{delta1}). We can now see that $e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \xi \wedge {\bf k}%
\right] }=1$ for any integer vector ${\bf k}$ and for maps that fulfill the
condition (\ref{Mquanti}) $e^{-i2\pi N\left[ {\bf -}\frac 12{\bf m}\Gamma _1%
{\bf k-}\frac 14{\bf k}\Delta _1{\bf k}\right] }=1,$ hence
\begin{equation}
\exp \left[ -i2\pi NS\left( \xi ,{\bf m}+({\cal M}-1){\bf k}\right) \right] =\exp
\left[ -i2\pi NS(\xi ,{\bf m})\right] .
\end{equation}
The average in (\ref{ugatocors}) is then periodic, so that, we sum over one
period and divide by the number of points in the period, to perform such an
average. Hence, we must restrict ${\bf m}$ to the fundamental parallelogram $%
\Diamond _\xi $ defined in (\ref{para1}), where there are exactly $\tau _\xi
$ points ${\bf m}$ with integer coordinates:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(\xi ) &=&2^L\left( \tau _\xi \right) ^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in
\Diamond }_\xi }e^{-i2\pi N\left[ S(\xi ,{\bf m})\right] } \nonumber \\
&=&2^L\left( \tau _\xi \right) ^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_\xi
}e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \frac 14\xi \beta \xi +\frac 12\xi (\beta +{\frak J}){\bf %
m}+\frac 14{\bf m}(\beta -\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m}\right] }.
\label{ugcorp}
\end{eqnarray}
Since ${\bf m}$ belongs to $\Diamond _\xi ,$ the sum in (\ref{ugcorp}) is
the sum over the different classical orbits whose chord is $\xi $.
In a similar way, for the center representation the periodicity region is
the parallelogram $\Diamond _x\,,$ defined in (\ref{para2}), that has
exactly $\tau _x$ points ${\bf m}$ with integer coordinates (\ref{gama}), so
that
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf U}_{\cal M}(x) &=&2^L\tau _x^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_x}e^{i2\pi
N\left[ S(x,{\bf m})\right] } \nonumber \\
&=&2^L\tau _x^{-\frac 32}\sum_{{\bf m\in \Diamond }_x}e^{i2\pi N\left[
xBx+x(B-{\frak J}){\bf m}+\frac 14{\bf m}(B+\widetilde{{\frak J}}){\bf m}%
\right] }, \label{ugxp}
\end{eqnarray}
i.e. we are taking the sum on the different classical orbits centered in $x.$
The expressions (\ref{ugcorp}) and (\ref{ugxp}) have exactly the form
expected for the semiclassical approximation of the propagator in center and
chord representations respectively \cite{ozrep},\cite{opetor} but in this
case they are exact instead of being a mere approximation.
For generic cat maps, (\ref{ugcorp}) and (\ref{ugxp}) generate Gaussian
sums, but in some cases important simplifications are possible. Let us
start, once more, with the chord representation. We have already seen that
the matrix $\beta $ has the form $\beta =\frac{\overline{\beta }^{\prime }}{%
\tau _\xi ^{\prime }}$, where the barred matrix has integer elements$.$ The
simplest case is when the cat map is such that the associated $\beta \,$%
matrix itself has integer entries. Recalling that $\xi =\frac 1N\overline{%
\xi }$, we will transform to an equivalent set of chords, for which the
values for $\overline{\xi }$ are even multiples of $\tau _\xi ^{\prime }$.
So, for any chord $\xi $ there is an equivalent chord $\Xi ,$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Xi =\xi +{\bf n}=\frac{2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }}N\overline{\Xi }, \label{corN}
\end{equation}
where the components of $\overline{\Xi }$ are integer numbers up to $N$ and
the components of ${\bf n}$ are integer up to $2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }-1$.
Equation (\ref{corN}) has solutions with the specified features for any $\xi
,$ only if $N\,$ and $2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }\,$ are coprime numbers. We will
then restrict $N$ to be an odd integer. In this case, the chords $\Xi $ in (%
\ref{corN}) form a lattice with spacing $\frac{2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }}N.$ A
hypercube of side $2\tau _\xi ^{\prime }$ has then $N^L\times N^L$
successive chords $\Xi $ that constitute a basis for translation operators.
For the simplest case where the matrix $\beta $ has integer entries, the
chords $\Xi \,$ form a lattice of length $2$ with spacing $\frac 2N.$
Performing the transformation to chords $\Xi ,$\ we see that the term $%
e^{-i2\pi N\left[ \frac 12\Xi (\beta +{\frak J}){\bf m}\right] }=1,$ so
there is then no $\Xi $-dependence in the propagator sum (\ref{ugcorp}),
leading to(\ref{ugcorimp}).
In the same way, the matrix $B$ in the center representation has the form $B=%
\frac{\overline{B}^{\prime }}{\tau _x^{\prime }}$ . Then we transform to
center points $X$ that are integer multiples of $\frac{\tau _x^{\prime }}N$,
\begin{equation}
X=x+\frac 12{\bf j}=\frac{\tau _x^{\prime }}N\overline{X}, \label{xN}
\end{equation}
where the components of $\overline{X}$ are integer numbers up to $N$ and the
components of ${\bf j}$ are integer up to $2\tau _x^{\prime }-1$. Again,
solutions of (\ref{xN}) with the specified features will exist only if $N$
and $2\tau _x^{\prime }$ are coprime numbers. Thus, reflection operators on
points $X$, that form a lattice with separation $\frac{\tau _x^{\prime }}N$
on a hypercube of side $\tau _x^{\prime },$ form a basis for the Hilbert
space of the torus. For center points $X$ in (\ref{xN}) , the term $e^{i2\pi
N\left[ X(B-{\frak J}){\bf m}\right] }=1,$ so the propagator (\ref{ugxp})
has the form (\ref{ugxd}).
The above are then special cases where the propagator on the torus has the
same form as its equivalent on the plane. These cases are then ideal to
study quantization, as we have seen in section 4.
We will now discuss the quantum effect of a similarity transformation of the
form
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}\rightarrow {\cal M}^{\prime }={\cal N}^{-1}{\cal M}{\cal N}.
\end{equation}
As we have already discussed the matrices ${\cal M}^{\prime }$ and ${\cal M}$ represent
the same map, but seen on a different frame of canonical coordinates. On the
torus, we have to restrict both ${\cal M}$ and ${\cal N}$ to have integer elements so that
the torus is mapped on itself. This restricts the symplectic similarity
transformations to the feline transformations.
The main advantage of the chord and center representation in plane phase
space is their symplectic invariance\cite{ozrep}. It is well known that
linear classical canonical transformations $x^{\prime }={\cal N}x$ correspond to
unitary transformations in $\left[ {\cal {H}_{{\Bbb R}}}\right] ^L$,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{A}\rightarrow \widehat{A}^{\prime }=\widehat{U}_{\cal N}\widehat{A}%
\widehat{U}_{\cal N}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The effect of such a unitary transformation on the chord and center
representation is merely
\begin{equation}
A(x)\rightarrow A({\cal N}x)\quad \mbox{and}\quad A(\xi )\rightarrow A({\cal N}\xi ).
\end{equation}
Because of the commutation of operator products with projection from the
plane to the torus, the effect of a similarity transformation $\widehat{{\bf %
A}}\rightarrow \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \widehat{{\bf A}}\left[ \widehat{%
{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \right] ^{-1}$ performed by a quantized cat map on any
operator $\widehat{{\bf A}}$ that commutes with $\widehat{{\bf 1}}_{\cal N}^\chi $
will be purely classical in the center or the chord representations:
\begin{equation}
{\bf A}(x)\rightarrow {\bf A}({\cal N}x)\quad \mbox{and\quad }{\bf A}(\xi
)\rightarrow {\bf A}({\cal N}\xi ). \label{cat1}
\end{equation}
Thus the similarity transformation among quantum cat maps, reduces to the
classical similarity transformation:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}^\chi =\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \widehat{{\bf %
U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \left[ \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \right] ^{-1}, \label{uprim}
\end{equation}
so that,
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(x)={\bf U}({\cal N}x)\quad \mbox{and\quad }{\bf U}_{{\cal M}^{\prime
}}(\xi )={\bf U}({\cal N}\xi ). \label{catcat}
\end{equation}
However, the quantum cat maps ${\cal M}^{\prime }$ and ${\cal M}$ must be quantized on the
same Floquet parameters $\chi $. This imposes another restriction on the
matrix ${\cal N}$ used to perform the similarity transformation, its quantizability
set must include the Floquet parameter $\chi .$ That is ${\cal M}$ and ${\cal N}$ must
belong the same quantum feline group.
For two quantum cat maps $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}^\chi $ and $%
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi $ related by (\ref{uprim}) and for all power $l$ of
the map we have
\begin{eqnarray}
Tr\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}^\chi \right) ^l\right]
&=&Tr\left\{ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \left[
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \right] ^{-1}\right) ^l\right\} =Tr\left\{ \left(
\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \right) ^l\left[ \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \right]
^{-l}\left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal N}^\chi \right) ^l\right\} \nonumber \\
&=&Tr\left[ \left( \widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi \right) ^l\right] . \label{TRML}
\end{eqnarray}
We have seen in (\ref{romapa}) that the density of states and hence the
spectrum of the system is uniquely determined through the traces of the
different powers of the map. Then, (\ref{TRML}) shows that $\widehat{{\bf U}}%
_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}^\chi $ and $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi $ related by (\ref{uprim}%
) have the same quasi-energy spectrum.
We now show that the quantum period function is also invariant with respect
to a feline similarity transformation, for the periodic case where we can
chose the Floquet parameter $\chi =0$. Suppose that the QPF corresponding to
$\widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}^\chi $ and $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi $ are
respectively $k_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(N)$ and $k_{\cal M}(N)$ , then
\begin{equation}
\left( {\cal M}^{\prime }\right) ^{k_{\cal M}(N)}=\left( {\cal N}^{-1}{\cal M}{\cal N}\right)
^{k_{\cal M}(N)}={\cal N}^{-1}\left( {\cal M}\right) ^{k_{\cal M}(N)}{\cal N}.
\end{equation}
For all points $x$ belonging to the QPS, i.e., a lattice of spacing $\frac 1N
$ on the $2L$-torus $\Box ,$ we have
\begin{equation}
\left( {\cal M}^{\prime }\right) ^{k_{\cal M}(N)}x={\cal N}^{-1}\left( {\cal M}\right) ^{k_{\cal M}(N)}{\cal N}x=x,
\end{equation}
hence
\begin{equation}
\left( {\cal M}^{\prime }\right) ^{k_{\cal M}(N)}={\bf 1\quad }\mbox{mod}(N),
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
k_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(N)\leq k_{\cal M}(N).
\end{equation}
In the same way, for all points $x$ belonging to the QPS
\begin{equation}
\left( {\cal M}\right) ^{k_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(N)}x={\cal N}\left( {\cal M}^{\prime }\right)
^{k_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(N)}{\cal N}^{-1}x=x,
\end{equation}
hence
\begin{equation}
k_{\cal M}(N)\leq k_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(N).
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
k_{{\cal M}^{\prime }}(N)=k_{\cal M}(N),
\end{equation}
$\,$ that is, the QPF of both quantum maps $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{{\cal M}^{\prime
}}^\chi $ and $\widehat{{\bf U}}_{\cal M}^\chi $ coincide.
\section{Conclusions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this work we have studied classical and quantum properties of
multidimensional Cat maps. In a first step the classical study was performed
using the symplectically invariant center and chord generating functions.
They allow us to represent the symplectic matrix by a symmetric one. This is
the basis for a complete classification of generic four dimensional cat
maps. Clearly, the advantage of working with the appropriate generating functions will be even more pronounced for cat maps of higher dimension. Two degrees of freedom are sufficient to obtain all distinct types of
dynamics. Loxodromic behavior appears as a new alternative with respect to
usual cat maps with one degree of freedom.
The quantization of cat maps was performed using the recently developed Weyl
representation and its conjugate chord representation. The semiclassical
approximation is exact whatever the number of degrees of freedom or the
characteristics of the cat map. The spectral properties show the same kind
of ''pathologies '' observed for systems with one degree of freedom. Through
the quantum periodicity function, we have indication of quantal ergodicity
and mixing in the semiclassical limit for systems that present this
classical property. We must note that this is one of the first times that
loxodromic behavior is quantized \cite{pedrao}.
According to Anosov's theorem, all cases of fully ergodic classical maps are
structurally stable, that is, a weak nonlinear perturbation leads to a map
whose orbits are topologically equivalent to the original cat map. The
possibility of quantizing such an Anosov map is in no way restricted to one
degree of freedom. In this way, one can obtain continuous families of
quantum torus maps, corresponding to fully chaotic classical maps for each
type of map ( doubly hyperbolic, loxodromic, etc.). These nonlinear maps
will probably avoid the spectral anomalies due to quantum periodicity, as
was verified for the case of a single degree of freedom \cite{matos} ,\cite{boas}.
{\it Acknowledgments: }We thanks helpful discussions with J.P. Keating, who provide us Greenman preprint, E. Pujals and G. Contreras who provide us Ma\~ne's work. We acknowledge financial support from Pronex-MCT
and A.M.F.R. also thanks support from CLAF-CNPq. This work was partially supported by contracts ANPCYT PICT97-01015,
CONICET PIP98-420 and EC-931005AR.
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of the weak radiative decay $B \to K^* \gamma $ as a test
of Standard Model (SM) has attracted considerable attention since the
CLEO experiment \cite{ref1} gave the preliminary determination
of the exclusive branching ratio $Br (B \to K^* \gamma )=(4.0
\pm 1.7 \pm 0.8 ) \times 10^{-5} $. The weak radiative decays
of $B$ mesons (which proceed through a flavor changing neutral
current, absent at the tree level in the SM) are remarkable
for several reasons. The $B \to K^* \gamma $ decay arises from
the quark level process $b \to s \gamma $ via penguin-type
diagrams at the one loop level. Hence it is not only a significant test of
Standard Model flavor-changing neutral current dynamics but also
is sensitive to new physics appearing through virtual particles
such as the top quark and $W$ boson in the internal loop. The study
of this process provides valuable information concerning the
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) parameters, $V_{td},~V_{ts}$ and $V_{tb}$.
Furthermore, additional contributions in loop stemming from new
bosons and fermions present in most of the extensions of the SM, suggests
the possibility that this process provides a window to new
physics.
The theoretical analysis of the decay process $B \to K^* \gamma $
requires long-distance QCD contributions which cannot
be determined perturbatively. It is also not straightforward to
calculate the exclusive decays by first principles of QCD,
due to complications inherent in nonperturbative
QCD. Therefore, one must resort to some phenomenological models
to obtain reliable results. The heavy quark effective theory
(HQET) \cite{ref2} is expected to be useful in this regard in so
far as the $b$ quark is concerned. However the $s$ quark in the
final hadron can neither be considered heavy enough to enable the
use of HQET nor sufficiently light to permit the exploitation of the
chiral perturbation theory in an unambiguous manner.
There are several methods available in the literature to study the
exclusive $B\to K^* \gamma $ decay process. Some of them include
the QCD sum rule,\cite{ref3,ref31,ref32}
lattice QCD,\cite{ref4} nonrelativistic
and relativistic quark models.\cite{ref5,ref6,ref7,ref8,ref9}
The HQET \cite{ref10} has also been applied to this decay process
even though the $s$-quark mass is certainly not heavy enough, contrary
to the requirement of HQET.
In this paper we study the rare radiative decay
process $B \to K^* \gamma $ using the
covariant oscillator quark model (COQM).\cite{ref11}
One of the most important motives for this
model is to describe covariantly the center of
mass motion of hadrons, while preserving the considerable success of
the non-relativistic quark model regarding the static properties of
hadrons. A keystone in COQM for doing this is treating directly
the squared masses of hadrons in contrast to the mass itself, as done
in conventional approaches. This makes the covariant treatment
simple. The COQM has been applied to various problems
\cite{ref12} with satisfactory results. Recently Ishida et al.
\cite{ref13,ref181} have studied the weak decays of heavy
hadrons using this model
and derived the same relations of weak form factors
for heavy-to-heavy transition as done in HQET.\cite{ref2}
In addition, our model is also applicable to heavy-to-light
transitions. As a consequence, this model does incorporate
the features of heavy quark symmetry and can be used to
compute the form factors for heavy-to-light transitions as well,
which is beyond the scope of HQET. Actually, in previous
papers we made analyses of the spectra of exclusive
semi-leptonic\cite{ref181} decays of $B$-mesons
and analyses of non-leptonic decays of $B$ mesons\cite{meson} and
of hadronic weak decays of
$\Lambda_b$ baryons\cite{baryon} using this line of
reasoning, leading to encouraging results.
Keeping this
success in mind, we extend its application to
weak radiative decays of $B$ mesons.
The paper is organized as follows. In \S 2 we present
the expressions for the decay widths for the weak radiative
decays of $B$ mesons. In \S 3 we present a brief description
of the covariant oscillator quark model. Using this model
we have evaluated the required form factors.
Section 4 contains our results
and discussion.
\section{Methodology}
The general amplitude of weak radiative decay with one real
photon emission is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}(B(p) &\to & P^*(k) \gamma(q) )=i \epsilon_{\mu
\nu \alpha \beta}~\eta^\mu~q^\nu~ \epsilon^{\alpha}~k^{\beta}~
f_1(q^2) \nonumber\\
& +& \eta^{\mu}\left [\epsilon_{\mu}(M_B^2-M_{P^*}^2)
-(p+k)_{\mu} (\epsilon \cdot q) \right ] f_2(q^2)\;,
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta $ and $\epsilon $ are the polarization vectors of the
photon and the vector meson $P^* $, respectively. The first (second)
term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq1}) is a parity conserving
(violating) term, and because of the real photon we have
$q^2$=0. The decay width implied by this
amplitude is given as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(B \to P^* \gamma)= \frac{1}{32 \pi}\frac{\left (M_B^2
-M_{P^*}^2 \right )^3}{M_B^3} \left [|f_1(0)|^2 +4|f_2(0)|^2
\right ]\;.
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
Now, the exclusive decay $B \to K^* \gamma $ is expected to be
described well by the quark level process $b \to s \gamma $ if the
confinement effect is properly taken into account.
Accordingly, in the Standard
Model, $B$ decays are described by the effective Hamiltonian obtained
by integrating out the top quark and $W$ boson fields given as
\cite{ref14}
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{\rm eff}(b \to s \gamma) = -\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\; V_{tb}\;
V_{ts}^*\; \sum_{i=1}^8~C_i(\mu)~O_i(\mu)\;,
\end{equation}
where the $C_i(\mu)$ are the Wilson coefficients,
arise from the renormalization group equation to provide the
scaling down of the subtraction point appropriate to the problem
i.e., $ \mu \approx m_b $. The set $\{O_i\} $ is a complete set of
renormalized, dimension-six operators which govern the $b \to s$
transition. They consist of two current operators $O_1$ and $O_2$
and four strong penguin operators $O_3$--$O_6$, which determine
the nonleptonic decays, and the electromagnetic dipole
operator $O_7 $ and the chromomagnetic dipole operator $O_8$,
which are responsible for rare $B$ decays, i.e., $b \to s+\gamma $
and $b \to s+g $, respectively. Out of the eight operators
$O_i$, the one that contributes to $B \to K^* \gamma $ is
\begin{equation}
O_7=\frac{ e}{32 \pi^2} F_{\mu \nu}~ \left [
m_b \bar s ~\sigma^{\mu \nu}~(1+\gamma_5)~b
+m_s \bar s ~\sigma^{\mu \nu}~(1-\gamma_5)~b \right ]\;,
\end{equation}
where $F_{\mu \nu} $ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor.
The relevant Wilson coefficient is given by \cite{ref14}
\begin{eqnarray}
C_7(\mu) &=& \left [ \frac{\alpha_s(M_W)}{\alpha_s(m_b)} \right
]^{16/23}
\biggr\{C_7(M_W)-\frac{8}{3}C_8(M_W)\nonumber\\
&\times &\left [1-\left (\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{\alpha_s(M_W)}
\right )^{2/23} \right ] +\frac{232}{513}
\left [1-\left (\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{\alpha_s(M_W)} \right )^{19/23}
\right ] \biggr\}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
C_7(M_W)=-\frac{x}{2}\left [ \frac{\frac{2}{3}x^2+
\frac{5}{12}x-\frac{7}{12}}{(x-1)^3}-
\frac{(\frac{3}{2}x^2-x){\rm ln}x}{(x-1)^4} \right ]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
C_8(M_W)=-\frac{x}{4}\left [ \frac{\frac{1}{2}x^2-
\frac{5}{2}x-1}{(x-1)^3}+
\frac{3x{\rm ln}x}{(x-1)^4} \right ]\;,
\end{equation}
where $x=m_t^2/M_W^2 $. From the fact that $m_b \gg m_s $, only
the term involving $m_b $ in the operator $O_7 $ need be
retained. Thus the matrix element of interest becomes
\begin{equation}
\langle K^* \gamma | O_7 | B \rangle =\frac{i e}{16 \pi^2}
~q_{\mu} \eta_{\nu}~m_b~ \langle K^*|\bar s~
\sigma^{\mu \nu}~(1+\gamma_5)~b |B \rangle \;,
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
where $q_{\mu} $ is the four momentum of the photon and $\eta_{\mu}
$ is its polarization vector. It should be noted that here
the matrix element of a tensor current between hadronic states
for which not much information is available is involved. However,
in the framework of
HQET the associated heavy quark spin symmetry
enables one to express the matrix element of the tensor operator
in terms of the vector and axial vector form factors that also
occur in semileptonic decays and may be estimated in different
phenomenological models.
In the static limit of a heavy $b$ quark we may use the equation
of motion $\gamma_0 b=b $ to derive the relations \cite{ref15}
\begin{equation}
\langle K^*|\bar s~i~\sigma_{0i}~(1+\gamma_5)~b|B \rangle
=\langle K^*|\bar s~\gamma_{i}~(1-\gamma_5)~b|B \rangle \;.
\label{eq:eqn1}
\end{equation}
As a result, the form factors $f_1 $ and $f_2$ in Eq. (\ref{eq1}) can
be related to the vector and axial vector form factors $V$ and $A_1$
appearing in the matrix element of the RHS of Eq. (\ref{eq:eqn1})
defined by \cite{ref16}
\begin{equation}
\langle K^* (k) | \bar s \gamma_{\mu} b |B(p) \rangle
=\frac{2i}{M_B+M_{K^*}} \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}~
\epsilon^{\nu} q^{\alpha}p^{\beta}~ V(q^2)\;,\label{eq:eqn3}
\label{eq10}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle K^* (k) | \bar s \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5 b |B(p) \rangle
&=&(M_B+M_{K^*}) \epsilon_{\mu}~A_1(q^2)-\frac{\epsilon
\cdot q}{M_B+M_{K^*}}(p+k)_{\mu}~A_2(q^2)\nonumber\\
& & -2\frac{\epsilon \cdot q}{q^2} q_{\mu}~ M_{K^*}~[A_3(q^2)
-A_0(q^2)]\;,
\label{eq:eqn4}
\end{eqnarray}
with $q=p-k$. Here $A_3(q^2)$ is simply an abbreviation for
\begin{equation}
A_3(q^2)=\frac{M_B + M_{K^*}}{2 M_{K^*}}~A_1(q^2)
-\frac{M_B-M_{K^*}}{2M_{K^*}}~A_2(q^2)\;,
\label{eq12}
\end{equation}
and in order to cancel the singularity at $q^2=0$,
we must have $A_3(q^2=0)=A_0(q^2=0)$.
Thus with Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq8})--(\ref{eq12}),
we obtain the following relations for
$B \to K^* $ transition at $q^2=0 $:\cite{ref17}
\begin{equation}
f_1(0)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2}
\frac{ e}{2 \pi^2}~C_7(\mu)~ V_{tb} V_{ts}^*~ m_b ~F(0)
\label{eq13}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
f_2(0)=\frac{1}{2}f_1(0),
\label{eq14}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F(0)=\frac{M_B -M_{K^*}}{2M_B}V(0)+\frac{M_B+M_{K^*}}{2M_B} A_1(0).
\label{eq15}
\end{equation}
Substituting the above values of $f_1$ and $f_2$ into Eq. (\ref{eq2}),
we obtain the decay width for $B \to K^* \gamma $ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(B \to K^* \gamma)&=&\frac{\alpha~G_F^2~m_b^2}
{128\pi^4 M_B^5} ~
|V_{ts} V_{tb}|^2~|C_7(\mu)|^2 (M_B^2 -M_{K^*}^2)^3 \nonumber\\
& & \times \biggr[
(M_B +M_{K^*})A_1(0)+(M_B-M_{K^*})V(0) \biggr]^2\;.
\label{eq:eqn2}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, the decay width for the CKM suppressed FCNC radiative
transition $b \to d \gamma $, which is responsible for $B^-
\to \rho ^- \gamma $ and $B_s \to K^* \gamma $, is obtained
from Eq. (\ref{eq:eqn2}) with $M_B $ and $M_{K^*} $ replaced by
the corresponding initial and final meson masses. The relevant
CKM factor in this case is $|V_{tb} V_{td}|^2 $.
Now to evaluate the form factors $A_1(0) $ and $V(0) $, we use
the covariant oscillator quark model, which is presented in the next
section.
Here it should be noted that the relations (\ref{eq13}) and
(\ref{eq14}) are also derivable\cite{ref13} directly from Eq. (\ref{eq8})
in COQM, by using the covariant spin wave functions, that is,
the Bargmann-Wigner spinor functions. Accordingly, the expression
of $F(0)$ in terms of a space-time wave function (Eq. (\ref{eq26})
given later) is also derived directly.
\section{ Model framework and the hadronic form factors}
The general treatment of COQM may be called
the ``boosted $LS$-coupling scheme,'' and the wave-functions, being
tensors in $\tilde U(4) \times O(3,1) $-space, reduce to
those in $SU(2)_{\rm spin} \times O(3)_{\rm orbit} $-space in the
nonrelativistic quark model in the hadron rest frame. The
spinor and space-time portion of the wave functions
satisfy separately the respective covariant equations,
the Bargmann-Wigner (BW) equation for the former, and the
covariant oscillator equation for the latter. The form of
the meson wave function has been determined completely
through the analysis of mass spectra.
In COQM the meson states are described by bi-local fields
$\Phi_A^B(x_{1\mu},x_{2\mu}) $, where $x_{1\mu}(x_{2\mu})$ is
the space time coordinate of the constituent quark (antiquark),
$A=(a,\alpha)\;(B=(b,\beta))$, describing its flavor and
covariant spinor. Here we write only the positive frequency
part of the relevant ground state fields:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_A^B(x_{1\mu},x_{2\mu})=e^{iP\cdot X}\; U(P)_A^B\;
f_{ab}(x_{\mu};P)\;,
\end{equation}
where $U$ and $f$ are the covariant spinor and internal
space-time wave functions, respectively, satisfying the
Bargmann-Wigner and oscillator wave equations. The quantity
$x_{\mu} ~(X_{\mu}) $ is the relative (CM) coordinate,
$x_{\mu}\equiv x_{1\mu}-x_{2\mu} ~(X_{\mu}\equiv m_1x_{1\mu}
+m_2x_{2\mu})/(m_1+m_2) $, with $m_i$ the quark
masses). The function $U$ is given by
\begin{equation}
U(P)=\frac{1}{2 \sqrt 2}\left [(-\gamma_5 P_s(v)+i\gamma_{\mu}
V_{\mu}(v))(1+iv \cdot \gamma)\right ],
\end{equation}
where $P_s(V_\mu )$ represents the pseudoscalar (vector) meson
field, and $v_{\mu} \equiv P_{\mu}/M~ (P_{\mu}(M)$ is the
four momentum (mass) of the meson). The function $U$, being
represented by the direct product of a quark and antiquark
Dirac spinor with the meson velocity, is reduced to the
non-relativistic Pauli-spin function in the meson rest frame.
The function $f$ is given by
\begin{equation}
f(x_{\mu};P)=\frac{\beta}{\pi} \exp\left (-\frac{\beta}{2}
\left (x_{\mu}^2+2\frac{(x\cdot P)^2}{M^2}\right ) \right )\;.
\end{equation}
The value of the parameter $\beta $ is determined from the mass
spectra \cite{ref18} as $\beta_{\rho}=0.14 $, $\beta_{K^*}$
= 0.142, $\beta_B$
= 0.151 and $\beta_{B_s} $= 0.160 (in units of
$ \mbox{GeV}^2$ ).
The effective action for weak interactions of mesons
with $W$-bosons is given by
\begin{equation}
S_W=\int d^4 x_1 d^4 x_2 \langle \bar \Phi_{F, P^\prime}
(x_1,x_2)i \gamma_{\mu}(1+\gamma_5) \Phi_{I, P}(x_1,x_2)
\rangle W_{\mu,q}(x_1)\;,
\label{eq:eqn6}
\end{equation}
where we have denoted the interacting (spectator) quarks as
1 (2) (the KM matrix elements and the coupling constants
are omitted). This is obtained from consideration of
Lorentz covariance, assuming a quark current with the
standard $V-A$ form. In Eq. (\ref{eq:eqn6}), $\Phi_{I,P}~
(\bar \Phi_{F,P^\prime})$ denotes the initial (final) meson
with definite four momentum $P_\mu~(P_\mu^\prime) $, and
$q_{\mu} $ is the momentum of $W$-boson. The function
$\bar \Phi $ is the Pauli-conjugate of $\Phi $ defined by
$\bar \Phi \equiv -\gamma_4 \Phi^\dagger \gamma_4 $, and
$\langle ~~~\rangle$ represents the trace of Dirac spinor
indices. Our relevant effective currents $J_\mu(X)_{P^\prime,P}$
are obtained\cite{ref13} by identifying the above action with
\begin{equation}
S_W =\int d^4 X J_{\mu}(X)_{P^\prime,P}\;W_{\mu}(X)_q,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\mu}&=&I^{qb}(w) \sqrt{M M^\prime}
\times [\bar P_s(v^\prime)P_s(v)(v+v^\prime )_{\mu}\nonumber\\
& & +\bar V_{\lambda}(v^\prime ) P_s(v) (\epsilon_{\mu \lambda
\alpha \beta} ~v_{\alpha}^{\prime}~v_\beta-\delta_{\lambda \mu}
(w+1) - v_{\lambda}~v_{\mu}^{\prime}]\;,
\label{eq:eqn5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M (M^\prime) $ denotes the physical mass of the
initial (final) meson and $w=-v\cdot v'$. The quantity $I^{qb}(w) $,
the overlapping of the initial
and final wave functions, represents the universal form
factor function.\footnote{
In this paper we apply the pure-confining approximation,
neglecting the effect of the one-gluon-exchange potential.
This approximation is expected to be good for the heavy/light-quark
meson systems.
} It describes the confinement effects
of quarks, and is given by
\begin{equation}
I^{qb}(w)=\frac{4 \beta \beta^\prime}{\beta+\beta^\prime }
\frac{1}{\sqrt{C(w)}} \exp(-G(w))\;;~~
C(w)=(\beta-\beta^{\prime})^2+4\beta \beta^{\prime} w^2\;,
\label{eq23}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
G(w)&=& \frac{m_n^2}{2 C(w)} \biggr[ (\beta+\beta^\prime)
\left \{ \left (\frac{M}{M_s} \right )^2 + \left (\frac{M^\prime}
{M_s^\prime}\right )^2 -2 \frac{M M^\prime}{M_s M_s^\prime}w
\right \}\nonumber\\
& &+ 2 \left \{ \beta^\prime\left (\frac{M}{M_s} \right )^2
+\beta\left ( \frac{M^\prime}{M_s^\prime}\right )^2
\right \}(w^2-1) \biggr]\;,
\label{eq24}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_s(M_s^\prime)$ represents the sum of the constituent
quark masses of the initial (final) meson, and $m_n $ is the
spectator quark mass.
Comparing our effective current (\ref{eq:eqn5}) with Eqs.
(\ref{eq:eqn3}) and (\ref{eq:eqn4}), we obtain\footnote{
Here, note the remark given at the end of \S 2.
} the relations
between the invariant form factors $V$ and $A_1$ with the
form factor function $I(w)$ for $ B \to K^* $ transitions
as \cite{ref181}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(0) &=& A_1(0)=F(0), \label{eq25}\\
F(0) &=& \frac{M_B+M_{K^*}}{2 \sqrt{M_B M_{K^*}}}
I^{sb}(w|_{q^2=0})\;,
\label{eq26}
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly for $B^- \to \rho^- $ and $B_s \to K^* $ transitions
with $I^{db}(w) $ replacing $I^{sb}(w) $.
\section{Results and conclusion}
To estimate the branching ratios for weak radiative decays
of $B$ mesons, we use the
following values for various quantities. The quark masses
(in GeV) are taken as $m_u=m_d$ = 0.4, $m_s$ = 0.55
and $m_b$ = 5. The particle masses and their lifetimes
are taken from Ref. \citen{ref19}. The relevant CKM parameters
required for all the processes considered here are
taken from Ref. \citen{ref19} as $V_{td}=0.0085$, $V_{ts}=
0.0385$ and $V_{tb}=0.99925 $.
The renormalized Wilson coefficient $C_7(m_b) $ used in the
estimation of branching ratios is taken to be
$|C_7(m_b)|$=0.311477.\cite{ref20}
With the above values we first evaluate the form factor
$F(0) $ using Eqs. (\ref{eq15}) and (\ref{eq23})--(\ref{eq25}).
Our results for
the form factor values given in Table I compare well
with the recent calculations within the framework of the
relativistic quark model,\cite{ref8} light cone QCD
sum rule,\cite{ref31} and hybrid sum rule.\cite{ref32}
With the calculated values of the form factors, the branching
ratios for different channels are
estimated using Eq. (\ref{eq:eqn2}) as well as the mean
life values of the appropriate decaying meson, which
are given in Table II. The branching ratios $Br(B^0 \to
K^{*0} \gamma $ and $Br (B^{\pm} \to K^{*\pm} \gamma )$ are found to
be in very good agreement with the available data.
Here it may be worthwhile to note that the relevant process
is relativistic, and the form factor function plays a significant
role, such that $I=0.235$.
Since there are
no data as yet available for the branching ratios in the case
$B \to \rho \gamma $ and $B_s \to K^* \gamma $, the model
predictions must be compared with other theoretical
predictions available in the literature. In fact there are
few theoretical attempts made so far in this sector.
Recently, Singer \cite{sing94} predicted that in the
relativistic quark model,
\begin{equation}
Br(B_s \to K^* \gamma )=(1.4\pm 0.6) \times 10^{-6},
\end{equation}
and in the relativistic independent quark model,
Barik et al.\cite{ref9} obtained
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Br(B \to \rho \gamma)=1.24 \times 10^{-6},\nonumber\\
&&Br(B_s \to K^* \gamma)=9.28 \times 10^{-7}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the hadronization ratio $R $ defined as $\Gamma(B \to
K^* \gamma)/\Gamma(b \to s \gamma) $, where
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(b \to s \gamma) =\frac{G_F^2 \alpha}{32 \pi^4}~
~|V_{ts} V_{tb}|^2~|C_7(m_b)|^2~ m_b^5\;,
\end{equation}
is found to be 0.12, which agrees well with the experimentally
observed value $R=0.19 \pm 0.09.$ \cite{ref21}
In view of the consistency of our predictions,
obtained with no free parameters, with the large
number of theoretical predictions as well as the experimental data,
it may be concluded that
the framework of COQM provides a suitable scheme
to estimate the confined effect of quarks, and
so far as the relevant flavor changing
neutral current is concerned, the Standard Model is valid.
\begin{table}
\caption{ Prediction for the rare radiative decay form
factor $F(0) $ in comparison with various theoretical
predictions.}
\vspace {0.2 true in}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Decay process}&
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Present work} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Ref. \citen{ref8}}&
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Ref. \citen{ref31}} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{Ref. \citen{ref32}}\\
\hline
& & & & \\
$B^{\pm} \rightarrow K^{* \pm} \gamma $ &
0.328 &- &- &- \\
& & & & \\
$B^{0} \rightarrow K^{*0} \gamma$ &
0.329 & $0.32 \pm 0.03$& $0.32 \pm 0.05 $
&$0.308 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.036 \pm 0.006 $\\
& & & & \\
$B^- \rightarrow \rho^{-} \gamma$ &
0.295 & $ 0.26 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.04 $ &
$0.27 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.032$\\
& & & & \\
$B_s \to K^{* 0} \gamma $ & 0.250 &
$0.23\pm 0.02 $ & $ 0. 20 \pm 0.04 $& -\\
&&& & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{ Prediction for the branching ratios
of the exclusive rare decays of $B$ mesons
along with their experimental values.}
\vspace {0.2 true in}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Decay process}&
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Br ratio} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{Br ratio}\\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{This work}&
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{Expt. \citen{ref19}}\\
\hline
& & \\
$B^0 \rightarrow K^{*0} \gamma $ &
3.96 $\times 10^{-5}$ & $ (4.0 \pm 1.9)
\times 10^{-5}$ \\
& & \\
$B^{\pm} \rightarrow K^{*\pm} \gamma$ &
4.168 $\times 10^{-5}$ & $(5.7 \pm 3.3)\times 10^{-5}$ \\
& & \\
$B^- \rightarrow \rho^{-} \gamma$ &
$1.68 \times 10^{-6}$ &- \\
& & \\
$B_s \to K^{* 0} \gamma $ & $1.158 \times 10^{-6} $ & -\\
& & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\newpage
\acknowledgements
R. M. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India, for a fellowship.
A. K. G. and M. P. K. acknowledge financial support from
DST, Govt. of India.
|
\section{Introduction and motivation}
\label{sec:intro}
`If Supersymmetry (SUSY) exists, it will be discovered at the next generation
of hadronic machines', has been a recurring motto so far. Indeed
sooner (at the Tevatron, $\sqrt s=2$ TeV) or later (at the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC), $\sqrt s=14$ TeV), depending on the mass scale
of the Higgs bosons and of the
Superpartners of ordinary matter, several Supersymmetric `signatures'
should clearly be viable\footnote{For some reviews, see, e.g.,
\cite{Tevareview} and \cite{LHCreview}.}.
Typical SUSY events at hadron colliders will involve either the production
and decay of heavy spartons, squarks and gluinos, whose
foreseen mass range is expected to be around the TeV scale \cite{signals},
or of Higgs bosons \cite{Higgs},
primarily of the lightest one, for which the SUSY theory imposes a stringent
mass bound of the order of the electroweak (EW) scale.
However, even assuming that such a discovery will take place, there might
well be little to learn about the
fundamental dynamics of SUSY from such new events.
In fact, although, e.g., the LHC
is able to produce gluinos and squarks with masses up to 2 TeV or so
and their detection has been shown to be feasible with rather little
effort \cite{HPSSY},
it is much more difficult to determine exactly the SUSY masses involved,
because in most models (i.e., those
assuming $R$-parity conservation) there are at least two
missing SUSY particles in each event. Clearly, failing the knowledge
of the SUSY mass spectrum, other typical SUSY quantities, such as couplings,
decay rates, etc., cannot be assessed either. Needless to say,
their measurement would be of paramount importance
in order to constrain the free parameters entering the SUSY Lagrangian.
However, by resorting to specific kinematic distributions \cite{HPSSY},
it is at least possible to make precision measurements of some `combinations'
of SUSY masses, but only in a few fortunate cases these can lead to strong
constraints on the theory and its parameters.
Besides, in minimal SUSY theories, the Higgs sector typically
(i.e., at tree level) depends
on only two such parameters, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values (VEVs)
of the Higgs fields and one of the masses of the five physical states
corresponding to the latter,
as all others SUSY inputs enter through higher perturbative orders. Therefore,
even the detection of a SUSY Higgs
signal would carry very poor information in terms of the underlying SUSY
model.
As a matter of fact, a second question about SUSY has to
legitimately be risen.
Namely, `Which Supersymmetric model will one discover ?'
Thus, the key task for the Tevatron and the LHC is
{not} only to find SUSY, but also to assess which model is
behind it and the value of its parameters.
For example, in the context of Supergravity (SUGRA) inspired models
\cite{SUGRA}, with the minimal particle content of the MSSM
(henceforth denoted as M-SUGRA, that we take to be the reference framework
of our analysis) \cite{MSSM,MSUGRA},
the dynamics of the theory can be specified by only five
entries: (i) a universal scalar mass $M_0$; (ii) similarly,
that for the gauginos $M_{1/2}$; (iii) the
universal trilinear breaking terms $A_0$
(all defined at the Grand Unification scale $M_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ \cite{graham}).
After the radiative EW symmetry breaking has taken place,
two further parameters are needed
to describe the low energy dynamics: (iv) the mentioned
ratio of the VEVs of the two Higgs fields,
denoted by $\tan\beta\equiv v/v'$ and defined at the EW scale; and (v)
a discrete parameter, ${\mbox{sign}}(\mu)=
\pm1$, being $\mu$ the Higgsino mass term.
Assuming universal soft breaking terms at the GUT scale, one is then
able to calculate the masses of SUSY (s)particles, their couplings, decay
rates, etc., at the EW scale, through the evolution of the renormalisation
group equations (RGEs), the latter involving $M_0$, $M_{1/2}$, $A_0$,
$\tan\beta$ and ${\mbox{sign}}(\mu)$ as inputs.
Ultimately, a comparison of such predictions
with the corresponding experimental measurements, as reconstructed
from the actual data via dedicated Monte Carlo (MC)
simulations \cite{isajet}--\cite{herwig},
should allow one to impose indirect constraints on the above parameters.
Indeed, an additional procedure to follow in order to determine the
latter could well be to search for the evidence of some more exotic signals
of SUSY, in which, however, the dependence on such parameters is
somewhat more manifest.
Elementary processes of the type
\begin{equation}\label{proc}
g + g \longrightarrow
{\tilde{q}}_{\chi} + {\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'} + \Phi,
\end{equation}
where $q^{(')}=t,b$, $\chi^{(')}=1,2$ and $\Phi=H,h,A,H^\pm$, in all
possible combinations, as appropriate in the MSSM,
serve the double purposes of:
\begin{enumerate}
\item furnishing production mechanisms of Higgs bosons of the MSSM,
both neutral and charged, in addition to the Standard Model (SM)-like
channels \cite{Higgs};
\item yielding production rates, for particular combinations of
$q^{(')}$, $\chi^{(')}$ and $\Phi$, strongly dependent
on some of the fundamental SUSY parameters of the M-SUGRA model.
\end{enumerate}
The importance of the first point should be understood in the
following terms. On the one hand, the detection of all neutral
Higgs particles
$H,h$ and $A$ of the theory is not certain, neither at the
Tevatron \cite{Tevareview} nor even at the LHC \cite{LHCreview}. In
addition, the discovery potential of heavy charged Higgs bosons
$H^\pm$ at both the above colliders has been proved to
be extremely limited \cite{charged}.
Under these circumstances, the possible existence of
novel and detectable Higgs production channels represents a phenomenologically
important result per se. (Notice that, for certain choices of
$\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$, $A_0$ and $\tan\beta$, the squark-squark-Higgs coupling
can become the largest EW coupling of the SUSY theory, even exceeding the
standard Yukawa ones.) On the other hand,
the fact that in processes (\ref{proc}) the Higgs bosons are produced
in association with squarks via a Yukawa bremsstrahlung or in
`non-dominant' squarks decays\footnote{So that the corresponding
partial widths are
significantly different from the total widths, thus retaining the
dynamics of the squark-squark-Higgs production vertices also at decay
level.},
implies that the Higgs mechanism
can be probed in the sparticle sector too. In fact, other known
production and decay mechanisms used to detect MSSM Higgs bosons
mainly involve Higgs
couplings to ordinary matter. The only exceptions are the squark
loop-contributions to neutral Higgs boson production via
gluon-gluon fusion and to Higgs boson decays through pairs of
photons/gluons \cite{xggh}, which are however
swamped in both modes by the dominant terms involving
ordinary heavy particles.
As for the second point that we put forward, we should remind the reader of the
actual form of the mentioned squark-squark-Higgs vertices in the
MSSM (which can be
found, e.g., in \cite{HHG}). In many of these, namely when
$\chi\ne\chi'$, {both} the low-energy SUSY parameters $\mu$ and $\tan\beta$
enter {explicitly} in the Feynman rules, other than {implicitly}
in the scalar masses. Furthermore, those vertices also contain
$A_{{{q}}^{(')}}$, the trilinear couplings at the EW scale, which
depend critically on their common value at the GUT scale, $A_0$.
(In the case $\Phi=A$ such a dependence is also not affected by the mixing
between the chiral, $\chi^{(')}=L,R$, and physical, $\chi^{(')}=1,2$,
squark states, so that no additional SUSY mixing parameters
enter the phenomenology of pseudoscalar Higgs production, this rendering
the latter an ideal laboratory to study M-SUGRA effects \cite{short}).
Therefore, one should expect a significant dependence of the production rates
of the scattering processes (\ref{proc})
on $\tan\beta$,
$A_0$ and $\mu$ (particularly, its sign), this possibly yielding a new
profitable mean to constrain
the underlying SUSY model. Even more so in the case $\tan\beta$ has
previously been determined, for example, through a discovery in the
MSSM Higgs sector.
Concerning previous literature on the subject, we should mention that reactions
of the type (\ref{proc}) were were first
considered in Ref.~\cite{djouadi} for the case $g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1
\tilde{t}_1^* h$ in the so-called `decoupling' limit.
Adopting the M-SUGRA scenario, associated production of both
neutral and charged Higgs bosons production with squark pairs --
with a special emphasis
on CP-odd Higgs boson production -- was first consider by the
authors in \cite{short}. Furthermore, in Ref.~\cite{djouadi2}
(and also \cite{fawzi})
light Higgs boson production in association with light top squarks was
reanalysed in the M-SUGRA scenario at both Tevatron and
LHC\footnote{The same
final state but produced
in $e^+e^-$ annihilations at the TeV scale, e.g., at the Next Linear Collider,
has been considered in Refs. \cite{djouadi2,ee}.}.
A general consensus on the possible detectability at the LHC of
$gg\to {\tilde{t}}_1{\tilde{t}}_1^* h$ events emerged from
Refs.~\cite{djouadi,djouadi2,fawzi}, in the case of light top squarks and large
trilinear coupling.
We generalise here those studies,
as we consider the production of all possible Higgs
states, $\Phi=H,h,A$ and $H^\pm$, for a broader spectrum of their masses,
in conjunction with both squark flavours
that can
have sizable couplings to Higgs particles, ${\tilde{q}}={\tilde{t}}$ and
${\tilde{b}}$, the latter taken as not degenerate in mass, also
allowing for Higgs production in decay channels, when $\chi\ne\chi'$.
On the other hand, to simplify the simulation, we restrict ourselves to the
case of gluon-gluon induced processes only, thus neglecting the case of
quark-antiquark scatterings, which was instead considered in
Refs.~\cite{djouadi,djouadi2}. This is however not restrictive.
In fact, we have verified
that at the LHC the $gg$ contribution is around two order of magnitudes
larger than the $Q\bar Q$ one, in line with the findings of
Refs.~\cite{djouadi,djouadi2}, well below the level of uncertainties
arising in our computation from other sources (such as structure
functions, QCD $K$-factors,
etc.)\footnote{As for $\gamma,Z$ and $W^\pm$ $s$-channels,
these are typically smaller by a factor of the order
${\cal O}({\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}}/{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}})^2$; whereas
${\cal O}({\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}})^2$ gluino interactions in $t,u$-channels
are suppressed by the small (EW induced) mixing between light quarks and
sbottom and stop squarks, as already remarked in \cite{djouadi}.}.
As for the Tevatron, we can anticipate that the production cross sections
of processes (\ref{proc})
are generally very small (see also Ref.~\cite{djouadi2}),
indeed below the level of detection over most
of the M-SUGRA parameter space, so that we
neglect further consideration of this machine here.
It is the purpose in this paper to assess the possible relevance of
points 1. and 2. in phenomenological studies of SUSY to be carried
out at the LHC. In particular,
the plan of the paper is as follows. In the next Section
we describe how we have proceeded in our calculations. In
Sect.~\ref{sec:parameters} we illustrate the theoretical
model we have resorted to in our analysis.
Sect.~\ref{sec:results} presents some numerical results.
A brief summary and our conclusions
are given in Sect.~\ref{sec:conclusions}. Finally,
we collect in
Appendix the relevant analytical formulae that we have used.
\section{Calculation}
\label{sec:calc}
The leading-order
(LO) Feynman diagrams associated to processes of the type (\ref{proc})
in the unitary gauge are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs}.
The reader can find an analytical expression of the corresponding
matrix elements (MEs) in the Appendix. As a test of
the correctness of our
amplitudes, we have verified that they are gauge invariant by checking
various Ward identities of the theory, both analytically
and numerically.
The amplitudes squared have then been integrated over a three-body
phase space, using VEGAS \cite{VEGAS}, and convoluted with
gluon Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs), as provided by
CTEQ(4L) \cite{CTEQ4}. The latter constitutes our default set,
taken at LO in order to be consistent with our approximation in calculating
the scattering MEs. However,
in order to estimate the systematic error due the gluon behaviour
inside the proton, we also have resorted to other LO packages, such as
MRS-LO(09A,10A,01A,07A) \cite{MRS98LO}. Typical differences among PDFs
were found to be less than 15--20\%. The centre-of-mass (CM) energy at
the partonic level, $Q=\sqrt{\hat{s}}$, was the scale used to
evaluate both the structure functions
and the strong coupling constant (see next Section for the treatment of the
latter).
Depending on the relative value of the final state masses in (\ref{proc}),
$m_{{\tilde{q}}_{\chi}}$, $m_{{\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'}}$ and
$m_{\Phi}$, the production of Higgs particles can be regarded
as taking place either via a (anti)squark decay (if
$m_{{\tilde{q}}_{\chi}} > m_{{\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'}} + m_{\Phi}$ or
$m_{{\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'}} > m_{{\tilde{q}}_{\chi}} + m_{\Phi}$)
or via a Higgs-strahlung (if
$m_{{\tilde{q}}_{\chi}} < m_{{\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'}} + m_{\Phi}$ and
$m_{{\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'}} < m_{{\tilde{q}}_{\chi}} + m_{\Phi}$).
In the first case, to prevent our MEs from becoming singular, we need
to insert a finite width in the resonant
(anti)squark propagators, which we have
done by adopting the Breit-Wigner expression given in the Appendix and the
appropriate numerical values for the widths, calculated as described in
Sect.~\ref{sec:parameters}. Also in the second case, though no poles exist in
the amplitudes, a finite width value has been retained in the propagators.
Notice that we have treated the two processes on the same footing, without
making any attempt to separate them, as
for the time being we are only interested in the total production rates
of the 2 $\to$ 3 processes (\ref{proc}), rather than in their
subsequent decay distributions.
\section{The theoretical model and its parameters}
\label{sec:parameters}
In this paper we are going to display our results for
squark-squark-Higgs production via processes
(\ref{proc}) by assuming possibly
the simplest scenario in the choice of the soft SUSY breaking parameters
at the GUT scale. That is, the so-called minimal
Supergravity scenario or M-SUGRA inspired model, as already
intimated in the Introduction. In this
scenario, the whole dynamics of the MSSM (which contains over
hundred parameters in the case of conserved $R$-parity) at the GUT scale
is reduced to the three basic inputs already introduced: $M_0$, $M_{1/2}$
and $A_0$. The large top Yukawa coupling then triggers
the radiative EW breaking through the running
of the soft Higgs breaking masses, from the GUT scale down to EW regime.
{}From the minimisation conditions of the potential
one can define the soft Higgs mixing parameter, $B$,
and the absolute value of the
Higgs mixing parameter of the SUSY potential, $\mu$. The model leaves
the sign($\mu$) and the value of $\tan\beta$ as further
undetermined parameters at the EW scale.
All five M-SUGRA parameters enter into
the relevant Feynman rules for the squark-squark-Higgs vertices,
either explicitly or implicitly (through the RGEs).
These can be written in the physical squark basis $\tilde{q}_{1,2}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mixing}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_1\tilde{q}'_1} &=& c_q c_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi
\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_L} + s_q s_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_R}+
c_q s_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_R} + s_q c_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_L} ,\nonumber \\[2mm]
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_2\tilde{q}'_2} &=& s_q s_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi
\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_L} + c_q c_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_R}
-s_q c_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_R}
-c_q s_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_L} ,\nonumber \\[2mm]
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_1\tilde{q}'_2} &=& -c_q s_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi
\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_L} + s_q c_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_R}
+c_q c_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_R}
-s_q s_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_L} ,\nonumber \\[2mm]
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_2\tilde{q}'_1} &=& -s_q c_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi
\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_L} + c_q s_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_R}
-s_q s_{q'} \lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_L\tilde{q}'_R}
+c_q c_{q'}
\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_R\tilde{q}'_L} ,
\label{fr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{q}_{L,R}$ or $\tilde{q}'_{L,R}$ can in principle
be any flavour of chiral squarks. However, here we
only focus our attention to the case of the
the third generation of down and up squarks only, namely, sbottom and
stop scalars, whose physical mass eigenstates are denoted by
$\tilde{b}_{1,2}$ and $\tilde{t}_{1,2}$, respectively,
the subscript 1(2) referring to
the lightest(heaviest) of them. As usual,
the Higgs fields are denoted by the generic symbol $\Phi$,
where $\Phi=H,h,A,H^\pm$.
All the $\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_\chi\tilde{q}'_{\chi'}}$'s appearing in
eq.~(\ref{mixing}) are function of $\mu, \tan\beta$ and $A_{t,b}$ and
can be read directly from the Appendix of Ref.~\cite{HHG}.
(We
ignore the case of complex $\mu$ and $A_{q}$ ($q=t,b$) parameters by assuming
that their phases are very small, the preferred case following
the measurements of the Electric Dipole Moments
\cite{nir}.)
Also the left-right squark mixing angles $s_q\equiv\sin\theta_q$ and
$c_q\equiv\cos\theta_q$ (here, $q=t,b$) depend on the
M-SUGRA parameters, since they read as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{angle}
\tan(2\theta_t) &=& \frac{2 m_t (A_t - \mu \cot\beta)}{M_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2-
M_{\tilde{U}_3^c}^2+(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{4 s_W^2}{3})M_Z^2 \cos2\beta},
\\[2mm] \nonumber
\tan(2\theta_b) &=& \frac{2 m_b (A_b - \mu \tan\beta)}{M_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2-
M_{\tilde{D}_3^c}^2+(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2 s_W^2}{3})M_Z^2 \cos2\beta},
\end{eqnarray}
with $M_Z$ the $Z$-boson mass and $s_W\equiv\sin^2\theta_W$ the sine
(squared) of the
Weinberg angle, $m_t$ and $m_b$ the top and bottom quark masses,
where $A_t$ and $A_b$ are the trilinear couplings defined at the EW scale,
while
$M_{\tilde{Q}_3}$, $M_{\tilde{U}_3^c}$ and $M_{\tilde{D}_3^c}$ are the running
soft SUSY breaking squark masses of the third generation,
for which we assume the values obtained
from their evolution starting from a universal mass
at the GUT scale equal to $M_0$.
Regarding
the numerical values of the M-SUGRA parameters adopted in this paper,
we have proceeded as follows. For a start, we have set
$M_0=M_{1/2}=150$ GeV. Such rather
low values for the universal masses come as natural first choice,
if one is interested in detecting processes of the type
(\ref{proc}). For two simple reasons. On the one hand,
these two quantities determine
the actual $m_{\tilde q_\chi}$, $m_{\tilde q'_{\chi'}}$
and $m_\Phi$ values entering processes
(\ref{proc}), through their intervention in the RGEs, in such a way that
small values of $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ at the GUT scale convert into a rather
light squark and Higgs mass spectrum at the EW scale. On the other hand,
being $2\to3$ body processes, a strong suppression from the phase space
would arise in squark-squark-Higgs production if the masses in the final state
were too large\footnote{The additional depletion coming from the gluon PDFs,
which would be probed at much higher values of $Q^2$ (of the order
of the rest masses or more), where they are naturally smaller, would in part
be compensated by the rise of the quark-antiquark initiated subprocesses:
i.e., $Q+\bar Q\rightarrow
{\tilde{q}}_{\chi} + {\tilde{q}}^{'*}_{\chi'} + \Phi$,
where, again, one has that
$q^{(')}=t,b$, $\chi^{(')}=1,2$ and $\Phi=H,h,A,H^\pm$.}.
For the above choice, the M-SUGRA model predicts squark and
heavy Higgs masses in the region of 80--450 GeV (as we shall see in more
detail below), so that the latter can
in principle materialise at LHC energies
(further recall that the light Higgs mass is bound to be below 130 GeV).
Then, we have varied the trilinear soft Supersymmetry
breaking parameter $A_0$ in a region where it changes its
sign, e.g., $(-300,+300)$ GeV, while we spanned the $\tan\beta$ value
between 2 and 40.
As for $\mu$, whereas in our model its magnitude is constrained, its
sign is not. Thus, in all generality, we have explored both the possibilities
$\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=\pm1$.
As a further step of our analysis, we have then come back to
$M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ and change them, while maintaining $\tan\beta$,
$A_0$ and sign$(\mu)$ fixed at some specific values.
We have done so only for those processes that we had already identified
to have not only a large cross section, but also a strong dependence on
one or more of these three M-SUGRA parameters.
Given the strong phase space suppression induced by the consequent increase
of $m_{\tilde{q}_\chi}$, $m_{\tilde{q}'_{\chi'}}$
and $m_\Phi$ in the final states,
we will cautiously maintain the universal scalar and gaugino masses
below 250--300 GeV (at least at first).
However, the reader should not
assume that this is a necessary condition to the experimental detection
of processes of the type (\ref{proc}). In fact, this need not be true,
as we shall show that even for $M_0$ values as large as 500 GeV one
can find sizable squark-squark-Higgs production cross sections
for $M_{1/2}$ up to 200--250 GeV, as long
as $A_0$ is strongly negative, $\tan\beta\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 30$ and
sign$(\mu)<0$.
Such unexpected behaviours are strongly driven by the intervention
in the production rates of $\tan\beta$, $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$,
through the trilinear scalar couplings
$\lambda_{\Phi\tilde{q}_\chi\tilde{q}'_{\chi'}}$, more than by the
actual values of $m_{\tilde{q}_\chi}$, $m_{\tilde{q}'_{\chi'}}$ and
$m_\Phi$. This is evident by a mere look at the standard Feynman rules,
as can be found, e.g., in Ref.~\cite{HHG}.
We will make our concern in this paper that of guiding the reader
through such delicate interplay between masses and couplings, by explicitely
writing down the expression of the relevant vertices in those parameter
space domains where such complicated phenomenology manifests itself.
{Starting from the five M-SUGRA parameters
$M_0$, $M_{1/2}$, $A_0$, $\tan\beta$ and
${\mbox{sign}}(\mu)$, we have
generated the spectrum of masses, widths, couplings
and
mixings relative to squarks and Higgs particles entering reactions (\ref{proc})
by running the {\tt ISASUGRA/ISASUSY} programs contained in the latest
release of the package {\tt ISAJET} \cite{isajet}, version 7.40.
The default value of the
top mass we used was 175 GeV.
Note that also typical EW parameters, such as $\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}$ and
$\sin^2\theta_W$, were taken from this program, as they enter the
RGEs of the SUSY theory.
Concerning the value of the strong coupling constant,
$\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$, entering the production processes
(\ref{proc}), we have proceeded as follows.
By using as inputs the extracted value of $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$
at the $M_Z$ scale, we
evolve it up to any scale $Q$ by making use of the
two-loop renormalisation group equations and by taking into
account all the low-energy threshold effects from the various SUSY masses
by means of the theta function approximation, as discussed in
Ref. \cite{sakis}.
Finally, notice that in scanning over the M-SUGRA parameter space, one should
make sure that the values generated for the Higgs boson and sparticle
masses
are in accordance with current experimental bounds.
Signs of the sort ``$\times$'' or shaded areas appearing in
our figures in forthcoming Sect.~\ref{sec:results} will correspond to
already prohibited areas for the parameter space of our SUSY model.
We nonetheless leave them
for illustrative purposes, in order to visualise the typical impact
of present and future experimental bounds on the phenomenology of our
reactions. For example, the M-SUGRA points individuated by the
combinations $M_0=M_{1/2}=130-150$ GeV, $\tan\beta=2$,
$A_0=0$ GeV and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu) = -$, used in some of the
tables and figures
in the next Section, contradict the limits on the
lightest Higgs boson mass from direct searches \cite{lep,ALEPH},
as they yield $m_h=72-80$ GeV. We will discuss the experimental bounds
in more detail in the next Section.
As for theoretical constrains, these arise from two sources: namely,
the absence of charge and
colour breaking minima and that of large contributions to the
EW observables
that are measured with high precision at LEP. The former is avoided when
the following inequalities hold tree level~\cite{lahanas}:
\begin{eqnarray}
A_t^2 \ &<& \ 3 \left (m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2+m_{\tilde{U}^c_3}^2+\mu^2 +m_{H_2}^2
\right ) , \nonumber \\
A_b^2 \ &<& \ 3 \left (m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2+m_{\tilde{D}^c_3}^2+\mu^2 +m_{H_1}^2
\right ) , \nonumber \\
A_{\tau}^2 \ &<& \ 3 \left (m_{\tilde{L}_3}^2+m_{\tilde{E}^c_3}^2
+\mu^2 +m_{H_1}^2
\right ) ,
\label{ccb}
\end{eqnarray}
where all masses appearing in eq.~(\ref{ccb}) are the soft Supersymmetry
breaking masses except the Higgsino mixing parameter $\mu$. When $A_0$
is below 1 TeV, as is the case in our analysis,
the above constraints are always satisfied even for very light squark masses.
As for the contributions to the EW observables, we have found the region
$150~{\mathrm{GeV}}\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} M_0,M_{1/2} \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 500$ GeV,
$2\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} \tan\beta \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 40$ and $|A_0| \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 900$ GeV covered by our analysis
in agreement with the most recent measurements
of the `effective' weak mixing
angle, $\sin^2\theta_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.2321\pm 0.010$,
and of the $W^\pm$ mass,
$M_W=80.388\pm 0.063$ GeV \cite{erler}. In particular,
notice that the M-SUGRA prediction for $\sin^2\theta_{\mathrm{eff}}$
decreases for a lighter mass spectrum while it becomes constant
in the heavy mass region \cite{sakis1}.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
We begin this Section by analysing
all reactions (\ref{proc}) in the low mass regime, i.e., that induced
by values of $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ below 250--300 GeV.
This is done in Subsect.~\ref{lightspectrum}. In this scenario, we
will first present and discuss,
for future reference, the values of squark and Higgs
masses resulting from the RGE evolution:
in \ref{squarks} and \ref{higgses}, respectively. Then,
we will move on to considering the production of, in
turn: neutral CP-even (in \ref{even}),
CP-odd (in \ref{odd}) and charged (in \ref{charged})
Higgs bosons. Possible decay signatures of the latter will be
analysed in \ref{signatures}. Finally, Subsect.~\ref{heavyspectrum}
will pin-point those unusual cases discussed above, in which the suppression
from very heavy scalar masses in the final
states of reactions (\ref{proc}) can be overcome by strong vertex effects,
yielding in the end sizable cross sections.
\subsection{Light mass spectrum}
\label{lightspectrum}
Once fixed $M_0=M_{1/2}=150$ GeV, one obtains the (sbottom and
stop) squark and Higgs masses reported in
Figs.~\ref{fig:squarks} and \ref{fig:higgs}, respectively,
depending on 2 $\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}\tan\beta\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}$ 35 and for $A_0=-300,0,+300$~GeV.
The two possible options for the sign of $\mu$ are also contemplated.
Far from willing to discuss exhaustively the dependence of
$m_{\tilde q_\chi}$, $m_{\tilde q'_{\chi'}}$ and $m_\Phi$
upon the five M-SUGRA parameters, we limit ourselves here to spotting
in Figs.~\ref{fig:squarks}--\ref{fig:higgs} some interesting trends, that
will affect the overall behaviour of the squark-squark-Higgs cross sections
that we will be treating below. For a more complete overview, see, e.g.,
Refs. \cite{pokorski}.
\subsubsection{Squark masses}
\label{squarks}
The four squark flavours
of the first and second generation ($\tilde{q}=
\tilde{u} , \tilde{d} , \tilde{c} ,
\tilde{s}$) with left- and right-handed components are all
nearly degenerate in mass and the latter is
given approximately by the following formula:
\begin{equation}
m_{\tilde{q}} \simeq \sqrt{M_0^2 + 6 M_{1/2}^2 },
\qquad\qquad\qquad
(\tilde{q}=
\tilde{u} , \tilde{d} , \tilde{c} ,
\tilde{s}).
\end{equation}
For our choice of $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$, one gets
$m_{\tilde q}\simeq 400$ GeV. The
light squark flavours are not our concern
in processes (\ref{proc}), though they may well enter some of the
decay chains of the other (pseudo)scalar particles produced.
The two squark flavours of the third generation must be
treated differently because the off-diagonal entries of their
mass matrices can be large, owing to the strength of the
Yukawa couplings of the corresponding quarks
(in this respect, notice that
the bottom one becomes
comparable to that of the top in the large $\tan\beta$ region \cite{HHG}).
It thus follows that
the mass eigenstates $\tilde{t}_1$, $\tilde{t}_2$,
$\tilde{b}_1$ and $\tilde{b}_2$ are all different and generally
smaller than $m_{\tilde q}$. Among these,
$\tilde{t}_1$ is most often significantly lighter than all the
other stop and sbottom states.
At large $\tan\beta$, the same happens
to the $\tilde{b}_1$ mass eigenstate, as
large values of $\tan\beta$ correspond to smaller sbottom masses, so that
one eventually gets that $m_{\tilde{t}_1} \simeq m_{\tilde{b}_1}$.
Variation of the trilinear couplings can also cause significant
differences between the light stop and sbottom masses. Finally,
the $\mathrm{sign}$ of the Higgsino mass term
plays an important r{\^o}le when $\tan\beta$ is either small or large,
for the cases $m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}}$
and $m_{\tilde{b}_{1,2}}$, respectively.
Experimental limits on the squark masses come from searches at
Tevatron and LEP2.
The most stringent bound on the ${{\tilde t}_1}$ mass comes from the
hadron collider \cite{Tevatron}: in absence of mixing, values
of $m_{{\tilde t}_1}<120$ GeV are excluded
for\footnote{Recall that in M-SUGRA the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle
(LSP) is the lightest neutralino, ${\tilde\chi}_1^0$.}
$m_{\mathrm{LSP}}\equiv m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} <$ 38 GeV.
D\O ~exclude values of $m_{\tilde{b}_1}$ below 85 GeV
for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} <$ 47 GeV \cite{d0}
and ALEPH do over
the region $m_{\tilde{b}_1}<83$ GeV for any value of LSP mass \cite{aleph1}.
In addition,
CDF exclude masses for the
lightest top squark up to 120 GeV when the LSP is
$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} <$ 50 GeV \cite{Tevatron}.
Finally, D\O, using
data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 79 pb$^{-1}$, contradicts
all models with $m_{\tilde{q}\ne\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{b}_1
}<$ 250 GeV for $\tan\beta\Ord2$, $A_0=0$ GeV and
$\mu< 0$ \cite{d01} (in scenarios with equal squark and gluino masses
the limit goes up to $m_{\tilde{q}\ne\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{b}_1}<260$ GeV).
\subsubsection{Higgs boson masses}
\label{higgses}
The mass of the lightest
Higgs boson is here constrained to be less than 115 GeV
and it appears to exhibit constant values over the region
$8\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}\tan\beta \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 35$, for a given combination
of $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$.
To change either the trilinear coupling or the sign of the Higgsino mass
has the net effect of scaling $m_h$, lower with increasing $A_0$
and higher for positive $\mu$.
As for the masses of the other Higgs bosons,
they are nearly degenerate. They vary between
180 GeV (when $\tan\beta$ is large) and 400 GeV
(when $\tan\beta$ is small). The dependence on $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$
is generally negligible, whereas the one on $A_0$ is very strong
in the intermediate $\tan\beta$ regime. One thing worth noticing here
is the existence of a point
where all three Higgs masses $m_H,m_A$ and $ m_{H^\pm}$ converge,
regardless of the values of $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$. This occurs
for $\tan\beta \approx 30$, where
\begin{equation}
m_H=m_A=m_{H^\pm} \approx 200~{\rm GeV}.
\end{equation}
As for experimental bounds,
LEP experiments have combined their results from data taken
at CM energies from 91 to 183 GeV to place lower
bounds on the masses of the light ($m_h$) and pseudoscalar ($m_A$)
Higgs bosons, of 78.8 and 79.1 GeV, respectively \cite{hocker}. In addition,
they exclude the range $0.8<\tan\beta <2.1$ for minimal stop mixing
and $m_t=175$ GeV.
Also, D\O\ \cite{d02} have recently removed at 95\%
confidence level the intervals $\tan\beta <0.97$ and $\tan\beta > 40.9$ for
$M_{H^\pm}=60$ GeV and $\sigma(t\bar{t})=5.5$ pb (again, with $m_t=175$ GeV).
However, the limits become less stringent with increasing $M_{H^\pm}$:
e.g., for $M_{H^\pm}>124$ GeV (as is the case here)
the available angular range is $0.3<\tan\beta<150$.
\subsubsection{CP-even Higgs boson production}
\label{even}
We present in
Figs.~\ref{fig:lighthiggs}--\ref{fig:heavyhiggs}
the $\tan\beta$ dependence of the
production cross sections of the two neutral scalar Higgs bosons,
$h$ and $H$, respectively, in association with any possible
combination of squarks of the third generation. Again, we parametrise
the dependence upon $A_0$ by adopting for the latter the discrete values
of $-300$, 0 and +300 GeV and we choose $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=\pm1$.
Assuming an integrated luminosity of 100 inverse femtobarns
over a twelve month period of running at the LHC
(i.e., $\int {\cal L} dt = 100 \; {\mathrm{fb}}^{-1}$),
one can realistically hope for the detection of squark-squark-Higgs
processes only if the production cross section is above 1 fb or so.
In fact, we shall see in Sect.~\ref{signatures} how typical decay
fractions of clean signatures range at the level of 10\%
or below (see Subsect.~\ref{signatures} later on).
Under this assumption, one immediately sees that there are several
production channels of CP-even Higgs particles which could be observed,
over a large part of the M-SUGRA parameter space considered here.
Primarily, those involving the lightest stop squark, ${\tilde t}_1$,
particularly if also the lightest Higgs state is involved,
but not only.
For the case of $h$ production,
there exists an approximate hierarchy of cross sections
which can possibly be detected:
\begin{equation}\label{Xsections_h}
\sigma( \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h )\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}
\sigma( \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h )\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}
\sigma( \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* h ).
\end{equation}
The cases $\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_2^* h$,
$\tilde{t}_2 \tilde{t}_2^* h$
and $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* h$
never have significantly large rates.
In the case of $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h $ states, those with
largest production rates, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\sigma (g g \rightarrow h \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* ) \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 20 \; {\rm fb},
\end{equation}
for every combination of $\tan\beta$, $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$, in the case of
$M_0=M_{1/2}=150$ GeV, thus a sort a lower limit over a
representative portion of the low mass regime of the M-SUGRA
scenario. Moreover, the largest production rate for
this final state
(compatible with the current experimental constraints)
is obtained in the small $\tan\beta \sim 2 $ region and for
the combinations $A_0\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} -300$ and $\mu =+$, for which
\begin{equation}
\sigma ( \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h) \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 200 \; {\rm fb},
\end{equation}
corresponding to more than 20000 events per year
running of the LHC.
The dominance of the production channel involving both the
lightest squarks and Higgs boson, above all other mechanisms
(\ref{proc}), was foreseeable. The reason is rather simple,
in fact, twofold. On the one hand, the sum of the rest masses in the
final states yields the smallest possible values, thus enhancing the volume
of the three-body phase space, relatively to any other squark-squark-Higgs
combination. On the other hand, the cross section is also significantly
enhanced when the trilinear coupling $A_0$ assumes negative values.
From the analysis of the RGEs we find that $A_t \sim -400 (-250)$ GeV
when $A_0=-300 (300)$ GeV. Now, the coupling of the light Higgs boson to
top squarks is driven by $A_t$ when the latter takes on large values.
More specifically, the corresponding vertex reads as
(recall that we are in the kinematic limit
$m_{X}\approx m_H\approx m_A\approx m_{H^\pm}\gg M_Z$: see
Fig.~\ref{fig:higgs})
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{h\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_1}^{m_{X}\gg M_Z}
\ &\simeq& \
\frac{i g_W M_Z}{c_W} \biggl \{ \biggl [
-\frac{1}{2} \cos 2 \beta \cos^2\theta_{\tilde{t}}
+ \frac{2}{3} s_W^2
\cos 2\beta \cos 2\theta_{\tilde{t}} \biggr ] \nonumber \\[2mm]
&-& \frac{m_t^2 }
{M_Z^2 } -\frac{m_t \sin 2 \theta_{\tilde{t}}}{2 M_Z^2}
\left ( A_t + \mu \cot \beta \right ) \biggr \} \;,
\label{ht1t1aprox}
\end{eqnarray}
(here and in the following, $g_W^2=4\pi\alpha_{\mathrm{em}}/s^2_W$,
$c_W=\sqrt{1-s^2_W}$ and $M_W^2=M_Z^2(1-s^2_W)$)
where for large $A_t$ (note that
$\sin\theta_{\tilde{t}}$ is maximal in such a case)
the coupling goes like $\lambda_{h\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_1}
\propto \frac {m_t A_t}{M_Z^2}$.
As a consequence, because of the presence of the
trilinear term $A_t$, the coupling of the light Higgs boson to
light stop squarks
could be much larger compared to that to the top quark,
which behaves like
$\lambda_{h t t} \propto
\frac{m_t}{M_Z}$, as already
recognised in \cite{djouadi,djouadi2}. Over the parameter space
that we have chosen here, the cross section
of $g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h$ can be either
larger than or of the same order as that of
$g g \rightarrow t \bar{t} h$ \cite{djouadi,djouadi2}.
Thus, the subprocess $gg\rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h$ can
well boast the status of an additional discovery mechanism of the
lightest scalar Higgs boson of the MSSM, as remarked in
Refs.~\cite{djouadi,djouadi2}.
(This is true also in non M-SUGRA models, where however one still has that
$m_{H}\approx m_A\approx m_{H^\pm}\gg m_h$ \cite{djouadi,djouadi2}.)
In this respect, the reader should further notice the stability of its
production cross section against variations of $\tan\beta$ (see
also, e.g., Fig. 4 in \cite{djouadi2})\footnote{The $\tan\beta$ dependence
of $\sigma(\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_1^* h)$ at low values of such a parameter
is mainly a phase space effect, as it can be deduced by comparing
Fig.~\ref{fig:squarks} to Fig.~\ref{fig:lighthiggs}.
In addition, in the low $\tan\beta$ domain, there are residual effects
onto the production rates induced by the term $\mu \cot\beta$ arising
from the off-diagonal elements of the squark mass matrices
and affecting the $\lambda_{h {\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_1}$ vertex.}.
This proves to be a
crucial point, as it is possible that one will have no narrow hints about
the actual value of this crucial parameter of the Higgs sector even after
Run 2 at Tevatron (unless, of course,
the lightest Higgs boson is discovered there !)
\cite{Tevatron}. In other terms,
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_1^* h$ would always be present at fixed
rate at the LHC, no matter whether $\tan\beta$ is large or small.
Similar arguments can be put forward concerning the $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$ dependence.
Some care must instead be exercised with respect to the $A_0$ dependence.
In fact, to vary the universal trilinear coupling between, e.g., $-300$
and $+300$ depletes the cross section by a factor of about seven, as
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lighthiggs}. For even larger differences,
say, between $-500$ and $+500$ (not shown here for
reasons of space), the ratio between the cross sections become as big
as 30 ! Not surprisingly then, Ref.~\cite{djouadi2} focused on the
choice $A_0=-2000$ GeV\footnote{Note that in this $A_0$ region the
M-SUGRA scenario clashes against the constraints from
the charge and colour breaking minima, {i.e.}, eq.~(\ref{ccb}).
This is the reason why we prefer to display our results in a rather
more conservative range, i.e., $|A_0| \buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 1$ TeV.} (and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=+$).
Far from regarding this dependence as a shortcoming of
${\tilde t}_{1}{\tilde t}_{1}^*h$ events in helping in the quest
for the so far elusive lightest Higgs boson of the MSSM
(in fact, even for very large and
positive $A_0$ values we found the cross section well above 1 fb),
this example allows us to enlighten that other aspect of
squark-squark-Higgs production that we have mentioned in the
Introduction: i.e., its potential in pinning down
some of the fundamental parameters of the M-SUGRA model. Needless
to say, variations of the cross section with $A_0$ as large as those
mentioned above are well beyond the various sources of uncertainties
on the production rates (other than the theoretical ones
related to the PDFs and the effect of higher-order QCD corrections
also the experimental ones in their determination).
To measure a production rate
of ${\tilde t}_{1}{\tilde t}_{1}^*h$ events much larger
than about 50 fb (the value obtained
in correspondence of $A_0=0$), in some specific decay channel, would
unambiguously imply that the universal trilinear coupling at the
GUT scale is negative.
As already mentioned, very little could be learn
about the actual values of $\tan\beta$ from this
specific process. However, if the latter is known beforehand
to be around 2 or so, one could use this information to constrain
$\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$. In fact, for $A_0=-300$ GeV, one would get that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma (\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h) &\approx& 200 \;
{\rm fb} \; \Rightarrow \mu = + \\[2mm]
\sigma (\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h) &\approx& 50 \;
{\rm fb} \; \Rightarrow \mu = - \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us proceed in this spirit to see whether other
channels can be of some help in constraining the M-SUGRA model.
Following the list
of detectable $h$ production cross section given
in (\ref{Xsections_h}), we find the
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h$ final state \cite{short}.
This is not surprising either.
In fact, the relevant coupling behaves like (again, $X=H,A,H^\pm$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{h\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_2}^{m_{X}\gg M_Z}
\ &\simeq & \
\frac{i g_W M_Z}{c_W} \biggl \{
\frac{1}{2} \cos 2 \beta\biggl (\frac{1}{2}-\frac{4}{3}s_W^2
\biggr ) \sin2\theta_{\tilde{t}}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
&-&\frac{m_t \cos 2 \theta_{\tilde{t}}}{2 M_Z^2}
\left ( A_t + \mu \cot \beta \right ) \biggr \} \;,
\label{ht1t2aprox}
\end{eqnarray}
becoming very large when $\cos 2\theta_{\tilde{t}}$ and
$ ( A_t + \mu \cot \beta ) $ reach their allowed maximum values.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:lighthiggs}, one can see that
this happens in the region of
small $\tan\beta$, negative sign of $\mu$ and $A_0\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} -300$ GeV.
The intriguing aspect here, which was largely missing in the case
in which both squarks were the lightest, is that one could impose
severe constraints on the sign of the Higgsino mass term, other
than on $A_0$. In fact, in the detectable region, the curves corresponding
to $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=-$ (higher) and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=+$ (lower) depart considerably.
For example, for relatively small $\tan\beta$ values, say 4,
the ratios as obtained by dividing the cross sections corresponding to
negative $\mu$'s by those for positive Higgsino masses are quite large
indeed: about 7(5)[2] when $A_0=-300(0)[+300]$ GeV. At even lower
$\tan\beta$, say, equal to 2, one symbolically has:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma (\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h)
&\approx& 300 \;
{\rm fb} \; \Rightarrow \mu = - \\[2mm]
\sigma (\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h)
&\approx& 2 \;
{\rm fb} \; \Rightarrow \mu = + \;,
\end{eqnarray}
(e.g., for $A_0=-300$ GeV).
Luckily enough here, where the solid and dot-dashed curves start
getting closer (for $\tan\beta\OOrd15-20$) is precisely
when the cross section is no longer observable. However, what just said
makes the point that $\tan\beta$ ought to be known rather accurately
from some previous measurements, if one wants to constrain the other M-SUGRA
parameters by studying the production of the lightest Higgs scalar
of the theory produced in association with both stop mass eigenstates.
In our list of observable $h$ cross sections ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^* h$
comes next. Here the potential is somewhat complementary to the
two above cases, in the sense that not to find any pairs of sbottom squarks
of the type ${\tilde b}_1$ produced in association with an $h$ scalar
once $\tan\beta$ is already known to be large could have powerful
consequences on the viability of M-SUGRA as the underlying model of SUSY.
To be specific, notice how the six curves corresponding to all the possible
combinations of the parameters $A_0=-300,0,+300$ GeV and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=\pm$
lie within a factor from 2 to 4 in cross section, in correspondence of
$\tan\beta=20$ and 35, respectively. Even the cases of $A_0=\pm500$ GeV do
not depart significantly from the central curve for $A_0=0$, in the above
$\tan\beta$ region. Unfortunately, contrary to the case of
${\tilde{t}}_1{\tilde{t}}_2^* h$ production, here the most interesting region
is presumably below detection level. In fact, for $\tan\beta$ quite low,
a huge portion of M-SUGRA parameter plane collapses into a narrow stripe,
as the various curves tend to overlap, all being contained within a
factor as small as 1.5 (e.g., at $\tan\beta=2$, also including the cases
$|A_0|=500$ GeV, not shown in the figure).
As for $H$ production, one identifies as possible candidates for
detection the following cases:
\begin{equation}\label{Xsections_H}
\sigma( \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H )\sim
\sigma( \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* H )\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}
\sigma( \tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_2^* H )\sim
\sigma( \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* H ).
\end{equation}
The remaining two combinations, i.e., $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* H$
and $\tilde{t}_2 \tilde{t}_2^* H$, yield cross sections
that are hopelessly small.
Also some of the detectable $H$ production processes
can have a significant impact in aiding
the determination of the M-SUGRA parameters, most notably those
yielding the final states ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^* H$ and
${\tilde{b}}_2{\tilde{b}}_2^* H$. Here, if $\tan\beta$ is known to be, say,
35 or so, a detection of either the former or the latter
by the thousand or hundred, respectively, would
imply that $A_0$ is most certainly negative, since production rates
corresponding
to $A_0$ values larger than zero are about a factor of 5 and 3 smaller
(rather irrespectively of $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$). Somewhat less discrimination
power between positive and negative $A_0$ values have
${\tilde{t}}_1{\tilde{t}}_1^* H$ and
${\tilde{t}}_1{\tilde{t}}_2^* H$ events, over the same (large) $\tan\beta$
region as above. The most interesting case would have been
${\tilde{t}}_2{\tilde{t}}_2^* H$, as the collapse of the M-SUGRA
model that we already
noticed in the case of ${\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_1^* h$ final states is
here even more striking, over a more
significant $\tan\beta$ region. Unluckily enough,
the corresponding production cross section never exceeds the femtobarn level.
A general remark in now in order, concerning the strength of the
coupling of sbottom squarks to neutral CP-even Higgs bosons.
The monotonic growth of the production rates of
sbottom squark processes with increasing $\tan\beta$,
as opposed to a much milder dependence of the stop ones, has a simple
explanation.
For example, the coupling $\lambda_{h \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1}$ is driven by
the term $\frac{m_b \mu \tan\beta}{M_Z^2}$ and its size
becomes large for large $\tan\beta$.
Another reason for an extra enhancement of the sbottom production rates comes
from the phase space available to the final states, as both
$m_{\tilde{b}_1}$ and $ m_{\tilde{b}_2}$ decrease very fast
when $\tan\beta$ gets large, whereas
this is much less the case for $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ and $ m_{\tilde{t}_2}$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:squarks}). There is however a point, for the
case of reactions involving the two sbottom mass eigenstates at once
(i.e., ${\tilde{b}_1}{\tilde{b}_2}^*h$ and
${\tilde{b}_1}{\tilde{b}_2}^*H$), in which the production cross sections
vanish altogether, somewhere in the vicinity of $\tan\beta=34-36$
(the zero for
${\tilde{b}_1}{\tilde{b}_2}^*H$ is actually beyond the $\tan\beta$
range plotted),
the exact value depending upon $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$. This is
clearly induced by the $\lambda_{h {\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_2}$
and $\lambda_{H {\tilde{b}}_1{\tilde{b}}_2}$ vertices and their
typical $\propto(\mu-A_b \tan\beta)$ behaviour, when
$|\mu|\ll | A_b \tan\beta|$ and $A_b$ changes its sign.
Before closing this Section, we investigate the residual dependence
of CP-even Higgs boson production in association with sbottoms and stops
on the input values of $M_{0}$ and $M_{1/2}$, when they are allowed
to deviate from their common default of 150 GeV assumed so
far. For illustrative purposes, we
do so by adopting two discrete values of $\tan\beta$, 2
and 40, and choosing the combination $A_0=0$ and negative $\mu$.
Anyhow, though not shown, we have verified that a similar pattern
to the one that we will outline below
can be recognised also for the case of finite (positive and negative)
values of $A_0$ and positive Higgsino masses as well.
For this exercise, we focus our attention only to the dominant
production cross sections in either case, that is,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h$,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h$ and
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* h$ for light
(see Tab.~\ref{table1}) and
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* H$ and
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H$ for heavy (see Tab.~\ref{table2}) Higgs bosons.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
M_0 ({\rm GeV}) & M_{1/2} ({\rm GeV}) & \tan\beta &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h ) ({\rm fb}) &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h ) ({\rm fb}) &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* h ) ({\rm fb}) \\ \hline
130 & 130 & 2 & 70.2 & 38 & 7.7 \times 10^{-2}
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 2 & 32 & 150 & 2.9 \times 10^{-2}
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 2 & 11 & 100 & 6.6 \times 10^{-3}
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 2 & 2.9 &48 & 1.4\times 10^{-3}
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 40 & 84 & 8.2 & 8.2
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 40 & 37 & 7.4 & 4.9
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 40 & 13 & 3.4 & 1.3
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 40 & 3.5 & 1.8 & 0.51
\\ \hline
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{The variation of the most significant cross sections
of processes $g g \rightarrow \tilde{q}_\chi \tilde{q}_{\chi '}^* h $ with
$M_0$, $M_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$. The other M-SUGRA parameters are
fixed as follows: $A_0=0$ GeV and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu) = -$.}
\label{table1}
\end{table}
We obtain that most of the cross sections
with the light Higgs particle involved decrease when either or both
the parameters $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ increase. In this respect, however,
it is well worth noticing that the total cross section for
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h $ production acquires a large statistic
significance in the higher mass regime and maintains it even at the
very upper
end of it (some 5000 events/year can be produced at the LHC via this mode
if $\tan\beta=2$,
$M_0=300$ GeV and $M_{1/2}=250$ GeV). In this area of the M-SUGRA
parameter space, $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h $ events are much more
numerous than $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h $ ones, the other way
round with respect to the low mass combination $M_0=M_{1/2}=130$ GeV,
despite of the more massive final state.
(However, this is only true al low $\tan\beta$.)
In fact, for $M_0=300$ GeV and $M_{1/2}=250$ GeV, the
squark masses are $m_{\tilde{t}_1}=472$ GeV, $m_{\tilde{t}_2}=591$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{b}_1}=569$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{b}_2}=623$ GeV. The inversion
of hierarchy between the two cross sections is induced by the
onset of the ${\tilde{t}_2}\to {\tilde{t}_1} h$ decay channel at large
$M_{0}$ and $M_{1/2}$ values, as $m_{\tilde{t}_2}\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} m_{\tilde{t}_1}
+m_h$, whose resonance enhancement in the $2\to2$ process
$gg\to {\tilde{t}}_2{\tilde{t}}_2^*$ overcomes both the inner phase space
depletion and the strength of the Higgs-strahlung emission in
$gg\to {\tilde{t}}_1{\tilde{t}}_1^*$ events.
As for the case $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* h $ (and similarly
for $\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_2^* h $, not shown in the table),
there is no inversion of tendency here, in the interplay with the
light stop channel, as production rates are strongly dominated by the fact
that $m_{\tilde{b}_2}, m_{\tilde{b}_1} \gg m_{\tilde{t}_1}$.
They both are very much suppressed. On similar grounds, one can
argue about the smallness of $\tilde{t}_2 \tilde{t}_2^* h $.
Finally, being $m_{\tilde{b}_2}\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} m_{\tilde{b}_1} +m_h$
in most part of the ($M_0$,$M_{1/2}$) plane that we have spanned,
the $\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_1^* h $ final state never stands up
either as quantitatively interesting.
The results for the mass dependence of the
production rates for the heavy (CP-even) Higgs boson have a simpler pattern.
The all of their production phenomenology
is governed by the fact that over the ($M_0$,$M_{1/2}$)
regions considered here one never finds the kinematic configuration
$m_{\tilde{t(b)}_2}\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} m_{\tilde{t(b)}_1}
+m_H$. That is, no production and decay channel can onset, and the
hierarchy of cross sections already seen for $M_0=M_{1/2}=150$ GeV
replicates unaltered
in most cases, mainly governed by the size of the rest masses in the
final state. Here cross sections remain sizable only if
neither $M_0$ nor $M_{1/2}$ exceed the value 150--200 GeV
(for large $\tan\beta$, of course, see Fig.~\ref{fig:heavyhiggs}).
Even in such cases, though, presumably no more than a handful
of events can be selected in most decay channels.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
M_0 ({\rm GeV}) & M_{1/2} ({\rm GeV}) & \tan\beta &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* H ) ({\rm fb}) &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H ) ({\rm fb})
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 2 & 8.0 \times 10^{-3} & 2.1\times 10^{-3}
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 2 & 1.4 \times 10^{-3} & 4.2\times 10^{-4}
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 2 & 1.1 \times 10^{-4} & 7.5\times 10^{-5}
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 2 & 1.3 \times 10^{-5} & 8.2\times 10^{-6}
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 40 & 3.3 & 14
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 40 & 1.3 & 3.5
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 40 & 0.38 & 0.84
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 40 & 0.068 & 0.014
\\ \hline
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{The variation of the most significant cross sections (in pb)
of processes $g g \rightarrow \tilde{q}_\chi \tilde{q}_{\chi '}^* H $ with
$M_0$, $M_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$. The other M-SUGRA parameters are
fixed as follows: $A_0=0$ GeV and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu) = -$.}
\label{table2}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{CP-odd Higgs boson production}
\label{odd}
As discussed to some lenght in Ref.~\cite{short}, pseudoscalar
Higgs boson production in association with sbottom and stop squarks
of different mass (the only possible combination in absence of
CP-violating phases in
$\mu$ and $A_q$, with $q=t,b$), can boast a special attractiveness
because of the absence of mixing terms in the relevant squark-squark-Higgs
couplings. By making use of eq.~(\ref{fr}) and recalling that
if one reverts the chirality flow in the vertex $\lambda_{A\tilde{q}_L
\tilde{q}_R}$ the corresponding Feynman rule changes its sign
\cite{HHG}, one finds that those vertices
reduce to
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{A\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_2} = -\frac{g_W m_t}{2 M_W} \left ( \mu -
A_t \cot\beta \right), \qquad\qquad
\lambda_{A\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}_2} = -\frac{g_W m_b}{2 M_W} \left ( \mu -
A_b \tan\beta \right ).
\label{cpoddfr}
\end{equation}
These are precisely the couplings entering
the two processes of the type (\ref{proc}) inducing the final states
${\tilde{q}}_1{\tilde{q}}_2^* A$, where $q=t,b$.
From this point of view, it is then clear the potential of squark
and pseudoscalar Higgs production in constraining the input values of all five
M-SUGRA parameters.
In other terms, to trace back (more technically, to fit) the shape
of the cross sections (if not of some differential distributions)
in terms of the $\tan\beta$, $A_q$ (with $q=t,b$) and $\mu$ parameters
entering eq.~(\ref{cpoddfr}) is presumably a much simpler job then doing
the same by using the more involved expressions in eq.~(\ref{fr}),
unless one exploits some asymptotic regime in either
$\tan\beta$, $A_q$ (with $q=t,b$) and/or $\mu$ in which the latter
reduce to the former.
It is under this perspective that we looked at the
case of $A$ production in our Ref.~\cite{short}.
Rather than repeating the all discussion carried out there, we
summarise here the salient findings of \cite{short},
referring the reader to that paper for specific details.
The production cross sections can be found in Fig.~\ref{fig:cpoddhiggs}.
For $\tan\beta$ below 20 or so, the rates
for pseudoscalar Higgs boson production are presumably
too poor to be of great experimental help. Furthermore, in the
high $\tan\beta$ regime, pseudoscalar
Higgs boson production is in general less effective than other channels in
constraining the sign of the Higgsino mass term: compare the overlapping
for the solid and dot-dashed curves (for each $A_0$) in the
detectable regions of $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A$ and
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A$ production to the splitting occurring
in, e.g., $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* H$. This, as far as it
concerns the flaws.
As for the advantages, we would like to draw the attention of the reader to
the fact that reactions (\ref{proc}) with CP-odd Higgs bosons in the
final state are quite sensitive to $\tan\beta$. The simple form of the
expressions for
$\lambda_{A {\tilde q}_1{\tilde q}_2}$ ($q=t,b$) in eq.~(\ref{cpoddfr})
allows one to straightforwardly interpret
the variation of the pseudoscalar rates with this parameter, namely,
the steep rise at high values of the latter. This can in fact be
understood as follows. For large
$\tan\beta$, the vertex couplings
of eq.~(\ref{cpoddfr}) can be rewritten in the approximate form
\begin{equation}\label{limit}
\lambda_{A\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_2} \simeq -\frac{g_W m_t}{2 M_W}
\mu , \qquad\qquad
\lambda_{A\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}_2} \simeq \frac{g_W m_b}{2 M_W}
A_b \tan\beta ,
\label{largetanb}
\end{equation}
that is,
the coupling which is associated with the sbottom pair is
proportional to $\tan\beta$, so that, eventually, the total
$\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}_2^*A$
cross section will grow with $\tan^2\beta$
while the coupling related to
the stop pair will assume constant values. In the
latter, the enhancement of the $\tilde{t}_1\tilde{t}_2^*A$
cross section with $\tan\beta$ is
rather a phase space effect since, as $\tan\beta$ increases, the
CP-odd Higgs boson mass decreases considerably
(the squark masses changing much less instead),
as we can see from Fig.~\ref{fig:higgs}. Of course, the same remains valid in
the former case as well, so that our figure indicates a clear order
in the size of the cross sections,
$\sigma (\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A )
\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} \sigma (\tilde{t}_1
\tilde{t}_2^* A )$, at large $\tan\beta$.
But, let us now turn our attention to another peculiar dependence of
the production rates of $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A$ and
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A$: the one on
the common trilinear coupling $A_0$. Pretty much along the same lines
as for the combinations $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h$,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h$ and $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H$
one can make the case that the sensitivity
to $A_0$ of the $A$ production cross sections offers the chance of
constraining, possibly the sign, and hopefully the
magnitude, of this fundamental M-SUGRA parameter.
This is presumably the best attribute of
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A$ and $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A$, under the
assumption already made in few instances that the determination
of $\tan\beta$ could come first from studies in the pure
Higgs sector.
Putting down some numbers in this respect, one may invoke
the following scenario, if $\tan\beta$ is, say, larger than 32:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma (\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A)
&\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} & 10 \;
{\rm fb} \; \Rightarrow A_0 < -300 \\[2mm]
\sigma (\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A)
&\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}& 2 \;
{\rm fb} \; \Rightarrow A_0 < -300,
\end{eqnarray}
quite independently of $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$. Conversely, the non-observation
of pseudoscalar Higgs events in those regimes would imply most likely
a positive $A_0$ value.
As for peculiar trends in Fig.~\ref{fig:cpoddhiggs}, it is worth mentioning
(though we have not shown it here, as the reader can refer to \cite{short})
that the cross section for sbottom production
vanishes too, at some (large) value
of $\tan\beta$, as it did for the case of CP-even Higgs production.
As the reader can appreciate in Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{short}, contrary
to the case of $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* h$ and $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* H$
final states, this however
happens in $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A$ events only
for positive and large values of $A_0$ (and both $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)=\pm$). This
is another
consequence of the different nature of the couplings (\ref{fr}) to squarks
of CP-even versus CP-odd neutral Higgs bosons. Though we have failed
to find a point where this disappearance of $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A$
events for positive $A_0$ values corresponds to the survival of a detectable
cross section for negative $A_0$'s (at fixed $\tan\beta$), such matter
would presumably deserve further investigation in the future.
Before closing this Section, we study the dependence of pseudoscalar Higgs
boson production in association with stop and sbottom squarks on
the last two M-SUGRA independent parameters, $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$: see
Tab.~\ref{table3}. The main effect of changing the latter is
onto the masses of the final state scalars, through the phase space volume
as well as via propagator effects in the scattering amplitudes.
(In fact, no decay channel of the heavier stop or sbottom into
the lighter one ever opens, at least for the
values of $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ that we had looked at.)
In other terms, to increase one or the other depletes both
$\sigma (\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A )$ and
$\sigma (\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A )$ quite strongly,
simply because
the values of all $m_{\tilde{q}_\chi}$'s, $m_{\tilde{q}_{\chi'}}$'s
and $m_\Phi$'s get larger.
For example, assuming $\tan\beta=40$: at $M_0=M_{1/2}=130$ GeV, one has
$m_{\tilde{t}_1}=248$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{t}_2}=388$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{b}_1}=256$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{b}_2}=340$ GeV and
$m_{{A} }=120$; whereas at $M_0=300$ GeV and $M_{1/2}=250$ GeV,
the figures are
$m_{\tilde{t}_1}=461$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{t}_2}=611$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{b}_1}=510$ GeV,
$m_{\tilde{b}_2}=591$ GeV and
$m_{{A} }=292$ GeV.
In practice, the table shows that only rather light $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ masses
(say, below 200 and 150 GeV, respectively)
would possibly allow for pseudoscalar production to be detectable at the LHC,
and only at large $\tan\beta$ \cite{short}.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
M_0 ({\rm GeV}) & M_{1/2} ({\rm GeV}) & \tan\beta &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A ) ({\rm fb}) &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A ) ({\rm fb})
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 2 & 5.2 \times 10^{-2} & 4.1\times 10^{-4}
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 2 & 2.0 \times 10^{-2} & 8.8\times 10^{-5}
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 2 & 5.9 \times 10^{-3} & 2.8\times 10^{-5}
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 2 & 1.3 \times 10^{-3} & 3.9\times 10^{-6}
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 40 & 79 & 13
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 40 & 1.4 & 2.4
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 40 & 0.31 & 0.6
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 40 & 0.048 & 0.098
\\ \hline
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{The variation of the most significant cross sections
of processes $g g \rightarrow \tilde{q}_\chi \tilde{q}_{\chi '}^* A $ with
$M_0$, $M_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$. The other M-SUGRA parameters are
fixed as follows: $A_0=0$ GeV and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu) = -$.}
\label{table3}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Charged Higgs bosons production}
\label{charged}
To have an additional source of charged Higgs bosons at the LHC,
especially with masses
larger than the top mass $m_t$, would be very helpful from an experimental
point of view. In fact, it is well known the difficulty of detecting
charged Higgs scalars in that mass regime, not only because of a dominant
decay
signature which suffers from very large QCD background (i.e.,
$H^+\to t\bar b \to b\bar b W^+\to b\bar b jj$), but also because
the production mechanisms are not many and with not very large
rates \cite{charged}.
Unfortunately, as it turns out from Fig.~\ref{fig:chargedhiggs}, typical
production cross sections of $H^\pm$ scalars in association with
sbottom and stop pairs rarely exceed 10 fb. These rates compare rather
poorly with other mechanisms \cite{charged}, for the same
choice of $m_{H^\pm}$. Thus, there is
little to gain in exploiting processes (\ref{proc}) as discovery channels
of charged Higgs bosons.
Furthermore, their dependence on $\tan\beta$, $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$
replicates many of the tendencies already individuated in neutral
Higgs channels, for which the production cross sections are much larger.
Adding the fact that typical decay channels of the latter
(e.g., in photon pairs) are much cleaner in the hadronic environment
of the LHC than those of the former, one would quite rightly
conclude that the potential
of $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H^-$,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* H^-$,
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* H^+$ and
$\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{t}_2^* H^+$ final states
in constraining the M-SUGRA parameter space is rather poor.
Nonetheless, it is worth recognising some of the typical trends
of the production cross sections, for the sake of future reference.
Let alone the last two combinations, for which the final state masses
are too heavy to be produced at detectable rate, we have a quick look
at the first two cases, which can indeed have cross sections significantly
above 1 fb, at least in the large $\tan\beta$ region. This enhancement
has a twofold explanation. Firstly,
phase space effects, as for large $\tan\beta$ all scalar masses
(except $m_{{\tilde t}_1}$ and $m_h$) get smaller:
see Figs.~\ref{fig:squarks}--\ref{fig:higgs}. Secondly, terms
in their couplings proportional to $m_b A_b \tan\beta$ are dominant
for most of the possible $A_0$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$ combinations. Finally,
notice also in the case of the $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H^\pm$
final state the vanishing of the cross section, this time at somewhat
lower values of $\tan\beta$ than in the case of the neutral Higgs bosons.
As for the $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ dependence, this is again realised
through the phase space and the propagators,
as there is no significant enhancement from
resonant decays. In practice, only if $\tan\beta$ is extremely large
and both the universal scalar and gaugino masses are below 200 GeV,
the two cross sections for $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H^-$
and $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* H^-$ remain detectable (indeed, those
containing the lightest stop squark): see Tab.~\ref{table4}}.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
M_0 ({\rm GeV}) & M_{1/2} ({\rm GeV}) & \tan\beta &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H^- ) ({\rm fb}) &
\sigma (g g \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* H^- ) ({\rm fb})
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 2 & 4.3 \times 10^{-4} & 1.4\times 10^{-3}
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 2 & 2.2 \times 10^{-5} & 3.0\times 10^{-4}
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 2 & 3.1 \times 10^{-5} & 9.8\times 10^{-5}
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 2 & 1.6 \times 10^{-6} & 1.4\times 10^{-5}
\\ \hline
130 & 130 & 40 & 2.2 & 4.8
\\ \hline
200 & 150 & 40 & 1.5 & 4.5
\\ \hline
200 & 200 & 40 & 1.7 & 0.31
\\ \hline
300 & 250 & 40 & 0.064 & 0.023
\\ \hline
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{The variation of the most significant cross sections
of processes $g g \rightarrow \tilde{q}_\chi \tilde{q}_{\chi '}^* H^\pm $ with
$M_0$, $M_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$. The other M-SUGRA parameters are
fixed as follows: $A_0=0$ GeV and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu) = -$.}
\label{table4}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Decay signatures}
\label{signatures}
So far we have only discussed production cross sections for processes
of the form (\ref{proc}) and made no considerations about possible decay
channels and relative branching fractions of either squarks
or Higgs bosons.
Another related aspect is the typical kinematics of the signals, as
it appears in the detectors, and the size of the possible backgrounds.
Furthermore, the reader should appreciate how all channels
entering processes (\ref{proc}) are intertwined, in the sense
that any of these can act as a background to all others.
It is the aim of this Section that of indicating some possible
decay signatures of the most relevant squark-squark-Higgs processes,
in which they show both large rates and their kinematics is such
that they can hopefully be disentangled at the LHC.
In doing so, we distinguish between
a small (see \ref{signatures}.1) and large (see \ref{signatures}.2)
$\tan\beta$ regime, as we have shown that such a parameter is crucial
in determining the actual size of
the production rates. As representative choice of the universal masses
we adopt the combination with lowest values among those discussed in the
previous Subsections, i.e., $M_{0}=M_{1/2}=130$
GeV, further setting $A_0$=0 and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$
negative.
\vskip0.5cm\noindent
{\bf \ref{signatures}.1 Small $\tan\beta$ regime}
\vskip0.5cm\noindent
For small $\tan\beta$'s the only relevant processes are
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* h$
production. A possible decay signature for the
first case is the one contemplated
in Refs.~\cite{djouadi,djouadi2}. That is,
${\tilde t}_1\to \chi_1^+b\to W^{+}b$ plus missing energy for the light
stop and $h\to \gamma\gamma$ for the light Higgs boson, with the $W^+$
decaying leptonically and/or hadronically.
The final topology would be the same as
in $t\bar t h$, with the only difference that
for stop squark events there is a large amount of missing energy.
Since another option to tag the lightest MSSM Higgs boson at the
LHC is to use the more messy but dominant decay channel into
$b\bar b$ pairs (as opposed to exploiting the cleaner but suppressed
$\gamma\gamma$ mode) \cite{ATLAS,CMS},
another possible decay sequence could be the following:
$$
\arraycolsep=0pt
\begin{array}{lllllll}\label{hchain}
{\tilde{t}_1} && &~~~~{\tilde{t}}_1^* &&h~~~~~ & \\
\downarrow &&& ~~~\downarrow &&\downarrow~~~~~ & \\
\chi_1^+ \,+\,b\; & &&~~~~\chi_1^- \,+\,\bar b &~&b \,+\,\bar b & \\
\downarrow &&& ~~~\downarrow && \; & \\
q \,+\,\bar q'\,+\,\chi_1^0& && ~~~~\ell^-\,+\,\nu\,+\,\chi^0_1 &&&
\end{array}
$$
in which
$q\bar q'=u\bar d,c\bar s$ and $\ell=e,\mu$. Considering also
the charge conjugated $\chi_1^+\chi_1^-$ decays, the final signature
would then be
`$2~{\mathrm{jets}}~+~4b~+\ell^\pm+{E}_{\mathrm{miss}}$',
where the missing energy/momentum is not only due to the
two $\chi^0_1$'s but also to the neutrinos.
The total branching ratio (BR)
of such a decay sequence is, for $\tan\beta=3$ and
according to Tab.~\ref{table5}, approximately 2.5\%. The production
cross section at the same $\tan\beta$ value is about 72 fb,
so that about 176 events per year would survive. One may further assume
a reduction factor of about 0.25 because of the overall
efficiency $\varepsilon_b^4$
to tag four $b$-quarks (assuming $\varepsilon_b\approx0.7$). This
ultimately yields something more than 44 events per year.
In addition, one should expect most of the signal events
to lie in the detector acceptance region, since leptons and jets
originate from decays of heavy objects.
The same signature could well be exploited in the case of the
${\tilde{t}_1} {\tilde{t}}_2^* h$ final state. Here, the
production cross section is smaller than for
${\tilde{t}_1} {\tilde{t}}_1^* h$ production, about 40 fb,
so is the ${\tilde t}_2\to \chi_1^+b$ decay rate as compared
to the ${\tilde t}_1\to \chi_1^+b$ one (see Tab.~\ref{table5}). However,
the final number of events per year is still quite large:
about 14 after having already multiplied by $\varepsilon_b^4$.
As for the kinematics of these two signatures, we may remark that they
have peculiar features that should help
in their selection: a not too large hadronic multiplicity, six jets in total,
each rather energetic (in fact, note that
$m_{\chi^\pm_1}-m_{\chi^0_1}\approx58$ GeV and
$m_{{\tilde{t}_2}}\approx378~{\mathrm{GeV}}\gg
m_{{\tilde{t}_1}}\approx273~{\mathrm{GeV}}\gg
m_{\chi^\pm_1}\approx114$ GeV),
so that their reconstruction from the detected
tracks should be reasonably accurate;
high transverse momentum and isolated leptons to be used as
trigger; large $E_{\mathrm{miss}}$ to reduce non-SUSY processes;
four tagged $b$-jets that
can be exploited to suppress the `$W^\pm$ + light jet' background from QCD,
and one $b\bar b$ pair resonating at the $h$ mass,
$m_h\approx90$ GeV. Moreover, the `irreducible'
background from ${\tilde{t}_1}{\tilde{t}_1^*}Z$ events
has been shown in Ref.~\cite{fawzi} to be under control,
even when $m_h\approx M_Z$, as it is the case here.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{|ccc|}\hline
{\rm Particle} & {\mathrm{BR}}
& {\rm Decay} \\ \hline
\tilde{t}_1 & \stackrel{76\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_1^+ b \\
&\stackrel{19\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_1^0 t
\\ \hline
\tilde{t}_2 & \stackrel{57\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_1^+ b \\
& \stackrel{24\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_2^+ b \\
& \stackrel{11\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_2^0 t \\ \hline
h & \stackrel{90\%
}{\rightarrow}& b \bar{b} \\
& \stackrel{5\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^+ \tau^- \\
& \stackrel{0.0003\%
}{\rightarrow} & \gamma \gamma \\
\hline
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{|ccc|}\hline
{\rm Particle} & {\mathrm{BR}}
& {\rm Decay} \\ \hline
t & \stackrel{33\%
}{\rightarrow} & u \bar{d} b \\
& \stackrel{33\%
}{\rightarrow} & c \bar{s} b \\
& \stackrel{11\%
}{\rightarrow} & e^+ \nu b \\
& \stackrel{11\%
}{\rightarrow} & \mu^+ \nu b \\
& \stackrel{11\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^+ \nu b \\ \hline
\chi_1^+ & \stackrel{30\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 u \bar{d}^{\dagger} \\
& \stackrel{30\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 c \bar{s}^{\dagger} \\
& \stackrel{14\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \tau^+ \nu^{\dagger} \\
& \stackrel{14\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 e^+ \nu^{\dagger} \\
& \stackrel{14\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \mu^+ \nu^{\dagger} \\ \hline
\chi_2^0 & \stackrel{28\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \nu \bar{\nu} \\
& \stackrel{14\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 e^- e^+ \\
& \stackrel{14\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \mu^- \mu^+ \\
& \stackrel{14\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \tau^- \tau^+ \\
\hline
\end{array}
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{Dominant decay channels and BRs
of the final state (s)particles in
$g g \rightarrow \tilde{q}_\chi \tilde{q}_{\chi '}^* h $,
$q=t$ and $\chi,\chi'=1,2$,
for $M_0=M_{1/2}=130$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta=3$ and
${\mathrm{sign}}(\mu)<0$ \cite{isajet}.
{~~$^\dagger$ \footnotesize{Via off-shell $W^{+}$.}}}
\label{table5}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{|ccc|}\hline
{\rm Particle} & {\mathrm{BR}}
& {\rm Decay} \\ \hline
\tilde{t}_1 & \stackrel{94\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_1^+ b \\ \hline
\tilde{t}_2 & \stackrel{40\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_2^+ b \\
& \stackrel{26\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^+ b \\
& \stackrel{16\%
}{\rightarrow} & {\tilde{b}}_1 W^+ \\
& \stackrel{7\%
}{\rightarrow} & {\tilde{t}}_1 Z \\ \hline
\tilde{b}_1 & \stackrel{61\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_2^0 b \\
& \stackrel{32\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 b \\ \hline
\tilde{b}_2 & \stackrel{42\%
}{\rightarrow}& \chi_3^0 b \\
& \stackrel{31\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_4^0 b \\
& \stackrel{18\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_2^0 b \\ \hline
h & \stackrel{94\%
}{\rightarrow}& b \bar{b} \\
& \stackrel{6\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^+ \tau^- \\
\hline
H & \stackrel{94\%
}{\rightarrow}& b \bar{b} \\
& \stackrel{6\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^+ \tau^- \\ \hline
A & \stackrel{94\%
}{\rightarrow}& b \bar{b} \\
& \stackrel{6\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^+ \tau^- \\ \hline
H^\pm & \stackrel{91\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^\pm \nu \\
& \stackrel{5\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \chi_1^\pm \\ \hline
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{|ccc|}\hline
{\rm Particle} & {\mathrm{BR}}
& {\rm Decay} \\ \hline
\chi_1^+ & \stackrel{100\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tilde{\tau}_1^+ \nu \\ \hline
\chi_2^+ & \stackrel{24\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_2^0 W^+ \\
& \stackrel{15\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^+ Z \\
& \stackrel{11\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^+ A \\
& \stackrel{10\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tau^+ \tilde{\nu} \\
\hline
\chi_2^0 & \stackrel{100\%
}{\rightarrow} & \tilde{\tau}_1^\pm \tau^\mp \\
\hline
\chi_3^0 & \stackrel{24\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^+ W^- \\
& \stackrel{24\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^- W^+ \\
& \stackrel{9\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 Z \\ \hline
\chi_4^0 & \stackrel{23\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^+ W^- \\
& \stackrel{23\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^- W^+ \\
& \stackrel{6\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 h \\
& \stackrel{6\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 Z \\ \hline
\tilde{\tau}_1^+ & \stackrel{100\%
}{\rightarrow} & \chi_1^0 \tau^+ \\ \hline
\end{array}
\end{array}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{Dominant decay channels and BRs
of the final state (s)particles in
$g g \rightarrow \tilde{q}_\chi \tilde{q}_{\chi '}^* X $, $X=h,H,A,H^\pm$,
$q=t,b$ and $\chi,\chi'=1,2$,
for $M_0=M_{1/2}=130$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta=40$ and
${\mathrm{sign}}(\mu)<0$ \cite{isajet}.}
\label{table6}
\end{table}
\end{center}
{\bf \ref{signatures}.2 Large $\tan\beta$ regime}
\vskip0.5cm\noindent
In the large $\tan\beta$ regime there is a variety of
cross sections which can be significant:
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^* X$,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* X$,
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* X$,
$\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_2^* X$,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_2^* A$,
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* A$,
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H^+$ and
$\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{b}_2^* H^+$, where $X=h,H$.
For reasons of space, however, we only focus our attention to one signature
for the Higgs states not yet considered, the one arising from
the dominant production channel in all cases, with the only
exception of the charged Higgs bosons. In fact, we
will neglect analysing here their decay patterns, as we have already mentioned
the poor effectiveness of the charged Higgs production modes
both as discovery channels and probes of the
underlying M-SUGRA model.
In the case of heavy scalar Higgs bosons, we consider the final state
$\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1^* H$. This yields a cross section of 14 fb
for $\tan\beta=40$. A possible decay chain is the one below.
$$
\arraycolsep=0pt
\begin{array}{lllllll}\label{Hchain}
{\tilde{b}_1} && &~~~~{\tilde{b}}_1^* &&~~~~H~~~~~ & \\
\downarrow &&& ~~~\downarrow &&~~~~\downarrow~~~~~ & \\
\chi_1^0 \,+\,b\; & &&~~~~\chi_1^0 \,+\,\bar b &~&~~~~~b \,+\,\bar b &
\end{array}
$$
That is, a rather simple final state made up by four $b$-quarks and
missing energy. The BR of this sequence is about
9\% (see Tab.~\ref{table6}).
Therefore, at high luminosity, one obtains 129 events per year,
before heavy flavour identification.
The main background is certainly ordinary QCD production of four jets.
However, the requirement of tagging four $b$-jets would reduce the
latter considerably. Furthermore, if the mass of the heavy scalar
Higgs boson is known, then one could impose
that two $b$-quarks reproduce $m_H\approx 121$ GeV within a few GeV
(say, 5) in invariant mass. Finally, given the enormous mass difference
$m_{\tilde b_1}-m_b\approx 250$ GeV, compared to the rest mass of the LSP,
$m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}\approx51$ GeV, one
should expect, on the one hand, a large amount of missing energy,
and, on the other hand, all four $b$-jets to be quite hard, both
aspects further helping to reduce the QCD noise. In the end, some
32 events could well be detected annually, having already accounted for the
overall $b$-tagging efficiency $\varepsilon_b^4=0.25$.
For the case of the pseudoscalar Higgs particle, we choose the final state
${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde t}_2^* A$, which has a cross section of about
79 fb at $\tan\beta=40$. A possible signature
could be\footnote{Additional examples can be found
in Ref.~\cite{short}.}:
$$
\arraycolsep=0pt
\begin{array}{lllllll}\label{Achain}
{\tilde{t}_1} && &~~~~{\tilde{t}}_2^* &&~~~A~~~~~ & \\
\downarrow &&& ~~~\downarrow &&~~~\downarrow~~~~~ & \\
\chi_1^+ \,+\,b\; & &&~~~~\chi_1^- \,+\,\bar b &~&~~~~b \,+\,\bar b & \\
\downarrow &&& ~~~\downarrow && \; & \\
{\tilde \tau}_1 \,+\,\nu& && ~~~~{\tilde \tau}_1^* \,+\,\bar\nu &&&\\
\downarrow &&& ~~~\downarrow && \; & \\
\tau^+\,+\,\chi_1^0& && ~~~~\tau^-\,+\,\chi^0_1 &&&
\end{array}
$$
Here, the final state is made up by four $b$-quarks and two $\tau$'s,
plus missing energy as usual. The decay fraction is 23\%
(again, see Tab.~\ref{table6}). That is, 1814 events per year before
tagging $b$'s and $\tau$'s.
The most dangerous backgrounds are probably $Z+4$~jet production and
$t\bar t b\bar b$ events. The first can be rejected by asking, e.g.,
$M_{\tau^+\tau^-}\ne M_Z$, if $\tau$'s are reconstructed. In addition, both
background processes have (at least)
two $b$-quarks quite soft. As for the signal, given that the lightest
chargino mass is much smaller than the stop ones (in fact,
$m_{{\tilde\chi}^\pm_1}\approx93$ GeV whereas
$m_{{\tilde t}_1}\approx248$ GeV and
$m_{{\tilde t}_2}\approx388$ GeV), all $b$'s are naturally energetic and
two of them also peak at $m_A\approx120$ GeV. Thus, to
require all $M_{bb}$ invariant masses sufficiently large with one
close to the $A$ mass
should help in enhancing considerably the
signal-to-background rates. Requiring large missing energy would
help further, especially against $t\bar t b\bar b$ events.
More difficult is to discern
differences in the $\tau$ behaviours (though, notice that
$m_{{\tilde \tau}_1}\approx76$ GeV $\gg m_\tau$). For $\varepsilon_b^4=0.25$,
and assuming leptonic decays of both $\tau^+$ and $\tau^-$ into
electrons and/or muons, one finally gets something of the order of
110 signal events per year.
\subsection{Heavy mass spectrum}
\label{heavyspectrum}
An attempt to summarise our findings
is made in Fig.~\ref{fig:light}, where the most relevant cross sections
(see upper frame)
for the light mass regime (see lower frame)
are plotted for a choice of $M_{0}$, $M_{1/2}$,
$A_0$, $\tan\beta$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$
which reflects their hierarchal order seen over most of the M-SUGRA
parameter space discussed so far.
However, to assume that only light squark and Higgs masses can induce sizable
cross sections in events of the type (\ref{proc}) would be wrong.
This is a sufficient condition for many channels, but not a necessary one.
For example, even for very large universal masses, one could
find a value of the soft trilinear coupling small enough to
overcome the loss of signal due to propagator and phase space effects.
In fact, as repeatedly shown in the previous Section, most of the
cross sections considered here grow quickly as $A_0$ becomes negative.
Fig.~\ref{fig:heavy} makes eloquently this point (top insert), for the choice
$A_0=-900$ GeV, well consistent with the bounds imposed by
the charge and colour breaking minima. There,
we have adopted a very large value for $M_0$, i.e., 500 GeV,
and varied $M_{1/2}$ between 100 and 500 GeV. The choice of a large
$\tan\beta$ value, i.e., 35, is necessary to obtain detectable rates,
except in those cases involving ${\tilde t}_1$ and $h$ in the same event.
In contrast, that of a negative $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$ never is.
The squark and Higgs masses produced by the above combinations of M-SUGRA
parameters can be found in the bottom frame of Fig.~\ref{fig:heavy}.
There are only a few production channels which survive
the strong phase space suppression arising in
the heavy mass regime and yield cross sections
above 1 fb. Among these, other than those already encountered
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_1^* h$,
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_2^* h$,
${\tilde b}_1{\tilde b}_1^* h$,
one notices the appearance of channels which had negligible rates
in the low mass regime, notably ${\tilde b}_1{\tilde b}_2^* h$
(compare to Fig.~\ref{fig:lighthiggs}). In this specific
instance, the effect is due to the enhancement induced by the onset of the
$\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 h$ decay mode in $gg\to
\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_2^*$ events. Even the other two combinations
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_1^* H$ and
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde b}_2^* H^-$, which had a rather low profile
in the light mass regime, now compete more closely with the dominant
modes. Finally, notice that pseudoscalar Higgs boson production is no longer
significant in this mass regime, in line with the results
presented in Ref.~\cite{short}.
In practise,
if $M_0=500$ GeV, events involving light CP-even Higgs bosons could be
detected up to $M_{1/2}=400$ GeV or so, in either mode
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_1^* h$ or
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_2^* h$. Final states of the type
${\tilde b}_1{\tilde b}_2^* h$ have surprisingly large rates
if $M_{1/2}$ is below 220 GeV. The maximum reach in $M_{1/2}$
via ${\tilde b}_1{\tilde b}_1^* h$,
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde b}_2^* H^-$ and
${\tilde t}_1{\tilde t}_1^* H$ is instead 220, 180 and 140 GeV,
respectively.
This is just one example where a new phenomenology of
squark-squark-Higgs events arises for rather
heavy $M_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ masses.
We have found several such combinations, and linked them to the fact that
$A_0$ ought to be significantly large and negative, $\tan\beta$ close
to $m_t/m_b$, but with small dependence on $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In summary, we have studied neutral and charged Higgs boson
production in association with all possible combinations of
stop and sbottom squarks at the LHC, in the
context of the SUGRA inspired MSSM. Our interest in such reactions
was driven not only by the fact that they can act as new
sources of Higgs particles but also because they carry
a strong dependence on the five inputs of the SUSY model, so that
they can possibly be used to constrain the latter. In a sense,
this note (along with Ref.~\cite{short}) completes previous analyses on
the subject \cite{djouadi,djouadi2,fawzi}, where
the emphasis was mainly put on the usefulness of the above kind of
reactions as Higgs production modes and the attention consequently
restricted to the case of light squark and Higgs masses.
We have found that the cross sections of many of these
processes should be detectable at high
collider luminosity for not too small values of $\tan\beta$. Indeed,
their production rates are strongly sensitive to the ratio of
the VEVs of the Higgs fields, this possibly
allowing one to put potent constraints
on such a crucial parameter of the MSSM Higgs sector.
Furthermore, also the trilinear
coupling $A_0$ intervenes in these events, in such a
way that visible rates would mainly be possible if this other fundamental
M-SUGRA input is negative. (Indeed, to know the actual value
of $\tan\beta$ from other sources would further help to assess the
magnitude of $A_0$.) As for the sign of the Higgsino mass term,
$\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$, it affects the phenomenology of such events in one
or two channels only, so that it can easily evades the imposition
of experimental bounds.
Finally, concerning the remaining two parameters (apart from mixing effects) of
the M-SUGRA scenario, one must say that $M_0$ need not be small
(it could be as large as 500 GeV) and that $M_{1/2}$ is enough
to be below 220 GeV in order to guarantee sizable cross sections in many
cases.
In a few representative examples, we have further
investigated the decay phenomenology of these
reactions, by discussing some possible signatures, their rates
(of the order of tens to hundreds of events per year at high luminosity) and
peculiar kinematics, as opposed to the yield of ordinary, non-SUSY
backgrounds.
In conclusion, we believe these processes to be potentially very helpful
in putting drastic limits on several M-SUGRA parameters and
we thus recommend that their phenomenology
is further investigated in the context of dedicated experimental simulations,
which were clearly beyond the scope of this note. In this spirit,
we have derived compact analytical formulae of the relevant production
MEs, that can easily be incorporated in existing MC programs.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
S.M. acknowledges the financial support from the UK PPARC and useful
conversations with Michael Kr\"amer.
A.D is supported from the Marie Curie Research Training Grant
ERB-FMBI-CT98-3438 and thanks Mike Seymour for useful discussions.
We both thank Herbi Dreiner for precious comments and The Old School
in Oxford for kind hospitality.
|
\section{Basics}
Consider $N({\bf p}) N(- {\bf p}) \rightarrow N ({\bf p}') N (-{\bf p}')$
scattering in the $^1S_0$ channel. Since the spins of the two nucleons are
combined anti-symmetrically Fermi statistics implies that this channel is $I =
1$ (similarly the $^3S_1$ and $^3D_1$ channels are $I = 0$). The energy $E =
p^2/M = p^{\prime 2}/M$ where $p^{(\prime)} = |{\bf p}^{(\prime)}|$ and the
scattering matrix, $S$, is related to the scattering amplitude ${\cal A}$ by $S
= 1 + i Mp {\cal A} /2\pi$. Since $S = e^{2i\delta}$, where $\delta$ is the
phase shift,
\begin{equation}\label{1}
{\cal A}^{(^1S_0)} = \frac{4\pi}{M} \frac{1}{p\cot \delta^{(^1S_0)} - ip},
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the nucleon mass. For $p< m_\pi/2$ the quantity $p\cot\delta$ can
be expanded in a power series in $p^2$
\begin{equation}\label{2}
p\cot\delta^{(^1S_0)} = - \frac{1}{a^{(^1S_0)}} + \frac{1}{2} r_0^{(^1S_0)} p^2
+ \ldots ,
\end{equation}
when $a$ is called the scattering length and $r_0$ is called the effective
range. The scattering length in the $^1S_0$ channel is very
large,~\cite{burcham}
$a^{(^1S_0)} \simeq - 23.7$ fm or $1/a^{(^1S_0)} \simeq - 8.3$ MeV. On the
other hand the nuclear potential is characterized by a momentum scale $\Lambda
\sim 200$ MeV. The smallness of $|1/a^{(^1S_0)}|$ compared with this scale is
the result of an accidental cancellation which causes a state in the spectrum
to be very near zero binding energy. ($a \rightarrow - \infty$ as a scattering
state approaches zero energy and $a \rightarrow \infty$ as a bound
state approaches zero binding energy.) Neglecting the small $^3S_1-
^3D_1$ mixing, formulas analogous to eqs.~(\ref{1}) and~(\ref{2}) hold in the
$^3S_1$ channel. The scattering length is also large in that
case,~\cite{burcham} $a^{(^3S_1)}
\simeq 5.4$ fm or $1/a^{(^3S_1)} \simeq 36$ MeV. The bound state in this
channel that is near zero binding energy is the deuteron.
\section{Expansions of ${\cal A}$}
The simplest expansion of ${\cal A}$ is a momentum expansion. This is
analogous to what is done in standard applications of effective field theory,
e.g., chiral perturbation theory for $\pi\pi$ scattering. For $NN$ scattering
in the $s =~ ^1\! S_0$ or $^3S_1$ channels,
\[
{\cal A}^{(s)} = \frac{4\pi}{M} \frac{1}{\left[- 1/a^{(s)} + \frac{1}{2}
r^{(s)}_0p^2 + \ldots - ip\right]}\]
\begin{equation}\label{3}
= - \frac{4\pi}{M} a^{(s)} \left\{1 - i a^{(s)} p + \left(\frac{a^{(s)}
r_0^{(s)}}{2} - a^{(s)^{2}}\right) p^2 + \ldots\right\}.
\end{equation}
If $a^{(s)}$ was its natural size (i.e., $a^{(s)} \sim 1/\Lambda$) this would
be the appropriate expansion to perform. However, in nature the $S$-wave $NN$
scattering lengths are very large and the expansion above is only valid in the
small region of momentum $p\lsim |1/a^{(s)}| \ll 1/\Lambda.$ Since the
underlying physics is set by $m_\pi$ and $\Lambda_{QCD}$ there should be an
expansion in $p/\Lambda$ that is valid even when $p \gg |1/a^{(s)}|$. It is
not difficult to deduce what this expansion is. In Eq.~(\ref{3}) keep
$-1/a^{(s)} - ip$ in the denominator and expand in the remaining terms.
This yields
\begin{equation}\label{4}
{\cal A}^{(s)} = - \frac{4\pi}{M} \frac{1}{(1/a^{(s)} + ip)} \left[1 +
\frac{r_0^{(s)} p^2/2}{(1/a^{(s)} + ip)} +\ldots\right].
\end{equation}
Now ${\cal A}^{(s)} = \sum_{n = - 1}^{\infty} {\cal A}_n^{(s)}$, where
${\cal A}_n^{(s)} \sim {\cal O} (p^n)$. This is the appropriate
expansion in the case where the scattering lengths are large. It has the
unusual property that the leading term is order $p^{-1}$.
\section{Effective Field Theory Without Pions}
The effective field theory with the pions integrated out contains only nucleon
fields, $N = \left({p\atop n}\right)$, and we expect that the lowest dimension
operators
will be the most important ones. The Lagrange density is written as,
${\cal L} = {\cal L}_1 + {\cal L}_2 + \ldots,$ where ${\cal L}_n$
contains $n$-body operators. The one and two body terms are:
\begin{equation}\label{5}
{\cal L}_1 = N^\dagger \left[i \partial_t + \frac{\vec \nabla^2}{2M}\right]
N + \ldots,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{6}
{\cal L}_2 = - \sum_s C_0^{(s)} (N^T P_i^{(s)} N)^\dagger (N^T P_i^{(s)} N)
+ \ldots .
\end{equation}
Here $s = ~^1S_0$ or $^3S_1$, the ellipses denote higher dimension operators
and $P_i^{(s)}$ are the spin-isospin projectors
\begin{equation}\label{7}
P_i^{(^1S_0)} = \left(\frac{\sigma_2 \tau_2 \tau_i}{\sqrt{8}}\right), P_i^{(^3
S_1)} = \left(\frac{\sigma_2 \sigma_i \tau_2}{\sqrt{8}}\right),
\end{equation}
where the Pauli matrices $\sigma_i$ act in spin space and the Pauli matrices
$\tau_i$ act in isospin space.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=diag0.eps,width=17.0cm}}
\caption[1]{The leading contribution to $NN$ scattering.}
\label{fig_C00}
\end{figure}
Neglecting higher dimension operators the scattering amplitudes in the $^1S_0$
and $^3 S_1$ channels come from the sum of bubble-type Feynman diagrams shown
in Fig. 1. Each bubble is linearly divergent in the ultraviolet so the
coefficients $C_0^{(s)}$ depend on the regulator and subtraction scheme
adopted. We use dimensional regularization and start with minimal subtraction
(we will switch to a different subtraction scheme momentarily). Since the
divergences are linear the Feynman diagrams have poles at $D = 3$ but not at $D
= 4$. In $MS$ (minimal subtraction) the coefficients of the operators
explicitly displayed in Eq.~(\ref{6}), are subtraction point independent and we
denote them by $\bar C_0^{(s)}$. In this scheme the sum of bubble-type Feynman
diagrams gives
\begin{equation}\label{8}
{\cal A}^{(s)} = - \frac{ \bar C_0^{(s)}}{1 + iMp \bar C_0^{(s)}/4\pi}.
\end{equation}
Comparing Eq.~(\ref{8}) with eqs.~(\ref{1}) and~(\ref{2}) it is evident that
this corresponds to keeping only the scattering length term in the expansion of
$p\cot \delta^{(s)}$, (i.e., the first term of Eq.~(\ref{4})) and that
\begin{equation}\label{9}
\bar C_0^{(s)} = \frac{4\pi a^{(s)}}{M}.
\end{equation}
So in this subtraction scheme the coefficients $\bar C_0^{(s)}$ are very large
and also very different in the two channels. However as $a^{(s)} \rightarrow
\infty, {\cal A}^{(s)} \rightarrow 4\pi i/Mp$ which is the same in both
channels.
This form for the scattering amplitudes is consistent with
Wigner spin-isospin $SU(4)$ symmetry, and also with scale invariance.
In MS when $p> 1/a^{(s)}$ the terms in the perturbative series for the
scattering amplitude get larger and larger. We would like to use a subtraction
scheme where the various Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1 are the same size as their
sum and where the symmetries that arise as $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty$ are
manifest at the level of the Lagrangian. Examples of such subtraction schemes
are~\cite{kaplan1} PDS where poles at $D=3$ are also subtracted and the $OS$
momentum space
subtraction scheme.~\cite{weinberg1,mehen1} In these schemes the
coefficients are subtraction
point dependent, $C_0^{(s)} = C_0^{(s)} (\mu)$, and the sum of bubble diagrams
gives
\begin{equation}\label{10}
{\cal A}^{(s)} = - \frac{C_0^{(s)} (\mu)}{1 + M (\mu + ip) C_0^{(s)}
(\mu)/4\pi}.
\end{equation}
This still corresponds to keeping just the scattering length, and is the
leading term in Eq.~(\ref{4}). But now
\begin{equation}\label{11}
C_0^{(s)} (\mu) = - \frac{4\pi}{M} \frac{1}{\mu - 1/a^{(s)}},
\end{equation}
which as $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty$ becomes $C_0^{(s)} (\mu) = - 4\pi/M\mu$.
In this limit, the coefficients are the same in both channels and with
$\mu \sim p$ each term in sum of bubble type Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1 is the
same size as the sum itself.
The operators with coefficients $C_0^{(s)}$ are nonrenormalizable dimension six
operators. Naively they are irrelevant operators and at low momentum can be
treated in perturbation theory. However as $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty$ the
coefficients $C_0^{(s)} (\mu)$ flow to a nontrivial fixed
point~\cite{kaplan1,weinberg1} where $\mu d
[\mu C_0^{(s)} (\mu)]/d\mu = 0$. For large $a^{(s)}$ the power counting is
controlled by this fixed point and the leading contribution to the $NN$
scattering amplitude comes from treating $C_0^{(s)}$ nonperturbatively. It is
straightforward to show that in PDS or OS the coefficients of $S$-wave
operators with $2n$ spatial derivatives scale as,~\cite{kaplan1}
\begin{equation}\label{12}
C_{2n}^{(s)} (\mu) \sim \frac{4\pi}{M\Lambda^n\mu^{n+1}},
\end{equation}
for $\mu \gg |1/a^{(s)}|$. With $\mu \sim p, C_{2n}^{(s)} (\mu) p^{2n} \sim
p^{n-1}$ and the two body operators with derivatives can be treated
perturbatively. In a non-relativistic theory a loop integration $\int d^4 q =
\int dq^0 d^3 q \sim {\cal O} (p^5)$ (since the $dq^0$ integration is of
order $p^2$ and the $d^3q$ is order $p^3$) and the nucleon propagator $i/(p^0 -
p^2/2M + i\epsilon) \sim {\cal O} (p^{-2})$. Consequently each loop gives a
factor $p$ plus whatever factors of $p$ are associated with the vertices. The
power counting~\cite{kaplan1,kolck} is now evident. The leading order $(LO)$
contribution
${\cal A}_{-1}^{(s)}$ comes from $C_0^{(s)}$ treated nonperturbatively, the
next to leading order $(NLO)$ contribution ${\cal A}_0^{(s)}$ comes from
$C_0^{(s)}$ treated nonperturbatively and $C_2^{(s)}$ inserted once, the
next-to-next to leading order $(N^2 LO)$ contribution comes from $C_0^{(s)}$
treated nonperturbatively, $C_2^{(s)}$ inserted twice or $C_4^{(s)}$ inserted
once, etc.
With the pions integrated out the effective field theory expansion applied to
$NN$ scattering reproduces Eq.~(\ref{4}) and has no more content than the
momentum expansion of $p\cot\delta^{(s)}$. However, even with the pions
integrated out one can couple photons or $W$ and $Z$ gauge bosons to the
nucleons. The relative importance of operators containing these fields depends
on their renormalization group scaling near the fixed point.
In the two nucleon sector predictions based on the effective field theory
without pions are similar to those made by effective range theory.~\cite{bethe}
However the
effective field theory approach has a number of advantages. Predictions based
on effective range theory are only valid to a given order in the $p/\Lambda$
expansion. In the effective field theory new two-body operators containing the
gauge fields arise which spoil the predictions of effective range theory. For
the thermal neutron capture cross section, $\sigma(n + p \rightarrow d +
\gamma)$, this occurs at $NLO$ while for the deuteron matter (charge) radius
$<r_m>$ this doesn't occur until $N^3LO$. This explains why the effective
range theory prediction for $\sigma(n + p \rightarrow d + \gamma)$ is off by
10\% while the effective range theory prediction for $<r_m>$ is accurate to
better than a percent.\cite{chen} For these static deuteron properties the
relevant
momentum in the $p/\Lambda$ expansion is set by the deuteron binding energy,
i.e., $p \sim 40$ MeV. Another useful aspect of the effective field theory
formalism is that it is straightforward to include relativistic corrections.
As $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty, {\cal L}_2 \rightarrow - (2\pi/M\mu)
(N^\dagger N)^2 + \ldots$, where the ellipses denote two body operators with
derivatives. In this limit the leading one and two body terms are invariant
under the following symmetries:~\cite{mehen2}
\begin{description}
\item{(i.)} Wigner Symmetry~\cite{wigner}\\
Under infinitesimal Wigner symmetry $SU(4)$ transformations
\begin{equation}\label{13}
\delta N = i \alpha_{\mu\nu} \sigma^\mu \tau^\nu N,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^\mu = (1,\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})$ and $\tau^\mu = (1,
\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$})$ with $\mu = 0,1,2,3$ and repeated indices summed.
The symmetry group corresponding to Eq.~(\ref{13}) is actually $SU(4)\times
U(1)$, with $\alpha_{00}$ the group parameter for the additional baryon-number
$U(1)$. Associated with this symmetry are the conserved charges,
\begin{equation}\label{14}
Q^{\mu\nu} = \int d^3 x N^\dagger \sigma^\mu\tau^\nu N.
\end{equation}
The two body terms with derivatives are not invariant under Wigner symmetry
even if $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty$. Hence in the two body sector the
violations of Wigner symmetry go as, $(1/[a^{(^1S_0)}p] - 1/[a^{(^3S_1)} p])$
and $p/\Lambda$. Wigner symmetry will not be a good approximation if the
momentum $p$ is too low or if it is too large.
Wigner symmetry is relevant for nuclei with many
nucleons.~\cite{group}
It is not difficult to see that the higher body terms with no derivatives are
automatically invariant under Wigner symmetry. Since these contact terms are
antisymmetric in the nucleon fields $N$ and in the hermitian conjugates
$N^\dagger$, contact terms without derivatives cannot occur for five body
operators and higher. The nucleons $N$ are in the ${\bf 4}$ of $SU(4)$ and the
$N^\dagger$'s are in the $\bar{\bf 4}$. Four nucleons combined anti-symmetrically
are an $SU(4)$ singlet and so the four-body terms are invariant under $SU(4)$.
The three body terms transform as $\bar{\bf 4} \otimes {\bf 4} = {\bf 1}
\otimes {\bf 15}$. However the operators in the ${\bf 15}$ are not invariant
under the total spin or isospin $SU(2)$ subgroups of $SU(4)$. Hence the
allowed three body terms are also invariant under $SU(4)$ Wigner symmetry.
A complete extension of the general fixed point power counting to the higher
body terms has not been made. However there has been considerable recent
progress.~\cite{kolck} This work indicates that the 3-body term with no
derivatives is
leading order (i.e., as important as effects coming from $C_0^{(s)}$).
\item{(ii.)} Scale Invariance\\
The leading one and two body terms are invariant under the scale transformation
$N(t,{\bf x}) \rightarrow N' (t,{\bf x})$ and $\mu \rightarrow \mu'$ where
\begin{equation}\label{15}
N' (t,{\bf x}) = \lambda^{-3/2} N (t/\lambda^2, {\bf x}/\lambda),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{16}
\mu' = \mu/\lambda.
\end{equation}
Note that Eq.~(\ref{15}) corresponds to $N'(t', {\bf x}') = \lambda^{-3/2} N(t,
{\bf x})$ with ${\bf x}' = \lambda {\bf x}$ and $t' = \lambda^2 t$. The
different scaling of space and time coordinates is dictated by invariance of
the leading one-body terms in the Lagrange density.
\end{description}
\section{Including Pions}
With pions included the power counting is taken to be in powers of
$Q/\Lambda_{NN}$ where $p\sim m_\pi \sim Q$. A subscript $NN$ has been put on
$\Lambda$ as a reminder that the expansion should work better if the pions are
included as explicit fields, i.e., we expect that $\Lambda_{NN} > \Lambda$.
Potential pion exchange arises from the term
\begin{equation}\label{17}
{\cal L}_{{\rm int}} = - \frac{g_A}{\sqrt{2} f_\pi} \nabla^i \pi^j N^\dagger
\sigma^i \tau^j N,
\end{equation}
where $g_A \simeq 1.25$ is the axial coupling and $f_\pi \simeq 131$ MeV is the
pion decay constant. Exchange of a potential pion between nucleons is order
$Q^0$ (the two factors of $Q$ from the vertices cancel the $1/Q^2$ from the
pion propagator). This is the same size as the two body contact terms with two
derivatives and consequently pion exchange
can be treated perturbatively. Including pion
exchanges without the two derivative two body contact terms is not a systematic
improvement and is no better (from a power counting perspective) than just
including the effects of $C_0^{(s)}$. Note that this power counting is very
different from the one originally proposed by
Weinberg~\cite{weinberg1,weinberg2} where the leading contribution came
from treating both potential pion
exchange and $C_0^{(s)}$ nonperturbatively. The effects of two
body terms with derivatives and insertions of the light quark mass
matrix were considered subdominant.
Weinberg's power counting treats the nucleon mass $M$ as large and
$MQ \sim {\cal O}(1)$. It assumes that factors of $M$ only arise
from the loop integrations. In a toy model where perturbative matching
between the full relativistic theory and the nonrelativistic effective
theory can be explicitly performed Luke and Manohar~ {\cite{luke}} found
that the two body local operators in the effective nonrelativistic theory
have coefficients that contain factors of M. This is the origin of the problem
with Weinberg's power counting.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=diag1.eps,height=3.0cm,rwidth=16cm}}
\caption[1]{Contribution to $^3S_1$ scattering from
three potential pion exchange. The dashed lines denote potential pion
exchange.}
\label{fig_ct0pi}
\end{figure}
In the $^3S_1$
channel the Feynman diagram shown in Fig. 2 with three potential pion
exchanges is logarithmically divergent. Neglecting the pion mass it gives a
contribution to ${\cal A}^{(^3S_1)}$ of order
\begin{equation}\label{18}
\left(\frac{4\pi}{M}\right) \left(\frac{Mg_A^2}{8\pi f_\pi^2}\right)^3 p^2 [\ln
\mu^2 + K],
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a constant. The $\mu$-dependence above is cancelled by the
$\mu$-dependence of $C_2^{(^3S_1)}$. There is no point to including this
Feynman diagram without including the effects of the two body $^3S_1$ operator
with 2-derivatives. Eq.~(\ref{18}) is an $N^3LO$ contribution. With the pions
included a single insertion of $C_2^{(s)}$ is not just $NLO$ it contributes at
higher levels at the $Q$ expansion as well. For that reason $C_2^{(s)}$ and
the other contact term coefficients are sometimes written as a sum $C_2^{(s)} =
\sum_{a = 1}^\infty C_{2,a}^{(s)}$ where $C_{2,1}^{(s)}$ gives the $NLO$
contribution, etc. When this is done predictions for physical quantities are
exactly $\mu$ independent, at each order in the $Q$ expansion. If $C_2^{(s)}$
is not expanded in this way then predictions at a given order on the $Q$
expansion have some subtraction point dependence, which is higher order in the
$Q$ expansion.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=diag2.eps,height=3.0cm,rwidth=16cm}}
\caption[1]{Contribution to $NN$ scattering that renormalizes $D_2^{(s)}$.}
\label{fig_ct1pi}
\end{figure}
There are two body $S$-wave contact terms with no derivatives but with an
insertion of the light quark mass matrix,
\begin{equation}\label{19}
m_q = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
m_u & 0\\
0 & m_d \end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
Since $m_\pi^2 \propto (m_u + m_d)$ an insertion of $m_q$ counts as two powers
of $Q$ and the coefficients of these operators $D_2^{(s)}$ scale with $\mu$ in
the same way as the coefficients $C_2^{(s)}$. At $NLO$ they must also be
included. The Feynman diagram in Fig. 3 is logaritmically divergent and it
gives a contribution to the $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ scattering amplitudes of order
\begin{equation}\label{20}
\left(\frac{4\pi}{M}\right) \left(\frac{g_A^2 M}{8\pi f_\pi^2}\right)
\left(\frac{C_0^{(s)} M}{4\pi}\right)^2 m_\pi^2 [\ln \mu^2 + K],
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a constant. The $\mu$ dependence here is cancelled by that of the
coefficients $D_2^{(s)}$. Including one pion exchange without the
effects of the two body terms with one insertion of the quark mass matrix does
not systematically improve the theoretical prediction for the $NN$ scattering
amplitude.
If a momentum cutoff regulator is used instead of dimensional regularization
then including pion exchange without the two body contact operators that have
an insertion of the quark mass matrix results in a cutoff dependent amplitude
${\cal A}^{(s)}$. It is possible in the $^1S_0$ channel to sum to all orders
potential pion exchange and when this is done the cutoff
dependence does not become subdominant~\cite{kaplan2}
(compared with the finite cut off
independent parts of pion exchange). The effects of local four
nucleon (i.e., two body) operators with an insertion of the quark mass matrix
cannot be viewed as less important than the effects of pion exchange.
The conventional explanation for the discrepancy between the
prediction of effective range theory for the thermal neutron capture cross
section $\sigma (n + p \rightarrow d + \gamma$) and its experimental value is
meson exchange currents,~\cite{riska} which roughly speaking are the
contribution of Feynman diagrams where the photon couples to a potential pion.
In the effective field theory approach with the pions included this discrepancy
is made up~\cite{savage} (at least partly) by the $NLO$ contribution which
involves both meson exchange current Feynman diagrams and the contribution of a
local two body operator involving the magnetic field.
\section{An Application of Wigner Symmetry}
Potential pions have $k^0 \sim {\bf k}^2/M$ while radiation pions have $k^0 \sim
\sqrt{{\bf k}^2 + m_\pi^2}$. The coupling of the radiation pions to the
nucleons is done by performing a multipole expansion on Eq.~(\ref{17}). At
leading order this
amounts to evaluating the pion field in Eq.~(\ref{17}) at the space time point
$(t,{\bf x}) = (t, {\bf 0})$. Hence, for radiation pions the term in the
action
corresponding to Eq.~(\ref{17}) is
\begin{equation}\label{21}
S_{int} = - \frac{g_A}{\sqrt{2} f} \int dt (\nabla^i \pi^j)|_{{\bf x} = 0}
Q^{ij},
\end{equation}
where $Q^{ij}$ are the charges of Wigner symmetry in Eq.~(\ref{14}). In the
limit $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty$ these charges are conserved and the
$Q^{ij}$'s are time independent. Hence, as $a^{(s)} \rightarrow \infty$ only
the $k^0 = 0$ mode of the pion couples in Eq.~(\ref{21}). This is incompatible
with the radiation pion condition, $k^0 \sim \sqrt{{\bf k}^2 + m_\pi^2}$.
Hence the leading contribution from radiation pions is suppressed by
$1/a^{(^1S_0)} - 1/a^{(^3S_1)}$. In a recent paper~\cite{mehen3} Mehen and
Stewart found
this suppression by an explicit calculation of the leading radiation pion
contribution to the $NN$ scattering amplitudes, ${\cal A}^{(s)}$. It
involved a cancellation between different Feynman diagrams.
\section{Outlook}
Effective field theory methods are a viable model independent approach to
the physics of the two nucleon sector. The power counting is slightly
unusual due to the large $S$-wave $NN$ scattering lengths.
This approach is useful up to a center of mass momentum around
$200~{\rm MeV}$, however, the expansion parameter at
such a momentum is probably not much
smaller than ${1 \over 2}$. It seems likely that for many quantities
calculations at $N^2LO$ will reach the same precision as conventional
potential model approaches, however, with such a large expansion parameter
there are likely to be some failures.
Extension of the effective field theory approach to the three nucleon sector
is underway. Several theoretical issues remain to be resolved before
there is a complete power counting, but recent progress in this area is
very encouraging.
The holy grail of this field is the application of these effective field theory
methods to nuclear matter. We are still a long way from having the theoretical
tools to tackle this problem and even with these tools the Fermi momentum
associated with nuclear density may be too large for a $Q$ expansion
to be useful. However, given the importance of understanding the
properties of nuclear matter continuing to develop
the effective field theory approach is very worthwhile.
This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant
number DE-FG03-92-ER 40701.
\section*{References}
|
\section*{Introduction and definition of the model}
The Edwards-Anderson Model for spin-glasses is one of the most
intensively studied models in the domain of disordered systems. It
combines a very simple formulation and rich behavior. However in its
standard form it does not possess a finite temperature transition in
dimension two \cite{bhatt1988}, so the study of finite temperature
spin glass phase transitions is restricted to three dimensions or
above. This is unfortunate as dimension two has many advantages,
including the facility for direct visualization.
The Random Field Ising Model (RFIM) proposed by Imry and Ma
\cite{imry1975} is also a very important model for disordered systems.
Unfortunately this model does not present a phase transition in two
dimensions \cite{imbrie1984}, implying that once more we have to go to
higher dimensions to study a phase transition.
These results seem to imply that no intrinsically two dimensional disordered system
present a finite transition temperature. This statement has been
questioned in recent years and some disordered systems have been
proposed for a finite temperature phase transition in two dimensions
\cite{shirakura1997,pasquini1997}.
We introduced \cite{lemke1996b} a model for Ising spins on a square
lattice where second neighbors are coupled ferromagnetically with an
interaction strength $J$, and where there is a random near neighbor
coupling of strength $\pm \lambda J$. The model is described by the
following Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
\label{def.eq}
{\cal H} =\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} - S_iJ S_j + \sum_{\{ i,j\} }
S_iJ_{ij}S_j \end{equation}
where $\langle i,j \rangle $ means a sum over second neighbors, $\{ i,j\}$
over first neighbors and $J_{ij}=\pm \lambda J$. We have decided to call this model the
Randomly Coupled Ferromagnet (RCF). We presented simulations
which indicated the presence of a phase transition at a finite temperature
$T_c$ near $2$ (in units of $J$) for $\lambda < 1$. Similar behavior were
also found on the analogous XY model \cite{jain1998}.
The conclusions we drew for the Ising version of this model were
contested in a paper by Parisi, Ruiz-Lorenzo, and Stariolo
\cite{parisi1998}. These authors carried out simulations to larger
sizes, up to $L=48$. They interpreted their data in terms of size
dependent crossovers at low temperatures, successively between
staggered ferromagnet, spin-glass like, and paramagnetic phases as
size $L$ increases. In \cite{parisi1998} a picture for the low
temperature phase was proposed implying that at large sizes the system
is equivalent to a standard two dimension spin-glass, having no true
finite temperature phase transition.
Here we give arguments leading to a different picture for the low
temperature phase. Simulations are presented which clearly indicate a
phase transition at a finite temperature for a wide range of
$\lambda$.
\section*{General Discussion of the model}
When $\lambda =0$ we simply have two independent sub-lattices $A$ and $B$
that order ferromagnetically and independently at the Onsager value of the
Curie temperature, $T_c=2.26\ldots$. Below this temperature each sub-lattice
has its overall magnetization either up or down; thus there are four
different degenerate ground states.
For finite values of $\lambda$, each sub-lattice will exert a random field
on the other, so we expect that for a large enough lattice the long range
ferromagnetic order in each sub-lattice will be destroyed, following the
Imry-Ma argument for the two dimensional RFIM
\cite{imry1975}. On each sub-lattice the system will be broken up into
several different locally ferromagnetic domains whose size will be roughly
given by
\begin{equation}
R_c\sim \exp\left[\frac{C}{\lambda^2} \right],
\end{equation} where $C$ is
a constant \cite{parisi1998,binder1983,seppala1998}.
However here in contrast to the RFIM the ``effective random fields'' are not
fixed once and for all but fluctuate in time as the spins in the other
sub-lattice relax. The crucial point is: are the domains ``stable'' in
time below some critical temperature? Alternatively, are they in perpetual
motion at all finite temperatures, so that after a sufficient time all
memory of an initial equilibrium spin configuration will be wiped out, even
in the thermodynamic limit? In reference \cite{parisi1998} it is proposed
that each of these domains can be regarded as a ``super-spin'' having finite
random interactions with its neighbors. So the system will behave as
ferromagnet for small scales and as a spin glass for larger scales. This
picture implies that in the thermodynamical limit the system will only
present a phase transition at $T=0$.
We argue that this picture is incorrect, since in fact the ``super-spins'' do
not behave as na\"{\i}vely expected. Let us first go to the RFIM limit. In
figure \ref{fixed.fig} we present the results of a simulation at $\lambda =
0.5$ where the spins on sub-lattice $A$ are all frozen up, and those on
sub-lattice $B$ can evolve following the Hamiltonian (\ref{def.eq}).
Sub-lattice $A$ is reduced basically to one super-spin, and the figure also
represents a snapshot of the $B$ sub-lattice configuration after a long
anneal at temperature $T=1.5$, together with the time dependence of the
auto correlation function after anneal, $q_B(t)$, at the same temperature
for the $B$ spins. $q_B(t)$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{q.eq}
q_B(t) =\lim_{t_w\to \infty}\sum_{i\in B} [ S_i(t_w)S_i(t_w+t) ]
\end{equation}
where $[ \ldots ]$ represent a configurational average. As we can see
$q_B(t)$ quite rapidly reaches an asymptotic value, which is about 0.85 at
this temperature. The system can be exactly described by the Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rf.eq}
{\cal H}(S_i=1 |\, i\in A) &=& \sum_{<i,j>} J S_i S_j +
\sum_{i,j}S_iJ_{ij}S_j \\ &=& \sum_{<i,j>} J S_i S_j + \sum_{i}h_i S_i
\end{eqnarray}
where $h_i$ is a random field. This is precisely the RFIM hamiltonian. The
Imbrie result \cite{imbrie1984} implies that for a infinite system $q_B(t)$
will tend to definite positive value for all temperatures.
\ifthenelse{\equal{condmat}{condmat}}{
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig1a.ps}}\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig1b.ps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ a) Snapshot of a sample where the spins on one of the sub-lattices
were frozen and the spins on the other sub-lattice evolved accordingly to
\ref{def.eq}. b) The time dependence of the time correlation function
$q(t)$ for the spins on the $B$ sub-lattice. We can see that the curve
relaxes to a non-zero value in accordance with the RFIM expectations.}
\label{fixed.fig}
\end{figure}
}
This result shows that the $B$ domains do not behave as spins in a
traditional spin-glass model, each spin points to a given preferential
direction for all temperatures, in total disagreement with the traditional
spin-glass model where the spin orientation is random at all temperatures
except at $T=0$.
Looking at the snapshot presented on figure \ref{fixed.fig} we can clearly
see that the domain size is much bigger than $\sim 7$, the value proposed
on reference \cite{parisi1998}. Sepp\"al\"a {\it et al} have made exact
zero temperature configuration calculations for the RFIM
\cite{seppala1998}. They define a ferromagnetic break up length scale
$L_b$. For $L=L_b$ the RFIM ground state has a probability of $0.5$ to be
purely ferromagnetic; for larger $L$ this probability decreases and the
ground state magnetization tends to zero. However up to a critical value of
the random field, $\Delta_c$, there will always be a percolating domain
(whose weight tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit). $\Delta$ is
defined as the root mean square random field in units of the ferromagnetic
interaction $J$. For our model with the $A$ sub-lattice frozen, $\Delta = 2
\lambda$. From the data presented in \cite{seppala1998}, we can estimate
that for $\lambda = 0.5, 0.7$ and 1.5 (the three cases we will discuss
below), $L_b \sim 45, 22$ and $5$. For total lattice size $L$ the
sub-lattice size is $L/\sqrt{2}$, so that for samples of size $L=64$ the
sub-lattices are close to, above, and well above $L_b$ respectively for
these three $\lambda$ values. $\Delta_c$ corresponds to $\lambda = 1$.
For the ground states of the present model with both sub-lattices free, the
value of $L_b$ may not be quite the same as for the pure RFIM. However for
the $\lambda=0.5$ data we will discuss below, we can expect many of the
exact ground states to have complete sub-lattice ferromagnetic ordering at
zero temperature, except for the largest sizes. At finite temperatures
however the spin configurations in thermodynamic equilibrium will have
domains that are large but smaller than the ground state domains.
Now turn to the full model with non-zero $\lambda$ where both sub-lattices
are free. For high enough temperatures the ferromagnetic domains on each
sub-lattice are unstable. At low temperatures the $A$ and $B$ sub-lattices
will conspire so that each induces random fields on the other such that the
total energy is minimized. We will show evidence below that for $\lambda$
up to about 1 there is a low temperature state with frozen large sub-lattice
ferromagnetic domains. For higher $\lambda$ the system appears to be
paramagnetic at all temperatures, like the standard 2d ISG.
\section*{Criteria for an ordering temperature}
There are a number of different criteria which have been used in numerical
work to determine the value of ordering temperatures in spin glasses and
other complex Ising systems.
Finite size scaling on the ``spin glass susceptibility'' is one of these. The
spin glass susceptibility is defined by \begin{equation}
\chi=L^d \langle q^2 \rangle
\end{equation}
where $ \langle q^2 \rangle $ represents the second moment of the
equilibrium autocorrelation function fluctuations and $\langle \ldots
\rangle$ represents both a configurational and thermal average. If
corrections to finite size scaling are negligible, the spin glass
susceptibility follows a scaling rule \cite{bhatt1988} \begin{equation}
\chi(L,T)=L^{d-2+\eta}\, \mbox{f}\,(L^{1/\nu} (T-T_g)), \end{equation}
meaning that precisely at $T_g$, $\log (\chi(L,T_g))$ plotted against
$\log(L)$ should give a straight line of slope $d-2+\eta$. At higher
temperatures $\chi (L)$ should saturate with increasing $L$ while at
temperatures below $T_g$ the log-log plot should curve upwards.
In fact this autocorrelation function susceptibility will show critical
behavior in general at a critical temperature, including cases like
ferromagnets which have standard order parameters. It is thus a parameter
which can be used to identify a transition without the need to specify the
exact nature of the transition.
A complementary finite size scaling method was introduced by Binder
\cite{binder1981}. The dimensionless Binder cumulant \begin{equation}
g_L =\frac{1}{2}\left[ 3- \frac{\langle q^4\rangle}{ \langle q^2\rangle^2}
\right]
\end{equation}
is a parameter characteristic of the shape of the distribution $P(q)$ of
the equilibrium autocorrelation function fluctuations for a given sample of
size $L$ and temperature $T$. For a system with a single characteristic
length scale, $g_L$ is size independent at the ordering temperature, and a
scaling rule applies: \begin{equation}
g_L(T-T_c)=g(L^{1/\nu} (T-T_c)).
\end{equation}
Plots of $g_L(T)$ for different sizes $L$ should all intersect at $T_g$.
This criterion has been widely used, particularly in the spin glass
context. In this model it is also useful to consider the magnetization
Binder parameter defined in the same way: \begin{equation}
g_{mL} =\frac{1}{2}\left[ 3- \frac{\langle m^4\rangle}{ \langle
m^2\rangle^2} \right].
\end{equation}
The time dependence of the autocorrelation function $q(t)$ provides a
further and fundamental criterion for an ordering temperature. In the
thermodynamic limit, for the paramagnetic state in zero external field,
$q(t)$ will always tend to zero at long $t$. As pointed out by Edwards and
Anderson \cite{edwards1975}, if $q(t)$ tends to a finite long time limit
the system can be considered to be ordered; the limiting value of $q(t)$ at
temperature $T$ is the Edwards-Anderson ordering parameter. For a
continuous phase transition, the time scale characteristic of the decay of
$q(t)$ will diverge as the critical temperature is approached from above.
This criterion was used to estimate $T_g$ accurately in the 3 dimension
Ising spin glass measurements of Ogielski \cite{ogielski1985}, who assumed
a standard finite ordering temperature scaling for the characteristic
relaxation time $\tau(T)$. The $T_g$ value defined in this way has been
confirmed later by independent finite size scaling methods.
Marinari et al \cite{marinari1994} found that for the 3d Ising spin glass
the temperature dependence of the spin glass susceptibility could be fitted
equally well by 3 parameter expressions corresponding either to finite
temperature or to zero temperature ordering. It appears that the
temperature dependence of the relaxation time is much more discriminating
than that of the temperature dependence of the susceptibility.
\section*{Simulation techniques and Data}
In order to answer the question of whether the freezing temperature is
finite or not, we have made further simulations for $\lambda=0.5, 0.7$ and
1.5. Wherever direct comparisons could be made, our data are in full
agreement with those of Parisi et al \cite{parisi1998}. Simulations were
carried out using sequential heat bath updating. Samples up to size $64^2$
were studied. Table \ref{samples.tab} present the maximum annealing time
and the number of different realizations for each size. The criterion used
to determine if thermal equilibrium had been attained was the saturation of
the two replica overlap as a function of anneal time \cite{bhatt1988}.
\ifthenelse{\equal{condmat}{condmat}}{
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | }
L & Samples & Anneal Time \\ \hline
4 & 10000 & 15000 \\
8 & 10000 & 15000 \\
16 & 1000 & 150000 \\
32 & 500 & 150000 \\
64 & 500 & 150000 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The anneal times and the number of different realizations for each
size studied.}
\label{samples.tab}
\end{table}
}
\subsection{Susceptibility}
For convenience we have followed Parisi et al who used a non-standard spin
glass susceptibility defined by
\begin{equation}
\chi_P =L^2\left[\langle q^2 \rangle - \langle |q^2 | \rangle \right]
\end{equation}
(c.f. the standard spin glass susceptibility defined above) In figure
\ref{xi.fig} we present the dependence of the susceptibility $\chi_P$ with
the size $L$ for different temperatures and for $\lambda=0.5$. The figure shows that the data
follow precisely the behavior to be expected for a system with an ordering
temperature lying somewhere between $2.1$ and $2.2$. For higher
temperatures the susceptibility saturates with increasing size; for lower
temperatures the $\log(\chi_P)$ against $\log(L)$ plot curves upwards. At
around $T=2.2$, $\log(\chi_P)$ increases linearly with $\log(L)$, which is
the signature of
critical behaviour. From the slope of the critical line, the exponent
$\eta$ can be estimated to be 1.2$\pm$0.1 .
\ifthenelse{\equal{condmat}{condmat}}{
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig2.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The dependence of the spin glass susceptibility with $L$ for
different temperatures. For $T\sim 2.2$ we have $\chi\sim L^\alpha$. }
\label{xi.fig}
\end{figure}
}
\subsection{Binder Cumulant}
In \cite{lemke1996b} the Binder cumulant crossing method for sample sizes
up to $L=12$ was used to estimate ordering. Parisi et al \cite{parisi1998}
showed that for larger sample sizes the crossing point of the Binder curves
$g_L(T)$ moved to lower temperatures and became badly defined. On the basis
of this observation they suggested that in fact for large sizes there is no
ordering temperature, and that the low temperature state is paramagnetic.
The Binder cumulant method can be delicate to use. This can be illustrated
by a trivial ``paradox'' in the present system. For any standard Ising
ferromagnet, $g_L(T)$ goes to $1$ at low temperatures. However in the
present system, if $\lambda$ is zero (so each of the two sub-lattices order
ferromagnetically), because of the four possible ground states $g_L(T)$
goes to $0.5$ at low temperatures, not to $1$. In the general case,
$g_L(T)$ curves going to small values or even to zero at low temperatures
for large systems is not the signature of a paramagnetic state, but rather
of the system having a large number of orthogonal ground states. The
classical Binder cumulant behavior with a well defined crossing point and
good scaling above and below the critical temperature will be observed for
systems with a single effective correlation length and a standard evolution
with size and temperature for the form of the distribution $P(q)$. Certain
non-standard systems with {\it bona fide} ordering transitions show very
unorthodox behavior for the Binder cumulants \cite{bernardi1999}.
Instead of concentrating attention on the details of the Binder cumulant
curves at the lowest temperatures, we can do trial scaling plots over the
whole temperature range for $\lambda=0.5$. For the scaling plots we can assume:
\begin{itemize}
\item that there is a critical temperature at about $T=2.1$ as
indicated by the susceptibility scaling, or \item that there is a zero
temperature critical point and an exponent
$\nu$ equal to the value obtained from scaling of the Binder cumulant for
data on the standard 2d ISG, i.e. $\nu=1.4\pm 0.2$ \cite{bhatt1988}.
\end{itemize}
The two scaling plots are shown in figure \ref{scale.fig}, while the raw
data is presented on figure \ref{gl.fig}. It can be seen immediately that
the first assumption leads to acceptable scaling, at least above the
assumed critical point. The zero temperature scaling is clearly incorrect.
We conclude that the finite critical temperature scaling is compatible with
the Binder cumulant data while the zero temperature scaling is not.
\ifthenelse{\equal{condmat}{condmat}}{
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig3a.ps}}\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig3b.ps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ In figure a) the scaling proposed by reference Parisi et al in
b) the scaling obtained by supposing $T_g=2.05$ and $\nu=1.4$. The data
for $L=48$ were obtained from Parisi {\it et al}.}
\label{scale.fig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig4.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The dependence of the Binder parameter with $L$ for different
temperatures.}
\label{gl.fig}
\end{figure}
}
The fact, underlined by Parisi et al, that the low temperature Binder
cumulant values do not increase regularly with increasing $L$ does not
indicate that the low temperature state is paramagnetic, but that the type
of order at low temperatures is evolving as $L$ increases. Direct
evaluation shows that for $L=4$ there are frequently just two ground
states, a purely ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic state and its mirror
image. This ``staggered ferromagnetism'' is what would be expected from the
discussion of the RFIM given above; the sub-lattice magnetizations are
essentially ferromagnetic and in any particular sample the random
interactions select a ferro or an anti-ferro coupling between sub-lattices.
In consequence for these small samples $g_L$ must tend to exactly $1$ at
zero temperature and will be close to 1 at higher temperatures. This
behavior will continue to hold until sizes are reached where $L$ is of the
order of the $L_b$ at the particular temperature studied. If for larger
samples there are many alternative more complex Gibbs states at that
temperature, $g_L(T)$ will become lower for larger $L$. This seems to be
the real situation, with temperature dependent crossover sizes.
The sub-lattice magnetism Binder cumulant tends to $\sim 1$ at temperature$T
\sim 1.5$ for samples up to size $L=8$, and then decreases regularly with
increasing sample size \cite{parisi1998} figure 4. This indicates that the
sub-lattices are ferromagnetic in the small samples, and in the larger
samples each sub-lattice is principally either up or down (not zero
magnetization as for large samples in the strict RFIM) but contain domains
of non majority spin, at least at finite temperatures. As $L$ increases the
average sub-lattice magnetization drops, but it would need very large $L$
for the sub-lattice magnetization distribution to take up a Gaussian form
centered on zero \cite{seppala1998}. This gradual evolution with sample
size, most clearly observed in the sub-lattice magnetization cumulant, is
certainly also the cause of the ``anomalous'' low temperature behaviour of
the sublattice $g_L$ cumulant and the global $g_L$ cumulant at low
temperatures (see figures 7 and 9 of reference \cite{parisi1998}). From the
discussion above, in these particular systems we can expect deviations from
asymptotic large scale behaviour until very large values of $L$, well
beyond the values used so far in the simulations.
Finally, it must be remembered that a Binder cumulant is not directly
sensitive to whether the spins are frozen or not.
\subsection{Relaxation}
We measured the autocorrelation function decay $q(t)$ after long
equilibration anneals at different temperatures for large samples, $L=64$.
This was done for $\lambda =0.5, 0.7$, and $1.5$; the results are presented
on figures \ref{qA.fig}, \ref{qB.fig} and \ref{qC.fig}. At each temperature
the form of the decay can be seen to be initially algebraic $q(t) \sim
t^{-x}$, with a cutoff function at longer times. For the first two values
of $\lambda$, as $T$ is reduced towards a temperature close to 2.1, the
relaxation becomes purely algebraic to long time scales, meaning that the
characteristic time defining the cutoff function is diverging. The
characteristic time for the decay can be defined either by $\tau_c$ or by
$\tau_{av}$ where \begin{eqnarray}
\tau_c &=& \int_0^\infty q(t), \\
\tau_{av} &=& \frac{\int_0^\infty tq(t)} {\int_0^\infty q(t)} \\ \end{eqnarray}
$\tau_c$ and $\tau_{av}$ were calculated for convenience by fitting the
$q(t)$ curves with an Ogielski function \cite{ogielski1985} :
\begin{equation}
q(t)=t^{-x}\exp\left[ -\left(\frac{t}{\tau}
\right)^\beta\right] .
\end{equation}
\ifthenelse{\equal{condmat}{condmat}}{
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig5.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The time dependence of the correlation function for $\lambda=0.5$ and different
temperatures. From bottom to top $T=$ 3.5, 3.0, 2.7, 2.6, 2.5, 2.4, 2.3, 2.2.}
\label{qA.fig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig6.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The time dependence of the correlation function for $\lambda=0.7$ and different
temperatures. From bottom to top $T=$ 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.3, 2.2, 2.0.}
\label{qB.fig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig7.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The time dependence of the correlation function for $\lambda=1.5$ and different
temperatures. From bottom to top $T=$ 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0.} \label{qC.fig}
\end{figure}
}
For $\lambda =0.5$, $\tau_c(T)$ and $\tau_{av}(T)$ diverge at a temperature
just below $T=2.1$, figure \ref{tau.fig}. The critical value of the
exponent $x$ at the temperature where $\tau(T)$ diverges is about 0.15. For
$\lambda =0.7$ the behaviour is very similar and the exponent is about
0.11. This means that for both these values of $\lambda$, below a critical
temperature and in the thermodynamic limit the system is frozen to
indefinitely long times with a finite Edwards Anderson parameter, and so it
is ordered (in the Edwards Anderson sense). We can note that the behaviour
is very similar for these two values of $\lambda$, although from the
discussion above we can expect the latter to have a break up length $L_b$ half as
large as in the former.For $\lambda = 0.5$ the zero temperature $L_b$ estimated above is
about equal to the sublattice size (which we can take equal to $L/\sqrt(2)$)
while for $\lambda =0.7$ $L_b$ is significantly smaller than the lattice
size. This criterion does not appear to play a major role at the temperature
where the relaxation time is diverging.
\ifthenelse{\equal{condmat}{condmat}}{
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 600 800, scale=0.3, angle= 270]{fig8.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The temperature dependence of $\tau_c$ with
temperature for $\lambda$ =0.5, 0.7, 1.5. The figure shows clearly that
$\tau_c$ is diverging for $\lambda$ =0.5 and 0.7, and grows slowly for
$\lambda$ =1.5. }
\label{tau.fig}
\end{figure}
}
The behaviour for $\lambda=1.5$ is quite different; the temperature
variation of the relaxation time is very much slower, figure \ref{qC.fig}
and \ref{tau.fig}. In this case the form of $\tau (T)$ can be compared with
that seen in the standard 2d ISG case, where $\tau(T)$ is seen to diverge
only as zero temperature is approached, following an Arrhenius like law
\cite{mcmillan1983}. The $q(t)$ measurements are clearly discriminatory and
can distinguish systems with finite freezing temperatures from ones with
zero temperature (or at least very low temperature) ordering.
The susceptibility scaling, Binder cumulant scaling, and autocorrelation
relaxation data thus give conclusive and consistent evidence for freezing
at a temperature near 2.1 for $\lambda=0.5$. The relaxation data indicate a
slightly lower freezing temperature for $\lambda =0.7$, and a much lower
temperature freezing compatible with $T_g=0$ for $\lambda= 1.5$. The
estimated freezing temperatures are very similar to those suggested
originally in \cite{lemke1996b}. There seems to be no evidence for an
onset of paramagnetic behaviour at low temperatures with increasing size.
We conclude that the low temperature state is frozen for $\lambda$ values
up to about 1. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the critical value of
$\lambda$ appears to correspond to the critical RFIM $\Delta_c$ as defined
above.
Can the present system be described as a spin glass ? We can attempt to
give a coherent description of the low temperature frozen state in the
light of the different types of data. As we have seen, for small sizes the
ordering can indeed be described in terms of ``staggered ferromagnetism''.
For the larger sizes covered in this work and in \cite{parisi1998}, the low
temperature sublattice magnetism Binder cumulant decreases regularly with
increasing $L$, but is still as high as 0.8 at $L=48$ and $T=1.5$.
(\cite{parisi1998} figure 4). This indicates that in equilibrium at this
temperature, each sublattice is split up into fairly big ferromagnetic
domains with magnetization of both signs, but for each particular replica,
one sign of magnetization is preponderant for each sublattice. However
within each sublattice there are large minority domains. We have found that
if a large sample is cooled a number of different times to a temperature
below the critical temperature estimated above, the quasi-stationary
pattern of domains observed is far from identical each time (in contrast to
what is always seen in the standard RFIM). We can extrapolate, and surmise
that for very large $L$ there would be no magnetization bias for a
sublattice, and there would then be for the entire system a very large
number of possible Gibbs states below the ordering temperature, nearly
orthogonal to each other in phase space. The whole system can be understood
as freezing at low temperatures because once domains of a maximal size are
formed, the domain walls are pinned by the effect of the random
interactions. The low temperature state would then ressemble a spin glass
in that there are many Gibbs states, but the local spin structure is
entirely different because of the strong local ferromagnetic correlations
within each sublattice.
\section*{Conclusions}
We have investigated in more detail the ferromagnetic plus random
interaction system described by equation (\ref{def.eq}). To summarize:
data on autocorrelation function or ``spin glass'' susceptibility, Binder
cumulant, and autocorrelation function relaxation, all consistently
indicate a critical temperature for freezing of $T_c \sim 2.1$ for $\lambda
=0.5$. Relaxation data indicate a slightly lower freezing temperature for
$\lambda =0.7$, and are compatible with a zero temperature freezing for
$\lambda =1.5$. Therefore in the range of $\lambda$ up to about 1, this
two dimensional RCF system with interactions which are partly random has
a finite freezing temperature. There is no evidence for a return to
paramagnetic behaviour (with faster relaxation for instance) with
increasing size. Independent defect free energy data confirm our
conclusions \cite{shirakura1998}. The finite freezing temperature result is not
in contradiction with the general consensus that for standard 2D spin glass
model the ordering temperatures are either zero or at least very low. The
picture for the transition suggested above implies that the transition
mechanism for this system is radically different from that of the standard
spin glass. We have no reason to expect that this system can be mapped onto
a standard Ising spin-glass, even though this system shares many properties
with the traditional model: frustration, complex phase space landscape etc.
Because of the ferromagnetic short range ordering within each sublattice,
the term ``cluster glass'' would probably be more appropriate than ``spin
glass''.
Many interesting questions remain; in particular it will be very important
to describe accurately the nature of the low temperature phase, and to
obtain explicity information about the domain size distribution, and the
domain geometry characteristics in large samples and at low temperatures.
It should be possible to apply sophisticated methods to establish ground
state characteristics.
Finally we believe
this model should be a very useful laboratory to test theoretical issues
concerning disordered systems, since in this case we have a freezing
transition in a two-dimensional system, where theoretical analysis, exact
ground state methods, simulations, and visualization techniques are easier
to apply than in higher dimensions. Further progress would however require
the study of much larger samples.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank T. Shirakura for showing us his unpublished
data. N. L. would like to thank the kind hospitality of the Laboratoire de Physique des Solides during the
preparation of this manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{prsty}
|
\section{Introduction}
Suppose we are given a symplectic manifold $(P,\omega)$ and a compact
Lie group $G$ acting freely and symplectically on $P$ with
$\mbox{Ad}^*$-equivariant momentum mapping $J:P\rightarrow\mathfrak
g^*$. Let the Lie algebra of $G$ be $\mathfrak g$ and
$H:P\rightarrow\mathbb R$ be a $G$-invariant Hamiltonian. Let us fix
our attention on a specific relative equilibrium~$p_e$, with
generator~$\xi_e$, so that the integral curve of the Hamiltonian
vector field $X_H$ at $p_e$ is $\exp({\xi_e} t)p_e$. Let~$J(p_e)={\mu_e}$,
let $G_{\mu_e}$ be the isotropy group of ${\mu_e}$ under the coadjoint
action of $G$ on $\mathfrak g^*$, and let $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ be the
Lie algebra of $G_{\mu_e}$. For more information on these basic
definitions, see, for
example,~\ct{AbrahamRMarsdenJE-1978.1},~\ct{MarsdenJE-1992.1},
or~\ct{MarsdenJE-1994.1}.
Suppose that $G=SO(3)$, although the results of this article are much
more general than that. Since the action is free, a neighborhood of
the group orbit $Gp_e$ may be (with respect to the left action)
equivariantly projected to $SO(3)$ itself. Let us realize $SO(3)$ as
the unit circle bundle of the 2-sphere in $\mathbb R^3$, arranging
that the orbit $\exp(\xi t)p_e$ be projected to the the unit circle in
the tangent space of the vertical vector $\mathbf k$. The system, when
at the relative equilibrium $p_e$, and when viewed through this
projection, appears merely as a point, say $\mathcal P$, rotating
uniformly on the unit circle in the tangent space of $S^2$ at
$\mathbf k$, and the other relative equilibria $gp_e$, $g\in SO(3)$,
appear as this same motion but reoriented by the rotation $g$.
Suppose $p_e$ is formally stable, and suppose the system is then
perturbed from the relative equilibrium $p_e$. If $\mu_e\ne 0$ then
the motion of the system is bound to remain near $\exp(\xi_e\mathbb
R)p_e$, as shown in~\ct{PatrickGW-1992.1} (extensions to the nonfree
case may be found in~\ct{OrtegaJPRatiuTS-1997.1}
and~\ct{LermanESingerSF-1997.1}). The perturbation affects the motion
of the point $\mathcal P$ by superimposing on its original motion some
small vibration; however the motion of $\mathcal P$ does not ever
carry that point far from its original circular path.
The situation is different when ${\mu_e}=0$, for then $G_{{\mu_e}}=SO(3)$,
and under perturbation the system is bound only to remain near $Gp_e$.
The effect is that, after a perturbation from $p_e$, the point
$\mathcal P$ still moves nearly circularly in tangent spaces of $S^2$,
but the base point of the tangent space slowly changes location on
$S^2$. In fact, as shown in~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1}, the base point
$\mathcal B$ moves as a point charge under the influence of a radial
magnetic monopole. This result is obtained by constructing
coordinates which make an open neighborhood of $Gp_e$ in $P$ into an
open neighborhood of $Z\bigl(T^*SO(3)\bigr)\times \{\bar p_e\}$ in
$T^*SO(3)\times P_{\mu_e}$, where $P_{\mu_e}=J^{-1}({\mu_e})/G_{{\mu_e}}$ is
the symplectic reduced space, $\bar p_e\in P_{\mu_e}$ is the
equilibrium of the reduced space corresponding to $p_e$, and
$Z\bigl(T^*SO(3)\bigr)$ is the zero section of $T^*SO$. In the new
coordinates, to first order in the momentum perturbation, the ``group
variables'' in $T^*SO(3)$ and the ``reduced variables'' in $P_{\mu_e}$
become decoupled; truncating the higher order interaction terms gives
a new Hamiltonian system on $T^*SO(3)\times P_{\mu_e}$ called the
\defemph{drift system}. The drift system has an additional $S^1$
\defemph{normal form symmetry}. The Hamiltonian system for the slow
motion of the base point $\mathcal B$ is obtained from the drift
system by ignoring the variables on $P_{\mu_e}$ and reducing the
resulting Hamiltonian on $T^*SO(3)$ by the normal form symmetry. The
approximating, truncated Hamiltonian of the drift system may be
obtained merely by calculating the nilpotent part of the linearization
of the vector field $X_{H_{\xi_e}}(p)\equiv X_H(p)-\xi_ep$ at $p_e$,
where $\xi p\equiv (\xi)_P(p)$ denotes the infinitesimal generator of
$\xi_e$ at $p_e$.
Actually, the results in~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1} depend on a
nonresonance condition that the frequency $|\xi_e|$ cannot equal any
linearized frequency of the reduced system at $\bar p_e$. This
article considers the problem of constructing a Hamiltonian system for
the motion of the base point $\mathcal B$ in the case where there is
such a \defemph{1:1 group-reduced resonance}. The main result of this
article is that, in the presence of resonance, some of the reduced and
group variables couple to first order in the momentum perturbation,
with the result that $\mathcal B$ moves as a charged
particle~\emph{with magnetic moment} on a sphere under the influence
of a radial magnetic monopole. However, this ``particle'' regularly
exchanges its charge with its magnetic moment.
The construction of the Hamiltonian system which models the motion of
$\mathcal B$ in the 1:1 resonant case generalizes and parallels the
nonresonant case. In the course of the construction the linearization
of $X_{H_{\xi_e}}$ at $p_e$ is put into a certain block normal form
through a Witt or Moncreif decomposition of the tangent space
$T_{p_e}P$. The objective of this normal form is the separation of
the group and reduced motions and it is not the full normal form of
the linearization as a infinitesimal symplectic operator. The linear
normal form is then extended to a neighborhood of the group orbit
$Gp_e$ using the the isotropic embedding/equivariant Darboux theorem.
These normal forms---for linearizations of relative equilibria and for
Hamiltonian systems near group orbits of relative equilibria---are the
second main contribution of this article. In~\ct{PatrickGWRobertsRM-1999.1}
these normal forms have been used to study the structure of the set of
relative equilibria.
A new aspect that is absent in the nonresonant case but emerges in the
resonant case is the appearance of a~\defemph{gauge group}. There is
too much freedom inherent in the normal forms to exactly fit the needs
of first order agreement between the original and drift systems. This
slack is taken up by the group $(\mathbb R,+)$ and presents itself as
an inherent freedom in the choice of the normal
forms. This~\emph{gauge freedom} can be used to simplify the drift
system, a motif which is quite useful in this work.
The Hamiltonian system modeling the motion of $\mathcal B$ is
approximate since it is the result of a truncation, so there arises
the question of how well this model Hamiltonian reflects the behavior
of the real one. To check this I have numerically simulated the
system of two (identical) axially symmetric rods which are joined by a
frictionless ball-and-socket joint, but otherwise move
freely~(\ctt{PatrickGW-1989.1}{PatrickGW-1991.1}). The relative
equilibria of this system correspond to motions such that the two rods
spin on their axes while otherwise maintaining constant mutual
orientations, while the whole assemblage rotates about some fixed
axis. There exist, due to the system's multiple rotating parts,
relative equilibria which are formally stable and which have zero
(hence nongeneric) total-angular-momentum. In fact there is a
continuum of relative equilibria with zero total-angular-momentum, and
it happens that parameters may be chosen so that there are relative
equilibria at zero total-angular-momentum and at the 1:1 group-reduced
resonance. The third main contribution of this article is the actual
calculation of the drift system for the coupled rod system near one
such relative equilibria, and the verification of the drift
approximation by comparison of simulations of the coupled rod system
itself and certain predictions of its drift system.
Here is an overview of this work. I begin in Section~2.1 with an
analysis of the linearization~$dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ of $X_{H_{\xi_e}}$ at
$p_e$, by splitting the linearization into semisimple and nilpotent
parts: $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)= S_{p_e}+ N_{p_e}$. The key tool in the
analysis is a certain Moncrief or Witt decomposition of~$T_{p_e}P$:
\begin{equation*}
T_{p_e} P\congW_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus(\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}\oplus
\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*)\oplus T_{\mu_e}(G{\mu_e}).
\end{equation*}
Whereas this decomposition is obtained in~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1} for
the nonresonant case with the aid of the generalized eigenspaces of
$dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$, and so was $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$-invariant, here the
decomposition is only $S_{p_e}$-invariant. Using this decomposition,
the nilpotent part~$ N_{p_e}$ acquires a block form which gives rise
to certain operators:
\begin{equation*}
N_{p_e}^{23}:\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*\rightarrow\mathfrak g_{\mu_e},\quad
N_{p_e}^{21}:T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}\rightarrow\mathfrak g_{\mu_e},
\quad N_{p_e}^{13}:\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*\rightarrow T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}.
\end{equation*}
In the nonresonant case $N_{p_e}^{21}=0$ and $N_{p_e}^{13}=0$
necessarily. I expose, in Section~2.2, the special properties of
these operators, the most notable of which are that $N_{p_e}^{23}$ is
symmetric, $N_{p_e}^{13}$ and $N_{p_e}^{21}$ are dual, and that
these operators have certain commutation relations with operators
$\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ and $\onm{coad}_{\xi_e}$.
Next, in Section~3, I focus on the case where the reduced and group
spectra have intersection $\{\pm i\lambda_{p_e}\}$, a purely imaginary
eigenvalue and its conjugate, each of which occur with multiplicity~1
in both the reduced and group spectrum. The generalized eigenspace of
the reduced linearization corresponding to $\{\pm i\lambda_{p_e}\}$ is
symplectic and has dimension~2, and so is linearly symplectomorphic to
$\bigl(\mathbb R^2=\{x_1,x_2\},dx_1\wedge dx_2\bigr)$, and the
operator $N_{p_e}^{21}$ is zero on the sum of the complimentary
generalized eigenspaces. Consequently, the splitting of $T_{p_e}P$
refines and the operator $N_{p_e}^{21}$ may be replaced by another
operator $N_{p_e}^{211}:\mathbb R^2\rightarrow\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$. After
this simplification, the splitting of $T_{p_e}P$ and the isotropic
embedding theorem~(\ct{MarsdenJE-1981.1},\ct{WeinsteinA-1997.1})
together give a map which transforms the Hamiltonian $H$, to first
order near $G_{\mu_e} p_e$, to the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation*}
H_{\mathrm{drift}}(x,\alpha_g)\equiv\langle g^{-1}\alpha_g,\xi_e\rangle+
\frac12N_{p_e}^{23}(\alpha_g,\alpha_g)+
\langle g^{-1}\alpha_g, N_{p_e}^{211}x\rangle
\end{equation*}
near $\{0\}\times Z(T^*G_{\mu_e})$ in the phase space $\mathbb R^2\times
T^*G_{\mu_e}$, where $ Z(T^*G_{\mu_e})$ denotes the zero section. In
addition to the expected invariance under the left action of $G_{\mu_e}$,
$H_{\mathrm{drift}}$ is invariant under a diagonal action of the toral subgroup
generated by $\xi_e$; this is the normal form symmetry.
In Section~4 I further assume that $G$ is the largest compact
continuous symmetry group for an ordinary mechanical system, namely
$SO(3)\times(S^1)^n$. After various manipulations, including an
Abelian reduction, the drift Hamiltonian becomes
\begin{equation*}
H_{\mathrm{drift}}\equiv\frac12I_1\bigl({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2\bigr)+\frac12I_2{\pi_3}^2+
\kappa(\pi_1x_1+\pi_2x_2)+a\pi_3
\end{equation*}
on the phase space $\mathbb R^2\times
T^*SO(3)=\{(x,A,\pi)\}$. Here $I_1$ and $I_2$ come from
$N_{p_e}^{23}$, $\kappa$, a single coupling constant, is all that
remains of $N_{p_e}^{211}$, $a$ is a constant, and there are two
possibilities: the relative equilibrium can be either a ``+'' type or
a ``$-$'' type. In this context the gauge freedom has the effect of
making $I_1$ arbitrary and interest is focused on the dynamics near to
$x=0$, $\pi=0$. The Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{drift}}$ is defined on a phase space
of dimension~$8$ and has symmetry $SO(3)\times S^1$, and so defines a
system which is completely integrable. Although a complete analysis
in the general case seems difficult, I analyze this system in
Section~4.1, where I show that the system has, for example, some
singular reduced phase spaces and spectrally unstable relative
equilibria with homoclinic connections. It is in Section~4.2 that I
show that the drift system reduced by the normal form symmetry can be
cast as a charged particle with magnetic moment moving on the sphere
while under the influence of a magnetic monopole.
Finally, in Section~5, I numerically investigate the dynamics of the
coupled rod system near one particular resonant relative equilibrium
and compare this dynamics with that of the drift system. I explore
three distinct regions of phase space: 1) within zero
total-angular-momentum, 2) near a stable relative equilibria of the
drift system, and 3) near a spectrally unstable relative equilibrium
at a singularity of the drift system. The comparison of the two
systems is hampered by the implicit nature of the coordinates relating
them, but in the first two comparisons agreement between the two
systems is obtained uneventfully. However, the singular points of
the third comparison involve an unexpected \emph{reconstuction phase
jump}; the situation is delicate and small perturbations are required
to elicit quantitative agreement between the two systems. Nevertheless
it becomes clear that many elements of the dynamics of the coupled rod
system near the resonant relative equilibrium are indeed captured by
the drift system.
\section{The linearization}
Here are the basic notations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$p_e$ is a relative equilibrium, $\xi_e$ is the generator of $p_e$,
and the momentum of $p_e$ is ${\mu_e}\equiv J(p_e)$.
\item
$G_{\mu_e}$ is the isotropy group of ${\mu_e}$ under the coadjoint action
of $G$ on $\mathfrak g^*$, and $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ is the Lie algebra
of $G_{\mu_e}$. $\onm{CoAd_g}\equiv(\onm{Ad}_{g^{-1}})^*$, $g\in G$, and
$\onm{coad}_\xi\equiv-(\onm{ad}_\xi)^*$, $\xi\in\mathfrak g$.
\item
$H_{\xi_e}\equiv H-J_{\xi_e}$, so that $H_{\xi_e}$ has a critical
point at $p_e$. The Hessian of ${H_{\xi_e}}$ at $p_e$ will be denoted by
$d^2{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ and the linearization of $X_{H_{\xi_e}}$ at $p_e$ will be
denoted $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$.
\item
Without loss of generality, since everything is local near to $p_e$ and
$p_e$ is regular,
the Marsden-Weinstein symplectic reduced space $(P_{\mu_e},\omega_{\mu_e})$
exists; let $\pi_{\mu_e}:J^{-1}({\mu_e})\rightarrow P_{\mu_e}$ be the
projection. The reduced system has this phase space with Hamiltonian
$H_{\mu_e}$ defined by $H_{\mu_e}\pi_{\mu_e}=H|J^{-1}({\mu_e})$. Also,
$\bar p_e\equiv\pi_{\mu_e}(p_e)$, and the linearization of the reduced
system at $\bar p_e$ is denoted by $dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)$. Suppose that
$p_e$ is regular, which means $\xi p_e\neq0$ for all $\xi\in\mathfrak
g$.
\item The \defemph{reduced spectrum} is the spectrum of the
linearization $dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)$ at $\bar p_e$ of the reduced
system. The \defemph{group spectrum} is the the spectrum of
$\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}:\mathfrak g\rightarrow\mathfrak g$).
\end{enumerate}
Let $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)= N_{p_e}+ S_{p_e}$ be the Jordan decomposition of
$dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ into its semisimple part $S_{p_e}$ and nilpotent part
$ N_{p_e}$. The aim of this section is an analysis of $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$,
focusing on its nilpotent part $N_{p_e}$. \emph{Do not} assume that
the reduced spectrum and the group spectrum are disjoint.
\subsection{The splitting of $T_{p_e}P$}
I begin by deriving a ``Moncreif''
splitting~(\ct{MarsdenJE-1981.1}) of $T_{p_e}P$ which is
slightly weaker than its analogue in~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1}, in that the
``reduced'' part (below $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$) of the splitting is not (and cannot,
in general) be constructed to be $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ invariant. The
details are similar to those in~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1}; I will not
belabor them here. The subspace $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$ is
$S_{p_e}$-invariant, so one can choose an $S_{p_e}$-invariant subspace
$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ such that
\begin{equation*}\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e.
\end{equation*}
The subspace $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is symplectic, and
$T\pi_{\mu_e}|W_{\!\mathrm{red}}:W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\rightarrow T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}$ is a linear
symplectomorphism. Choose an $\onm{Ad}$-invariant complement
$\mathfrak b$ to $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$, so that
\begin{equation*}
\mathfrak g=\mathfrak b\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}.
\end{equation*}
The subspace $\mathfrak bp_e$ is symplectic, and $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}\subseteq(W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus\mathfrak bp_e)^{\omega\perp}$ as an
$S_{p_e}$-invariant \emph{Lagrangian} subspace. Choose an
$S_{p_e}$-invariant Lagrangian complement\footnote{Since $S_{p_e}$ is
semisimple, every $S_{p_e}$-invariant Lagrangian subspace has an
$S_{p_e}$-invariant Lagrangian complement. This is a general fact;
the proof is a simple modification of the argument found at the bottom
of page~401 of~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1}.} $Z$ to $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ in
$(W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus\mathfrak bp_e)^{\omega\perp}$, giving the
$S_{p_e}$-invariant splitting
\begin{equation}\lb{1}
T_{p_e}P=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e\oplus Z\oplus\mathfrak bp_e.
\end{equation}
As already stated, $T\pi_{\mu_e}$ is a symplectomorphism between $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$
and $T_{p_e}P_{\mu_e}$. Also, $dJ(p_e)$ is a linear isomorphism between
$Z$ and $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*$, and a symplectomorphism between
$\mathfrak b p_e$ and the tangent space $T_{\mu_e}(G{\mu_e})$ at ${\mu_e}$ to
the coadjoint orbit $G{\mu_e}$. Thus~\rf{1} becomes, through these
identifications, the $ S_{p_e}$-invariant splitting,
\begin{equation}\lb{2}
T_{p_e}P=T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}\oplus \mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*
\oplus T_{\mu_e}(G{\mu_e}).
\end{equation}
With respect to the decomposition~\rf{2}, let $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$,
$S_{p_e}$, and $N_{p_e}$ have blocks $[A^{ij}]$, $[S^{ij}]$, and
$[N_{p_e}^{ij}]$, respectively; the block form of $\omega(p_e)$ becomes
\begin{equation}\lb{3}
\omega(p_e)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\omega_{\mu_e}(\bar p_e)&0&0&0\\
0&0&\Id&0\\
0&-\Id&0&0\\
0&0&0&\breve\omega_{\mu_e}({\mu_e})
\end{array}\right],\end{equation}
where $\omega_{\mu_e}$ is the reduced symplectic form of $P_{\mu_e}$ and
$\breve\omega_{\mu_e}$ is the Kostant-Souriau form on $G{\mu_e}$.
In~\rf{1}, the subspaces $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e$, $\mathfrak b p_e$,
and $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e$ are
$dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$-invariant, and hence are $N_{p_e}$-invariant, and this
implies certain of the $A^{ij}$ and $N_{p_e}^{ij}$ vanish.
Using the identities (Proposition~5 of~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1})
\begin{gather*}
X_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)=-\onm{coad}_{\xi_e}dJ(p_e)\\
dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)\eta(p_e)=-(\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}\eta)_P(p_e),\quad\eta\in
\frak g
\end{gather*}
to calculate the diagonal blocks of $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$, the Jordan
decomposition becomes
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)&=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)&0&A^{13}&0\\
\rule{0pt}{11pt}A^{21}&-\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}&A^{23}&0\\
0&0&\onm{ad}^*_{\xi_e}&0\\
0&0&0&\onm{ad}^*_{\xi_e}
\end{array}\right]\\
&=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
S^{11}&0&0&0\\
0&S^{22}&0&0\\
0&0&S^{33}&0\\
0&0&0&S^{44}
\end{array}\right]
+{\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
N_{p_e}^{11}&0&N_{p_e}^{13}&0\\
N_{p_e}^{21}&N_{p_e}^{22}&N_{p_e}^{23}&0\\
0&0&N_{p_e}^{33}&0\\
0&0&0&N_{p_e}^{44}
\end{array}\right]}.
\end{split}\end{equation*}
Since $S_{p_e}$ and $N_{p_e}$ commute, so do $S^{11}$ and $N_{p_e}^{11}$,
and $S^{11}$ is semisimple and $N_{p_e}^{11}$ is nilpotent since $S_{p_e}$
and $N_{p_e}$ are. Thus, $dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)=S^{11}+N_{p_e}^{11}$ is the
Jordan decomposition of of the reduced linearization $dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar
p_e)$, which is semisimple, since $p_e$ is formally
stable. Consequently, $S^{11}=dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)$ and $N_{p_e}^{11}=0$.
Similarly, $N_{p_e}^{22}=N_{p_e}^{33}=N_{p_e}^{44}=0$, and
\begin{equation*}
S^{22}=-\onm{ad}_{\xi_e},\quad S^{33}=\onm{ad}^*_{\xi_e},
\quad S^{44}=\onm{ad}^*_{\xi_e}.\end{equation*}
Thus,
\begin{equation}\lb{4}
S_{p_e}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)&0&0&0\\
\rule{0pt}{11pt}0&-\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}&0&0\\
0&0&(\onm{ad}_{\xi_e})^*&0\\
0&0&0&(\onm{ad}_{\xi_e})^*
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\lb{5}
N_{p_e}={\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.15}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&N_{p_e}^{13}&0\\
N_{p_e}^{21}&0&N_{p_e}^{23}&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0
\end{array}\right]}.
\end{equation}
As will be seen immediately below, a large amount of information can
be discerned from structure of $N_{p_e}$ and $S_{p_e}$
visible in~\rf{4} and~\rf{5}.
\subsection{Properties of $N_{p_e}$ and its subblocks}
Directly from~\rf{5}, $( N_{p_e})^3=0$ so that $N_{p_e}$ has nilpotent
order at most~3. This upper bound on the nilpotent order occurs
because $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ is semisimple when suitably restricted and
projected to the summands of~\rf{1}, so that $N_{p_e}$ must
``transport'' between those summands. Moreover, the ``direction'' of
this transport is ``one way'', since $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$ and $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e} p_e$ are invariant subspaces, and the ``transport'' stops at
$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e$, on which $ N_{p_e}$ is zero:
\begin{gather}
\onm{Image} N_{p_e}\subseteq \onm{ker}dJ(p_e),\lb{6}\\
N_{p_e}\bigl(\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)\bigr)\subseteq\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e,\nonumber\\
N_{p_e}|\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e = 0.\lb{8}
\end{gather}
When iteratively acted upon by $N_{p_e}$, a vector can make
just~2~stops before annihilation: $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$ and $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e} p_e$; hence the nilpotent order of $N_{p_e}$ is a most~3.
By~\rf{8},
\begin{equation*}
\onm{ker}T_{p_e}\pi_{\mu_e}=\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e\subseteq\onm{ker} \bigl(
N_{p_e}|\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)\bigr),
\end{equation*}
so $N_{p_e}^{21}:T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}\rightarrow\mathfrak g$ is the
unique linear map such that
\begin{equation}\lb{24}\begin{diagram}
\node{\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)}\arrow{e,t}{N_{p_e}}\arrow{s,l}{T_{p_e}\!\pi_{\mu_e}}
\node{\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e}\arrow{e,t}{\xi p_e\mapsto\xi}
\node{\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}}\\
\node{T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}}\arrow{ene,b}{N_{p_e}^{21}}
\end{diagram}\end{equation}
Since this diagram does not depend on choices made in the construction
of the splitting~\rf{1}, neither does $N^{21}$. Also, $N_{p_e}^{21}$
may be calculated merely by reference to the diagram; it is not
necessary to calculate all summands of~\rf{1}. Similarly, by~\rf{6},
and since, by~\rf{5},
\begin{equation*}\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)\subseteq\onm{ker}(T\pi_{\mu_e} N_{p_e}),
\end{equation*}
$N_{p_e}^{13}:\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*\rightarrow
T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}$ is the unique linear map such that
\begin{equation*}\begin{diagram}
\node{T_{p_e}P}\arrow{e,t}{dJ(p_e)}\arrow{s,l}{N_{p_e}}
\node{\frak g^*}\arrow{e}\node{\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*}
\arrow[2]{sw,b}{N_{p_e}^{13}}\\
\node{\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)}\arrow{s,l}{T_{p_e}\!\pi_{\mu_e}}\\
\node{T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}}
\end{diagram}\end{equation*}
Since $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ is infinitesimally symplectic, so is $N_{p_e}$,
so that
\begin{equation}\lb{9}( N_{p_e})^t\omega(p_e)+\omega(p_e)N_{p_e}=0,
\end{equation}
and inserting ~\rf{3} and~\rf{5} into~\rf{9} gives
\begin{equation}\lb{10}N_{p_e}^{21}=-(N_{p_e}^{13})^*\omega_{\mu_e}^\flat,
\qquad(N_{p_e}^{23})^*=N_{p_e}^{23},
\end{equation}
so $N_{p_e}^{23}$ is symmetric, and in a certain sense, $N_{p_e}^{13}$
and $N_{p_e}^{21}$ are dual. Similarly, using~\rf{4} and~\rf{5} to
write out what it means for $S_{p_e}$ and~$ N_{p_e}$ to commute,
\begin{gather}
\lb{14}dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)N_{p_e}^{13}=-N_{p_e}^{13}
\onm{coad_{\xi_e}},\\
\lb{15}N_{p_e}^{21}dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)=-\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}N_{p_e}^{21},\\
\lb{16}\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}N_{p_e}^{23}=N_{p_e}^{23}\onm{coad}_{\xi_e}.
\end{gather}
These properties will yield the important \emph{normal form symmetry}
of the drift system.
Temporarily let $\onm{pr}_2$ be the projection onto the second factor
of~$\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\oplus \mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\onm{ker}\bigl(dJ(p_e)|(W_{\!\mathrm{red}}+\mathfrak bp_e)^{\omega\perp}\bigr)
=\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e\subseteq\onm{ker}\bigl(\onm{pr}_2N_{p_e}|
(W_{\!\mathrm{red}}+\mathfrak bp_e)^{\omega\perp}\bigr),
\end{equation*}
so $N_{p_e}^{23}:\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}\times\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}\rightarrow\mathbb R$ is the unique bilinear from such that
\begin{equation}\lb{17}\begin{diagram}
\node{(W_{\!\mathrm{red}}+\mathfrak bp_e)^{\omega\perp}}\arrow{e,t}{dJ(p_e)}
\arrow{s,l}{N_{p_e}}
\node{\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*}\arrow{ssw,b}{(N_{p_e}^{23})^\flat}\\
\node{\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)}\arrow{s,l}{\onm{pr}_2}\\
\node{\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}}
\end{diagram}\end{equation}
Thus, $N^{23}$ may be calculated
without calculating the Lagrangian complement $Z$ of~\rf{1}.
However, $N_{p_e}^{23}$ \emph{does} depend on the particular choice or
$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$, even if $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is an $S_{p_e}$-invariant complement of
$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e$ in $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$. To see this dependence,
choose a linear map $A:W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\rightarrow \mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$, which
commutes with $S_{p_e}$, and then choose a new $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ where
\begin{equation}\lb{12}
W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^{\,\prime}=\bset{w+(Aw)p_e}{w\inW_{\!\mathrm{red}}}.
\end{equation}
Also, choose a map $B:\mathfrak b\rightarrow\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ which
intertwines the adjoint action and then choose a new $\mathfrak
b^\prime$ by
\begin{equation}\lb{11}
\mathfrak b^\prime=\bset{\eta+B\eta}{\eta\in\mathfrak b}.
\end{equation}
Given $\nu\in\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*$, the process of calculating
$({N_{p_e}^{23}}^\prime)^\flat\nu$, given by the analog of~\rf{17} for
the new choices, is
\begin{enumerate}
\item
pick $z^\prime\in (W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^{\,\prime}+\mathfrak b^\prime
p_e)^{\omega\perp}$ such that $dJ(p_e)z^\prime=\nu$;
\item calculate $N_{p_e}z^\prime$;
\item
project $N_{p_e}z^\prime$ to $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e\equiv\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}$ using the splitting of $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$ defined by
$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^{\,\prime}$, with result $({N_{p_e}^{23}}^\prime)^\flat\nu$.
\end{enumerate}
It is straightforward from~\rf{3},~\rf{12}, and~\rf{11}, that
\begin{equation*}
(W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^{\,\prime}+\mathfrak b^\prime p_e)^{\omega\perp}
=\bset{\omega_{\mu_e}^\sharp A^*\mu\oplus\xi\oplus\mu\oplus\breve\omega_{\mu_e}
^\sharp B^*\mu}{\xi\in\mathfrak g_{\mu_e},\mu\in\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*},
\end{equation*}
so given $\nu\in\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*$, let
\begin{equation*}
z^\prime=\omega_{\mu_e}^\sharp A^*\nu\oplus0\oplus\nu\oplus\breve
\omega_{\mu_e}^\sharp B^*\nu.\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
N_{p_e} z^\prime&=
N_{p_e}^{13}\nu\oplus(N_{p_e}^{21}\omega_{\mu_e}^\sharp A^*\nu
+(N_{p_e}^{23})^\flat\nu)\oplus0\oplus0\\
&=N_{p_e}^{13}\nu\oplus AN_{p_e}^{13}\nu\oplus0\oplus0\\
&\qquad\mbox{}+0\oplus(N_{p_e}^{21}\omega_{\mu_e}^\sharp A^*\nu
-AN_{p_e}^{13}\nu+(N_{p_e}^{23})^\flat\nu)\oplus0\oplus0,
\end{split}\end{equation*}
which by~\rf{12} is the appropriate decomposition of
$N_{p_e}z^\prime$. Thus, using~\rf{10},
\begin{equation}\lb{13}\begin{split}
({N_{p_e}^{23}}^\prime)^\flat\nu&=
N_{p_e}^{21}\omega_{\mu_e}^\sharp A^*\nu
-AN_{p_e}^{13}\nu+(N_{p_e}^{23})^\flat\nu\\
&=-\bigl((N_{p_e}^{13})^*A^*+AN_{p_e}^{13}\bigr)\nu
+(N_{p_e}^{23})^\flat\nu.
\end{split}\end{equation}
This freedom to adjust $N_{p_e}^{23}$ by adjusting $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ will give
the important \emph{gauge freedom} of the drift
system.
This gauge freedom can be encoded as a group, as follows. Temporarily
set $\mathbb E_{p_e}=T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}\times\frak g_{\mu_e}\times\frak
g_{\mu_e}^*\times T_{\mu_e} G_{\mu_e}$, and fix one particular splitting of
type~\rf{1}, giving a symplectomorphism, say
$\phi_0:T_{p_e}P\rightarrow\mathbb E_{p_e}$. Given
$A:W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\rightarrow\frak g_{\mu_e}$ and $B:\frak b\rightarrow\frak
g_{\mu_e}$ as above, there is another symplectomorphism
$\phi_{A,B}:T_{p_e}P\rightarrow\mathbb E_{p_e}$, and hence a unique
$\Delta_{A,B}$ in the symplectic group $Sp(\mathbb E_{p_e})$ such that
\begin{equation*}\begin{diagram}
\node[2]{T_{p_e}P}\arrow{sw,l}{\phi_0}\arrow{se,t}{\phi_{A,B}}\\
\node{\mathbb E_{p_e}}\arrow[2]{e,b}{\Delta_{A,B}}\node[2]{\mathbb E_{p_e}}
\end{diagram}\end{equation*}
Conversely, $A$ is determined by $\Delta_{A,B}$, since if $x\in
T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}$, $\xi\in\frak g_{\mu_e}$, and $w\inW_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is such
that $\phi_0(w)=x$, then
\begin{multline*}
\Delta_{A,b}(x)=\phi_{A,B}(w)
=\phi_{A,B}\bigl(w+(Aw)p_e-(Aw)p_e\bigr)\\=
T\pi_{\mu_e}\bigl(w+(Aw)p_e\bigr)\oplus(-Aw)
=x\oplus(-Aw).
\end{multline*}
Similarly $B$ is determined by $\Delta_{A,B}$, so the pairs $(A,B)$
have a natural group structure given by the injection
$(A,B)\mapsto\phi_{A,B}$, and a simple calculation gives
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{A+A^\prime,B+B^\prime}=\phi_{A,B}\circ\phi_{A^\prime,B^\prime}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, at this level, the \emph{gauge group} is the additive Abelian
group of pairs $(A,B)$ such that $A$ commutes with $S_{p_e}$ and $B$
commutes with $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$.
\section{The simplest resonant case}
All the above has been established without any particular presumption
on the way that the group and reduced spectra intersect. There are
some apriori features of the spectra: the spectra are purely imaginary
(or zero) and are invariant under change of sign. Since $p_e$ is
presumed to be formally stable, zero cannot occur in the reduced
spectrum, and hence not in the intersection of the spectra. Thus, the
following \defemph{resonance condition} is the simplest possible case
beyond an empty intersection:
\begin{equation*}\parbox{.8\displaywidth}{
\em The intersection of the spectrum of $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ and the
spectrum of $dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)$ is $\{\pm i\lambda_{p_e}\}$,
$\lambda_{p_e}>0$, and each of the eigenvalues $\pm i\lambda_{p_e}$
occur in each of these operators with multiplicity one.}
\end{equation*}
While many of the results below remain true or have analogues in a
more relaxed environment, for simplicity, this resonance condition
will be assumed for the remainder of this article.
\subsection{The linearization}
Given the resonance assumption, it is natural to consider certain
spectral splittings of the factors $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ and~$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$
in~\rf{2}. In particular, let $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$ be the generalized eigenspace
of $\pm i\lambda_{p_e}$ for $dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)$, and $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0$ be
the sum of the other generalized eigenspaces, so that $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$ is two
dimensional, symplectic, and there is the symplectic splitting
\begin{equation}\lb{101}
T_{\bar p_e}P_{\mu_e}=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\oplusW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1.
\end{equation}
Similarly, let $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$ be the generalized eigenspace of $\pm
i\lambda_{p_e}$ for the linear map $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$, and $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}^0$ be the sum of the other generalized eigenspaces, so $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}^1$ is two dimensional, and
\begin{equation}\lb{102}
\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}=\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^0\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1.
\end{equation}
Of course, there is also then the dual
splitting $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*=\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{0*}\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{1*}$.
So we have a refinement of the splitting~\rf{2} into
``nonresonant'' (with superscript~0) and ``resonant'' (superscript~1,
dimension~2) parts:
\begin{align}
T_{p_e}P&=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\oplusW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}\oplus
\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*\oplus T_{\mu_e}(G{\mu_e})\lb{27}\\
&=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\oplusW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^0\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1\oplus
\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{0*}\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{1*}\oplus T_{\mu_e}(G{\mu_e}).\nonumber
\end{align}
As one might expect, $N_{p_e}^{13}$ and $N_{p_e}^{21}$
localize to the resonant parts:
\begin{alignat}{2}
&W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\subseteq\onm{ker}N_{p_e}^{21},&
\qquad &\onm{Image}N_{p_e}^{21}\subseteq\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1,\lb{19}\\
&\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^0\subseteq\onm{ker}N_{p_e}^{13},&\qquad&\onm{Image}
N_{p_e}^{13}\subseteqW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1.\lb{20}
\end{alignat}
Indeed, to show the first of~\rf{19}, it suffices to find a subspace,
say ${W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\;$ of $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$ such that
\begin{equation}\lb{21}
T_{p_e}\pi_{\mu_e}{W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\;=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\quad\mbox{and}\quad
N_{p_e}|{W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\; = 0.
\end{equation}
The result then follows by using ${W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\;$ to
reverse the vertical arrow of~\rf{24}. The first of~\rf{21} can be
assured by setting ${W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\;$ to be the sum of the
of nonresonant (i.e. not $\pm i\lambda_{p_e}$) generalized
eigenspaces of $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$, and the second of~\rf{21} follows
since ${W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\;$ is $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$-invariant and
that $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)|{W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0}^{\!\!\!\prime}\;$ is semisimple. For
the second of~\rf{19}, $N_{p_e}$ maps the $\pm i\lambda_{p_e}$
generalized eigenspace of $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ to itself, since
$dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ does that. Thus the image of $N_{p_e}$ is
contained in the intersection of that generalized eigenspace with
$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e$, which is exactly $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1 p_e$.
From~\rf{19} one gets~\rf{20} by using the duality~\rf{10} between
$N_{p_e}^{21}$ and~$N_{p_e}^{13}$.
With respect to~\rf{27}, and in view of~\rf{5},~\rf{19}
and~\rf{20}, the linear map $N_{p_e}$ has the form
\begin{equation*}
N_{p_e}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&N_{p_e}^{131}&0\\
0&N_{p_e}^{211}&0&N_{p_e}^{23}&0\\
0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0\end{array}\right]
\end{equation*}
where $N_{p_e}^{211}\equiv N_{p_e}^{21}|W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$ and where
$N_{p_e}^{131}$ is $N_{p_e}^{13}$ regarded as a map into $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$.
Let the quadratic Hamiltonian for
the infinitesimally linear map
$ N_{p_e}$ be $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$. With respect to~\rf{27}, the array for $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ is
\begin{multline*}
\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&N_{p_e}^{131}&0\\
0&N_{p_e}^{211}&0&N_{p_e}^{23}&0\\
0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0\end{array}\right]^*
\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
\omega_{\mu_e}^0(\bar p_e)&0&0&0&0\\
0&\omega_{\mu_e}^1(\bar p_e) &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&\Id&0\\
0&0&-\Id&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&\breve\omega_{\mu_e}(p_e)
\end{array}\right]\\
=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&(N_{p_e}^{211})^*&0\\
0&0&0&0&0\\
0&(N_{p_e}^{131})^*\omega_{\mu_e}^1(\bar p_e)&0&N_{p_e}^{23}&0\\
0&0&0&0&0\end{array}\right],\qquad\qquad
\end{multline*}
where $\omega_{\mu_e}^i(\bar p_e)$ denotes the symplectic form on
$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^i$, $i=1,2$. Using~\rf{16}, and the fact that the projections
from the splitting $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*=\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{0*}\oplus\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}^{1*}$ are certain polynomials in $\onm{coad}_{\xi_e}$, the bilinear
form $N_{p_e}^{23}$ block diagonalizes over that splitting. Denote
the blocks by $N_{p_e}^{230}$ and $N_{p_e}^{231}$. Then, using the
variables
\begin{equation*}
(x,\mu)=(x,\mu^0,\mu^1)\inW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\times\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\times\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{0*}\times\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{1*},
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{equation}\lb{33}\begin{split}
H_{\mathrm{nil}}&=\frac12N_{p_e}^{23}(\mu,\mu)+
\langle\mu,N_{p_e}^{211}x\rangle\\
&=\frac12N_{p_e}^{230}(\mu^0,\mu^0)+\frac12N_{p_e}^{231}(\mu^1,\mu^1)
+\langle\mu^1,N_{p_e}^{211}x\rangle.
\end{split}\end{equation}
I now construct the normal form symmetry for $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$. Let $T_{\xi_e}$ be
the closure of $\exp(\mathbb R\xi_e)$, so $T_{\xi_e}$ is Abelian, is
generically a maximal torus of $G_{\mu_e}$, and $T_{\xi_e}$ naturally acts
on both $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ and $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*$, with invariant
subspaces $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^i$ and $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^{i*}$, $i=1,2$.
By~\rf{16}, $N_{p_e}^{23}$ is $T_{\xi_e}$-invariant, and so~\rf{33} is
invariant under $T_{\xi_e}$ restricted to the $\mu^0$ variables alone.
After this, it is the last two terms of~\rf{33} that will dictate its
further symmetries. Now $S^1$ also acts\footnote{Define
$\theta^\wedge=\theta\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&-1\\1&0\end{array}\right)$
so that $S^1=SO(2)$ and $\exp$ is the usual matrix exponential.} on
$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$ by
\begin{equation*}
\exp(\theta^\wedge)\eta\equiv\exp\left(\frac\theta{\lambda_{p_e}}{\xi_e}
\right)\eta,\quad\theta\in\mathbb R,
\end{equation*}
which is merely a renormalization of the action of $T_{\xi_e}$ on
$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$, and by duality there is a corresponding action
of $S^1$ on $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*$. Also there is the following
symplectic action of $S^1$ on $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$:
\begin{equation}\lb{107}
\exp(\theta^\wedge) x\equiv\exp\left(\frac\theta{\lambda_{p_e}}
dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)\right)x,\quad\theta\in\mathbb R.
\end{equation}
By~\rf{14} and~\rf{15}, $N_{p_e}^{131}$ and $N_{p_e}^{211}$
reverse-intertwine the two $S^1$ actions, so that
\begin{equation*}
\langle{\exp(\theta^\wedge)}^{-1}\mu^1, N_{p_e}^{211}\exp(\theta^\wedge)
x\rangle =\langle{\exp(\theta^\wedge)}^{-1}\mu^1,
{\exp(\theta^\wedge)}^{-1} N_{p_e}^{211}x\rangle=\langle\mu^1,x\rangle.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, the \defemph{normal form symmetry} will be
$T_{\xi_e}\times S^1$ where the first factor acts on the $\mu^0$
variables via the coadjoint action and the second factor acts by
\begin{equation*}
a\cdot(x,\mu^1)\equiv(a^{-1}x,a\mu),\quad a=\exp(\theta^\wedge).
\end{equation*}
The normal form symmetry restricts the quadratic Hamiltonian~$H_{\mathrm{nil}}$,
as follows. There is a basis of the linear space
$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1=\{(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb R^2\}$ so that the symplectic
form is $dx^1\wedge dx^2$ and the $S^1$ action on $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$ is either
$\bigl(\exp(\theta^\wedge),x\bigr)\mapsto \exp(\theta^\wedge)x$ or
$\bigl(\exp(\theta^\wedge),x\bigr)\mapsto \exp(-\theta^\wedge)x$ (i.e.
counterclockwise or clockwise rotation). Using the
$\onm{Ad}$-invariant metric of $\mathfrak g$, choose a orthonormal
basis for the space $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$, so that $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}^1=\{(\pi_1,\pi_2)\in\mathbb R^2\}$ and the $S^1$
action on $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$ is a rotation in the opposite sense as
the $S^1$ action on $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$. The map $N_{p_e}^{211}$ is highly
restricted: since it reverse-intertwines these two reverse $S^1$
actions, there is a $\kappa$ such that
\begin{equation}
N_{p_e}^{211}=\kappa\left[\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&1\end{array}\right]
\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad
N_{p_e}^{211}=\kappa\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&-1\\1&0\end{array}\right].
\lb{40}
\end{equation}
Equation~\rf{40} defines $\kappa$, so that the map $N^{211}$ has the
effect of giving rise to this single ``coupling constant'' and one of
the two possible choices in~\rf{40}. Without loss of generality,
by the symplectic isomorphisms
$(x_1,x_2)\mapsto(-x_1,-x_2)$ and
$(x_1,x_2)\mapsto(-x_2,x_1)$
on $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$ ,
$\kappa\ge0$
and the second choice in~\rf{40} may be discarded, respectively.
Then, since $N^{23}_{p_e}$ is
$S^1$-symmetric, a constant $I_1$ may be obtained from $N_{p_e}^{231}$
such that
\begin{equation}\lb{100}
H_{\mathrm{nil}}=
\frac12N_{p_e}^{230}(\mu^0,\mu^0)
+\frac12I_1({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2)
+\kappa(\pi_1x_1+\pi_2x_2).
\end{equation}
According to the above conventions, $N^{211}$ reverse intertwines
reverse-sense $S^1$ actions on the $(x_1,x_2)$ variables and the
$(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ variables, and the second action has the same sense as
the action of $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$. Consequently, {\em there are two
distinct possibilities:} the $S^1$ action on the $(x_1,x_2)$ variables
can be counterclockwise or clockwise. To avoid unnecessary signs that
would otherwise appear later, I will redefine the $S^1$ actions in the
following way: if the $S^1$ action on the $(x_1,x_2)$ variables is
clockwise then reverse it, and both actions are then counterclockwise
and the $S^1$ action on the $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ variables is in the same
sense as the action of $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$. If on the other hand the $S^1$
action on the $(x_1,x_2)$ variables is counterclockwise then the
action of the $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ variables is clockwise, and is to be
reversed, so that it has the opposite sense to the action of
$\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$. Thus, by these conventions, both actions are
counterclockwise, $N^{211}$ is intertwining, and the distinctness of
the two cases appears as one of two possibilities: the $S^1$ action on
the $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ variables might be in the same sense as the action
of $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ (I call this the ``$+$'' case, and it occurs when
the original action on the $(x_1,x_2)$ variables is clockwise) or the
opposite sense as the action of $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ (the ``$-$'' case,
occurring when the original action on the $(x_1,x_2)$ variables is
counterclockwise). Although it may appear that same-sense vs.
opposite-sense with respect to $\onm{ad_{\xi_e}}$ holds some
significance, similar to, for example, the difference between a $1:1$
and $1:-1$ resonance as in~\ctt{KummerM-1976.1}{KummerM-1978.1}, this
is not so: changing the the symplectic form $dx_1\wedge dx_2$ to
$dx_2\wedge dx_1$ will exchange my ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' cases. These
two cases are qualitatively identical and the subsequent theory is
ambidextrous with respect to them.
Now I will determine the effect on~\rf{100} of choosing various
subspaces $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$, or equivalently, various operators~$A$ commuting
with $S_{p_e}$ in~\rf{12}. With respect to the
decompositions~\rf{101} and~\rf{102} let $A$ have the block form
\begin{equation*}
A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A^{11}&A^{12}\\A^{21}&A^{22}\end{array}\right].
\end{equation*}
To determine which $A$ commute with $S_{p_e}$, note that $S_{p_e}$ has
a block diagonal form on $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\oplusW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\oplus\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}^0\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$ since~\rf{101} and~\rf{102} are
generalized eigenspace decompositions for $S_{p_e}$; let the blocks be
$S^{110}$, $S^{111}$, $S^{220}$, and $S^{221}$, so $AS=SA$ becomes
\begin{equation}\lb{105}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}A^{11}&A^{12}\\A^{21}&A^{22}\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}S^{110}&0\\0&S^{111}\end{array}\right]=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}S^{220}&0\\0&S^{221}\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}A^{11}&A^{12}\\A^{21}&A^{22}\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
When multiplied, the top left blocks of~\rf{105} give
$A^{11}S^{110}=S^{220}A^{11}$, which is possible only if $A^{11}$ is
zero, since $S^{110}$ and $S^{220}$ have no common spectrum, and
similarly $A^{12}=0$ and $A^{21}=0$. However, $S^{111}$ and $S^{221}$
both have spectrum $\{\pm\lambda_e\}$, so one cannot conclude
$A^{22}=0$, but only that $A^{22}S^{111}=S^{221}A^{22}$. Since
$S^{111}$ is exactly the linearization~$dX_{H_{\mu_e}}(\bar p_e)$
restricted to $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$, which by~\rf{107} defined the $S^1$ action on
$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1$, which is counterclockwise or clockwise, we have
\begin{equation*}
S^{111}=\pm\sqrt{\lambda_e}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&1\\-1&0
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation*}
Since $S^{221}$ is $-\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ on $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$, and
$\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ generates the $S^1$ action of opposite sense to
that generated by $S^{111}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
S^{221}=\pm\sqrt{\lambda_e}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&1\\-1&0
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation*}
By letting
\begin{equation*}
A^{22}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a^{11}&a^{12}\\a^{21}&a^{22}
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation*}
$A^{22}S^{111}=S^{221}A^{22}$ becomes $a^{12}=-a^{21}$ and
$a^{11}=a^{22}$. By~\rf{40} and the duality~\rf{10},
\begin{equation*}
N_{p_e}^{13}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&0\\0&
\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&\kappa\\-\kappa&0\end{array}\right]
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation*}
so that
\begin{equation*}
(N_{p_e}^{13})^*A^*+AN_{p_e}^{13}=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&0\\0&
-\kappa\left[
\begin{array}{cc}2a^{12}&0\\0&2a^{12}
\end{array}\right]
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation*}
so by~\rf{13}, the Hamiltonian generated by the new choice of $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$
has the same form as~\rf{100} but with $I_1$ replaced by $I_1+2\kappa
a^{12}$. Thus, {\em the entire effect of the freedom to
choose~$W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is exactly that the constant $I_1$ may be arbitrarily
manipulated, as long as $\kappa\ne0$. The effective action of the
gauge group as it acts on the normal form is isomorphic to the
additive group of real numbers.}
\subsection{The normal form}
The splitting of $T_{p_e}P$ and subsequent analysis of the
linearization $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ amounts to the construction of a normal
form for linearizations of relative equilibria. When equivariantly
moved through $G_{\mu_e} p_e$, this normal form can be combined with the
equivariant isotropic embedding
theorem~(\ct{MarsdenJE-1981.1},\ct{WeinsteinA-1997.1}), to provide a
$G_{\mu_e}$-equivariant normal form for the entire Hamiltonian system
near $G_{\mu_e} p_e$. I now construct this normal form, closely
following~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1}.
Let $\tilde P$ be the symplectic manifold
\begin{equation*}\tilde P\equiv W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\timesW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\times T^*G_{\mu_e}
\times G{\mu_e},\end{equation*}
and define
\begin{equation*}\tilde p_e\equiv 0\oplus0\oplus0_\Id\oplus{\mu_e}.
\end{equation*}
Let the group $G_{\mu_e}$ act on $\tilde P$ by left translation on the
third factor. At the zero section of $T^*G_{\mu_e}$, there is the
splitting of the tangent space of $T^*G_{\mu_e}$ into vertical and
horizontal parts, and hence
\begin{equation}\lb{26}
T_{\tilde p_e}\tilde P=W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^0\oplusW_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\oplus\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}\oplus
\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^*\oplus T_{\mu_e}(G{\mu_e}).\end{equation} Together,~\rf{27}
and~\rf{26} yield a linear symplectomorphism between $T_{p_e}P$ and
$T_{\tilde p_e}\tilde P$, which extends by $G_{\mu_e}$-equivariance to a
vector bundle isomorphism, say $\Lambda^\prime:TP|(G_{\mu_e}
p_e)\rightarrow T\tilde P|(G_{\mu_e} \tilde p_e)$, which is symplectic on
each fiber. The equivariant isotropic embedding theorem then extends
$\Lambda^\prime$ to an equivariant symplectomorphism $\Lambda$ from a
neighborhood of $G_{\mu_e} p_e$ to a neighborhood of $G_{\mu_e}\tilde p$.
The relationship between $\Lambda^\prime$ and $\Lambda$ is
$\Lambda^\prime=T\Lambda$ on the domain of $\Lambda^\prime$.
The linearization $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ is in a sense a first order
approximation of $X_{H_{\xi_e}}$ at $p_e$, and the quadratic Hamiltonian
associated to $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$ is a second order approximation to
$H_{\xi_e}$ at $p_e$. Together with the map $\Lambda$, this yields
a second order approximation to the Hamiltonian~$\tilde H$ in a
neighborhood of $G_{\mu_e} \tilde p_e$. Indeed, let $\tilde J^\xi$ be
the momentum mapping for the left action of right translations
$(g,h)\mapsto hg^{-1}$, so that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde J^\xi(\alpha_g)\equiv-\langle\alpha_g,X_\xi(g)\rangle,
\end{equation*}
where $X_\xi$ is the left invariant vector field generated by $\xi$.
Then
\begin{equation}\lb{34}\tilde H=H_{\mathrm{nil}}-(\tilde J^{\xi_e}-H_{\mathrm{red}}^1)
+H_{\mathrm{red}}^0+H_{\mathrm{rsd}}+H_{\mathrm{rmd}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H_{\mathrm{nil}}:W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\times T^* G_{\mu_e}\rightarrow\mathbb R$ is the
extension of~\rf{33} to $T^* G_{\mu_e}$ by left invariance,
\item $H_{\mathrm{red}}^i:W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^i\rightarrow\mathbb R$ is
$d^2 H_{\mu_e}(\bar p_e)|W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^i$, $i=1,2$,
\item $H_{\mathrm{rsd}}:G\mu_e\rightarrow\mathbb R$ by $H_{\mathrm{rsd}}(g\mu_e)\equiv-\langle g\mu_e,
\xi_e\rangle$, and
\item $dH_{\mathrm{rmd}}=0$ and $d^2H_{\mathrm{rmd}}=0$ on $G_{\mu_e} \tilde p_e$.
\end{enumerate}
Items (1)--(3) are definitions, while the content is in item~(4),
which follows since the two Hamiltonians
\begin{equation*}
\tilde H, \qquad
H_{\mathrm{nil}}-(\tilde J^{\xi_e}-H_{\mathrm{red}}^1)+H_{\mathrm{red}}^0+H_{\mathrm{rsd}}
\end{equation*}
both have relative equilibria at $\tilde p_e$ and have been
manipulated to have matched linearizations (and consequently matched
Hessians) at each point of $G_{\mu_e}\tilde p_e$. The point is that a
second order approximation to $\tilde H$ may be obtained by dropping
the remainder term $H_{\mathrm{rmd}}$ of~\rf{34}.
Now, consider $\tilde H$ as defined by~\rf{34}. The second term (the
one grouped within brackets) generates the one parameter group of
symplectomorphisms generated by $\xi_e$ through the
action~\rf{38}. Therefore, the first term $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ and the second term
Poisson commute. Obviously, then, the first four terms of~\rf{34}
pairwise Poisson commute. The effect of the term $-\tilde J^{\xi_e}$ is
merely to generate the flow of the right invariant vector field
generated by ${\xi_e}$, and this corresponds to the ``fast'' evolution of
the relative equilibrium $\tilde p_e$, while the flows of the terms
$H_{\mathrm{red}}^0$ and $H_{\mathrm{rsd}}$ cannot cause evolution along $G_{\mu_e}\tilde
p_e$. So the slow evolution near $G_{\mu_e}\tilde p_e$ is to first order
dictated by the flow of $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$.
As for the symmetries of $\tilde H$, since the Hamiltonian $H$ is $G$
invariant and $\Lambda^\prime$ is $G_{\mu_e}$-equivariant, the
Hamiltonian~\rf{34} is $G_{\mu_e}$-invariant, including the remainder
term. Also, when $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ is extended to be a left invariant function
of $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^1\times T^*G_{\mu_e}$, invariance under the normal form action
given by~\rf{11} becomes right invariance, i.e., for the $S^1$ part,
invariance under the action
\begin{equation}\lb{38}
a\cdot(x,\alpha_g)=\bigl(a^{-1}x,(TR_a)^*\alpha_g\bigr),
\end{equation}
where $R$ denotes right translation of $G_{\mu_e}$, and the functions
$H_{\mathrm{red}}^0$ and $H_{\mathrm{rsd}}$ are also invariant under~\rf{38}. However this
normal form symmetry does not in general extend to the remainder term
$H_{\mathrm{rmd}}$. The action~\rf{38} is counterclockwise or clockwise diagonal
rotation on the variables $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ and $(x_1,x_2)$ in a way
that is a sense-preserving renormalization of the coadjoint action of
$\exp(\mathbb R\xi_e)$ on $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$. Since~\rf{38} is the action
of the Abelian $S^1$, this action can be reversed and thus assumed to
be counterclockwise; however, if this is done then the resulting
action may acquire the {\em opposite} sense to the coadjoint action of
$\exp(\mathbb R\xi_e)$ on $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$.
In concept the map $\Lambda$ is like a coordinate system near $G_{\mu_e}
p_e$; it is only that its range is a manifold rather than an open
subset of Euclidean space. Through its dependence on the splitting of
$T_{p_e}P$, $\Lambda$ depends on the choice of $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$, so the effect
of varying $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ like varying a coordinate system near $G_{\mu_e}
p_e$. Thus, the freedom to vary $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is like a gauge freedom. I
will call a particular choice of $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ \defemph{ a choice of gauge},
and say that, in view of Section~(3.1), the gauge group of $p_e$ is
$(\mathbb R,+)$. As shown in Section~(3.1), varying $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ itself is
a linear process, the effect of which on $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ is easily found and
described. Yet, through the isotropic embedding theorem, $\Lambda$
depends on $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ in a nontrivial way.
This ability to cause very nontrivial ``coordinate changes'' while
easily calculating the concomitant effect on $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ will enter
powerfully in the subsequent analysis. Particularly, one can imagine
choosing a gauge that ``simplifies'' $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$, making the analysis of
$H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ tractable and yielding information about the flow of the
original Hamiltonian system near $G_{\mu_e} p_e$. On the other hand, a
simple $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$ will in general be nongeneric, so that higher order
terms in $H_{\mathrm{rmd}}$ might destroy whatever delicate nongeneric structures
arise from $H_{\mathrm{nil}}$. In that case, one can focus on the identification
and perturbation of these nongeneric structures, which will occupy
smaller regions of phase space as ones attention is restricted more
nearly to $G_{\mu_e} \bar p_e$.
{\em Summary: The phase space
$P_{\mathrm{drift}}$ on which some Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{drift}}$ approximates to first order
the evolution of the system, when that system is perturbed from
$p_e$, is
\begin{gather*}
P_{\mathrm{drift}}=\mathbb R^2\times T^*G_{\mu_e},\\
H_{\mathrm{drift}}(x,\alpha_g)=\langle g^{-1}\alpha_g,\xi_e\rangle+
\frac12N_{p_e}^{23}(\alpha_g,\alpha_g)+
\langle g^{-1}\alpha_g, N_{p_e}^{211}x\rangle.
\end{gather*}
The equations of motion for this system\footnote{\lb{52} For a
Hamiltonian system on the cotangent bundle of a Lie group $G$ of the
form $\alpha_g\mapsto
1/2h(\alpha_g,\alpha_g)+\langle\alpha_g,X\rangle$ where $h$ is a left
invariant metric on $G$ and $X$ is a left invariant vector field on
$G$, one has the equations of motion
\begin{equation*}
\Omega\equiv h^\sharp\pi+X(e),
\quad\pi\equiv g^{-1}\alpha_g,\quad g^{-1}\frac{dg}{dt}=\Omega,\quad
\frac{d\pi}{dt}=-\onm{coad}_\Omega\pi.
\end{equation*}}
are
\begin{equation*}
g^{-1}\frac{dg}{dt}=\Omega,\quad\frac{d\pi}{dt}=\onm{coad}_\Omega\pi,
\quad\frac{dx}{dt}=N^{131}_{p_e}\pi.
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\Omega\equiv\xi_e+(N^{23})^\flat\pi+N^{211}_{p_e}x.
\end{equation*}
There is a splitting $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}=\{(\pi_1,\pi_2)\in \mathbb
R^2\} \oplus\{\mu^0\}$ such that $H_{\mathrm{drift}}$ becomes,
after Poisson reduction by left translation of $G_{\mu_e}$,
\begin{equation}\lb{130}
H_{\mathrm{drift}}=
\langle\mu^0,\xi_e\rangle+\frac12N_{p_e}^{230}(\mu^0,\mu^0)
+\frac12I_1({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2)
+\kappa(\pi_1x_1+\pi_2x_2).
\end{equation}
Here $N^{230}$ is a constant quadratic form, and $I_1$ and $\kappa$
are constants, and all of these are calculable from the nilpotent part
of the linearization of the relative equilibrium. The
Hamiltonian~\rf{130} is invariant under counterclockwise diagonal
rotation on the variables $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ and $(x_1,x_2)$ and the
coadjoint action of $T_{\xi_e}$ on the variables $\mu^0$. The gauge
group of the approximation is $(\mathbb R,+)$, and the effect of the
gauge freedom is to exactly to undetermine $I_1$.}
\section{The mechanical case}
Here I consider the special case $G=SO(3)\times (S^1)^n$. Standard
identifications give $\mathfrak g=\mathbb R^3\times\mathbb
R^n=\mathfrak g^*$. In order that the momentum be nongeneric, assume
that the $SO(3)$ part of the momentum is zero. Reorient the system
(i.e. left translate it) so that $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}^1=\{(\pi_1,\pi_2,0)\}\subseteq so(3)$. Since the
action of $\onm{ad}_{\xi_e}$ fixes $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}^1$, the $SO(3)$
part of $\xi_e$ is either parallel or antiparallel to to $\mathbf
k\in so(3)$, where $\mathbf k=(0,0,1)$. I drop the first term
of~\rf{130}, since the background motion of the relative equilibrium
$p_e$ itself will not be of interest, after which~\rf{130} becomes
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
H_{\mathrm{drift}}=\frac12I_1\bigl({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2\bigr)+\frac12I_2{\pi_3}^2
&+\kappa(\pi_1x_1+\pi_2x_2)\\
&\quad+\pi_3 \sum_{i=1}^na_ip_i+\sum_{i,j=1}^na_{ij}p_ip_j,
\end{split}\end{equation*}
where the variable labeling is
\begin{equation*}(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,p_1,\ldots,p_n)\in\mathfrak g^*=
\mathbb R^3\times\mathbb R^n,\end{equation*}
and $a_i$ and $a_{ij}$ are constants.
The whole of $(S^1)^n$ is ignorable; an Abelian reduction yields the
phase space and Hamiltonian
(which by abuse of notation will have the same names)
\begin{gather}
P_{\mathrm{drift}}=\mathbb R^2\times T^*SO(3)=\bigl\{\bigl((x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb R^2,
A\in SO(3),(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3)\in\mathbb R^3\bigr)\bigr\}
\notag\\
H_{\mathrm{drift}}=\frac12I_1({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2)+\frac12I_2{\pi_3}^2+
\kappa(\pi_1x_1+\pi_2x_2)+a\pi_3,\lb{41}
\end{gather}
where $a$ is constant. The normal form symmetry is counterclockwise
diagonal action of $S^1$ on the variables $(x_1,x_2), (\pi_1,\pi_2)$,
and the momentum mapping for the normal form symmetry is
\begin{equation*}J^{\mbox{\scriptsize nf}}=
-\frac12({x_1}^2+{x_2}^2)-\pi_3
\end{equation*}
An easy verification (see the footnote on page~\pageref{52}) gives
the equations of motion for~\rf{41} as
\begin{equation}
\frac d{dt}\left[\begin{array}{c}\pi_1\\\pi_2\\\pi_3\\x_1\\x_2
\end{array}\right]=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
I\pi_2\pi_3-\kappa x_2\pi_3+a\pi_2\\
-I\pi_1\pi_3+\kappa x_1\pi_3-a\pi_1\\
\kappa(\pi_1x_2-\pi_2x_1)\\
\kappa\pi_2\\-\kappa\pi_1\end{array}\right],\lb{54}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\lb{55}
A^{-1}\frac{dA}{dt}=\left[
\begin{array}{c}I_1\pi_1+\kappa x_1\\I_1\pi_2+\kappa x_2\\I_2\pi_3+a\end{array}
\right]^\wedge,
\end{equation}
where $I\equiv I_2-I_1$ and as usual, for $v\in\mathbb R^3$,
\begin{equation*}v ^\wedge\equiv\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\phantom{-}0\phantom{^3}&-v^3&\phantom{-}v^2\\
\phantom{-}v^3&\phantom{-}0\phantom{^2}&-v^1\\
-v^2&\phantom{-}v^1&\phantom{-}0\phantom{^2}
\end{array}\right].\end{equation*}
To obtain a first impression of~\rf{41} one can contrast it with the
nonresonant case. On the one hand, the phase space $P_{\mathrm{drift}}$
of~\rf{41} has dimension~8; the symmetry group is $SO(3)\times S^1$.
Hence, the Marsden-Weinstein reduced systems are integrable, since
they have dimension $8-4-2=2$, and energy is a conserved quantity. We
shall see that homoclinic connections appear in the reduced spaces
of~\rf{41}, which are spheres in general, and that singular reduced
spaces (pinched spheres) also occur for some momentum values. On the
other hand, the {\em nonresonant\/} case (obtained from~\rf{41} by
setting $\kappa=0$ and dropping the variables $x_1$ and $x_2$) has the
same symmetry group but dimension~6 phase space; {\em it\/} is
integrable by its symmetry group alone, without the use of energy.
Dynamically, the nonresonant case is simpler, since every motion is a
relative equilibrium and the compact symmetry group rules out
homoclinic connections.
\subsection{Full reduction}
The Poisson manifold $\mathbb R^2\times\mathbb R^3=\{(x, \pi)\}$ may
be reduced by the $S^1$ normal form symmetry by use of the Hopf
variables (see, for example,~\ct{CushmanRHBatesLM-1997.1}, page~14; also
page~407 has a summary of references about singular reduction):
\begin{alignat*}{2}
w_1&\equiv 2(x_1\pi_2-x_2\pi_1),&\qquad w_2&\equiv 2(x_1\pi_1+x_2\pi_2),\\
w_3&\equiv({x_1}^2+{x_2}^2)-({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2),&\qquad
w_4&\equiv({x_1}^2+{x_2}^2)+({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2).
\end{alignat*}
This map is a quotient map for the $S^1$ normal form symmetry and it
has the semialgebraic image given by the subset of $\mathbb
R^5=\{(w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4,\pi_3)\}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
{w_1}^2+{w_2}^2+{w_3}^2-{w_4}^2=0,\quad w_4\ge 0.
\end{equation*}
The symplectic reduced spaces are the level sets of the two
Casimirs~$j_1$ and $j_2$ given by
\begin{gather}
\lb{70}
j_1\equiv({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2+{\pi_3}^2)^{\frac12}=\left({\pi_3}^2
+\frac12(w_4-w_3)\right)^\frac12,\\
\lb{71}j_2\equiv J^{\mbox{\scriptsize nf}}=
-\frac12\bigl({x_1}^2+{x_2}^2\bigr)-\pi_3=-\frac14(w_3+w_4)-\pi_3.
\end{gather}
Given $j_1$ and $j_2$,~\rf{70} and~\rf{71} can be used to eliminate
$w_3$ and $w_4$, thereby obtaining the symplectic reduced spaces as the
subsets of
$\mathbb R^3=\{(w_1,w_2,\pi_3)\}$ given by
\begin{gather}
{w_1}^2+{w_2}^2=8({\pi_3}^2-{j_1}^2)(\pi_3+j_2)\lb{73}\\
w_4=({j_1}^2-2j_2)-({\pi_3}^2+2\pi_3)\ge0.\lb{7300}
\end{gather}
Various symplectic reduced spaces are obtained
by fixing various values of $j_1$ and $j_2$ , but
the values of $j_1$ and $j_2$ are not arbitrary, since $j_1\ge0$ and
\begin{equation*}
j_1=({\pi_1}^2+{\pi_2}^2+{\pi_3}^2)^{\frac12}\ge-\pi_3=j_2+\frac12({x_1}^2+{x_2}^2)
\ge j_2.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, the singularities in the symplectic reduced spaces occur
where $x_1=x_2=\pi_1=\pi_2=0$, and here $j_1=|\pi_3|=\pm
j_2$. Equation~\rf{73} has solutions only over the intervals where the
cubic on the right hand side is nonnegative, and moreover, by~\rf{71},
$\pi_3\ge-j_2$. Putting all this together gives the bifurcation
diagram shown in~Figure~\rf{703}. As shown there, the
symplectic reduced spaces are the surfaces of revolution of
$\bigl(8({\pi_3}^2-{j_1}^2)(\pi_3+j_2)\bigr)^{\frac12}$ over the {\em
finite\/} interval where the cubic is positive. Thus, these spaces are
points, spheres, or, in the case that $j_2=-j_1$, they are topological
spheres with one conical singularity.
\begin{figure}[p]\lb{200}
\input fig1.tex\vspace*{.25in}
\caption{\label{703}\it\protect\footnotesize The bifurcation diagram
for the symplectic reduced spaces. Clockwise from the top, the reduced
spaces are points, spheres, pinched spheres, again spheres and finally
points. The finite intervals where the cubic is positive is the
thicker black line on the $\pi_3$ axis. One verifies that
Inequality~\rf{7300} is respected by showing that the concave down
quadratic $w_4=-({\pi_3}^2+2\pi_3)-{j_1}^2+2j_2$ is positive on those
intervals by checking the it is positive at the various endpoints of
the intervals.}
\end{figure}
In passing, I note that the symplectic volumes of the $-j_2=j_1>0$
reduced phase spaces are infinite, and of course the infinity is
concentrated at the singularity. In fact, by regarding two functions
$f(w_1,w_2)$ and $g(w_1,w_2)$ as functions on one of those reduced
phase spaces, lifting those functions to the Poisson phase space
$\{(x,\pi)\}=\mathbb R^2\times so(3)$, and then calculating
the Poisson bracket, one verifies that
\begin{equation*}
\{f,g\}=-4({\pi_3}^2+2j_2\pi_3+{j_1}^2)\left(
\frac{\partial f}{\partial w_2}\frac{\partial g}{\partial w_1}-
\frac{\partial f}{\partial w_1}\frac{\partial g}{\partial w_2}\right).
\end{equation*}
Consequently, the symplectic form on the reduced spaces in the coordinates
$(w_1,w_2)$ is
\begin{equation*}
\omega_{j_1,j_2}=\frac1{4({\pi_3}^2+2j_2\pi_3+{j_1}^2)}\,dw_1\wedge dw_2.
\end{equation*}
Switching to polar coordinates $w_1=r\cos\theta$ and $w_2=r\sin\theta$, the
symplectic volume of a small circle of radius $\delta$ about the origin
is
\begin{equation*}
A_\delta\equiv2\pi\int_0^\delta\frac{r}{4({\pi_3}^2+2j_2\pi_3+{j_1}^2)}\,dr
=\frac\pi2\int_0^\delta\frac{r}{(\pi_3-j_1)^2}\,dr
\end{equation*}
and upon substituting
\begin{equation*}
r^2=8({\pi_3}^2-{j_1}^2)(\pi_3-j_1)=8(\pi_3+j_1)(\pi_3-j_1)^2
\end{equation*}
that symplectic volume becomes
\begin{equation*}
A_\delta=4\pi\int_0^a\frac{\pi_3+j_1}{r}\,dr.
\end{equation*}
Since the numerator tends to $2j_1$ as $r$ becomes small, $A_\delta$ is
infinite.
The Hamiltonian~\rf{41} on the reduced spaces is, with the aid of
the Hopf variables and~\rf{70},
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
H_{\mathrm{drift}}&=\frac14I_1(w_4-w_3)+\frac12I_2{\pi_3}^2+
\frac\kappa2 w_2+a\pi_3\\
&=\frac12 I{\pi_3}^2+\frac\kappa2w_2+a\pi_3+\frac12I_1{j_1}^2
\end{split}\end{equation*}
Obviously this expression is simplified if $I_1=I_2$, since then
$I=I_2-I_1=0$.
This choice of $I_1$ gives the first part of~\rf{41}
the same form as the kinetic energy of a spherical ball moving in
3-space, so I call this choice the \defemph{ spherical gauge}.
In the spherical gauge the flow lines of the reduced systems are
trivial to determine: they are the intersection of the planes
$(\kappa/2)w_2+a\pi_3=\mbox{constant}$ with the surfaces of revolution
in Figure~\rf{200}. In the case of a nonsingular reduced space of
nonzero dimension the flow is that is that of the flow on a 2-sphere with two
stable equilibrium points. For the singular reduced spaces
$-j_2=j_1>0$ the type of flow depends on whether or not the plane cuts
through the cone at the $\pi_3=j_1$ singularity
of~${w_2}^2=8(\pi_3+j_1)(\pi_3-j_1)^2$. That cone is
\begin{equation*}
|w_2|=4\sqrt{j_1}(j_1-\pi_3)\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \pi_3=
j_1-\frac1{4\sqrt{j_1}}|w_2|,
\end{equation*}
and so there is an unstable equilibrium at the singularity if the line
$(\kappa/2)w_2+a\pi_3=aj_1$ passes through that cone, which is when
$a^2<4\kappa^2j_1$, and a stable equilibrium otherwise. The former
case is the flow on a 2-sphere with two stable equilibrium points and a
single homoclinic connection to a singular point, while in the latter
case this flow has two stable equilibrium points, one of which resides
at a singularity.
{\em For the remainder of this section I will assume the spherical gauge.}
The equilibria of~\rf{54} correspond to relative equilibria for just
the action of~$SO(3)$, since the space $\{(\pi,x)\}$ is the Poisson
phase space of $P_{\mathrm{drift}}$ reduced by the $SO(3)$ action. These have a
greater significance than relative equilibria which also use the $S^1$
normal form symmetry, since the full unapproximated Hamiltonian has
the $SO(3)$ symmetry but it is only the truncated approximation which
has the $SO(3)$ symmetry \emph{and} the normal form symmetry. As
well, it is expedient to separate the equilibria of~\rf{54} at the
outset of the analysis. Setting the right side of~\rf{54} to zero
immediately gives $\pi_1=\pi_2=0$ and then $x_1\pi_3=x_2\pi_3=0$, so
there are the following solutions:
\begin{align}
&x=0,\quad\pi=0\lb{57}\\
&x=0,\quad\pi_1=\pi_2=0,\quad\pi_3\ne 0\lb{58}\\
&x\ne 0,\quad\pi=0\lb{59}
\end{align}
The set of relative equilibria given by~\rf{59} contains relative
equilibria equivalent under the $S^1$ normal form symmetry. The
$SO(3)$ generator corresponding to~\rf{59} is, by substitution
into~\rf{55}, $(\kappa x_1,\kappa x_2,0)$. The zero section of
$T^*SO(3)$ (i.e. the set $\pi=0$) corresponds to perturbations of the
original relative equilibrium $p_e$ such that the {\em perturbation}
has zero total angular momentum, and in the nonresonant case such
perturbations would imply no drift and no drift has been numerically
observed for such. For the resonant case, however, one expects regular
rotation around the axis $(\kappa x_1,\kappa x_2,0)$, which is
perpendicular to the generator $\xi_e$. Nonzero $x$ corresponds to
some ``reduced excitation''. Consequently, {\em at zero total angular
momentum the system drifts so that the generator of the relative
equilibrium moves along a fixed great circle at a rate dictated by a
reduced excitation.}
The relative equilibria~\rf{59} are the relative equilibria with
nongeneric momenta {\em for the system}~\rf{41}. Consequently, the
methods of~\ct{PatrickGW-1995.1} might be applied to them: the
drifting relative equilibria could themselves drift. I will not,
however, pursue this aspect here.
To obtain a list of nonequivalent relative equilibria (i.e. a list of
relative equilibria, no two of which are in the same $SO(3)\times S^1$
orbit), assume $A=\Id$ and discard Equation~\rf{55},
and, using the $S^1$ normal form symmetry, assume $\pi_2=0$ and
$\pi_1\ge0$, and when $\pi_1=0$ assume that $x_2=0$. Equating
the first of~\rf{54} with the $S^1$ infinitesimal generator of $s_e\in
\mathbb R$ gives
\begin{equation}\lb{62}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
-\kappa x_2\pi_3+a\pi_2\\
\kappa x_1\pi_3-a\pi_1\\
\kappa(\pi_1x_2-\pi_2x_1)\\
\kappa\pi_2\\-\kappa\pi_1\end{array}
\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{c}-s_e\pi_2\\s_e\pi_1\\0\\-s_ex_2\\s_ex_1
\end{array}\right].\end{equation}
Putting $\pi_2=0$ into the fourth component gives $s_ex_2=0$. Now
$s_e=0$ corresponds to the $SO(3)$ relative equilibria~\rf{57}--\rf{59},
and in~\rf{57} and~\rf{58}, we have $x_2=0$, while in~\rf{59} we can
assume $x_2=0$ and $x_1>0$ by the normal form symmetry. So if $s_e=0$
then we assume $x_2=0$, while if $s_e\ne0$ then
$x_2=0$ anyway by $s_ex_2=0$. Putting $x_2=\pi_2=0$ into~\rf{62} then
gives
\begin{equation*}
-\kappa\pi_1=s_ex_1,\qquad
\kappa x_1\pi_3-a\pi_1=s_e\pi_1,
\end{equation*}
and these equations are easily solved to obtain the following list of
nonequivalent relative equilibria:
\begin{align}
&\pi_1=\pi_2=x_1=x_2=0,\eta_e=(a+s_e)\mathbf k,\;\pi_3\in\mathbb R;\lb{64}\\
\begin{split}&\pi_2=x_2=0,
\pi_3=\frac{\pi_1(ax_1-\kappa\pi_1)}{\kappa {x_1}^2},
s_e=-\frac{\kappa\pi_1}{x_1},\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\eta_e=\kappa x_1\mathbf i+(a+s_e)\mathbf k,\;\pi_1\in
\mathbb R,x_1>0.\end{split}\lb{65}
\end{align}
Here the $SO(3)$ generators $\eta_e$ of these relative equilibria have
been determined by comparison of~\rf{55} and the infinitesimal
generator of the $SO(3)$ action of $P_{\mathrm{drift}}$ at the relative
equilibrium. In~\rf{64} $\eta_e$ and $s_e$ are not unique due to the
presence of isotropy in the phase space $P_{\mathrm{drift}}$. For later use, the
characteristic polynomials of the linearizations of these relative
equilibria are, respectively,
\begin{equation*}
p_1\equiv x^2(x^2+|\eta_e|^2)
\bigl(x^4+(a^2+2as_e+2s_e^2-2\pi_3\kappa^2)x^2+
(s_e^2+as_e+\pi_3\kappa^2)^2\bigr)
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
p_2\equiv
\frac1{{x_1}^2}x^4(x^2+|\eta_e|^2)\bigl({x_1}^2x^2+\kappa^2{x_1}^4
+(ax_1-2\kappa\pi_1)^2\bigr).
\end{equation*}
For an understanding of the relative equilibria and the flow in
general it is important to understand which relative equilibria reside
on which reduced spaces. For~\rf{64}, $j_1=|\pi_3|$ and $j_2=\pi_3$,
so for $\pi_3\le0$ one has $j_1=j_2$, which corresponds to pointlike
reduced spaces, while for $\pi_3>0$ one has $j_1=-j_2$, which
corresponds to the singular reduced spaces, and the relative
equilibria occupy the singularities. As for~\rf{65},
substituting~$\rf{65}$ into $j_1$ and $j_2$ and eliminating $\pi_1$
gives
\begin{multline}\lb{201}
(3{x_1}^4+8j_2{x_1}^2+4{j_2}^2-4{j_1}^2)^2\kappa^2\\
+4a^2{x_1}^2({x_1}^2+2j_2-2j_1)({x_1}^2+2j_2+2j_1)=0
\end{multline}
so it is a matter of solving this quartic in ${x_1}^2$ for its
positive roots. The pointlike reduced spaces corresponding to $j_1=0$
are occupied by the relative equilibria of~\rf{65} after putting
$\pi_1=0$, corresponding to the solutions $j_1=0$, $x_1=\sqrt{-2j_2}$
of~\rf{201}.
\subsection{Partial reduction by the normal form symmetry}
In this section I symplectically reduce the Hamiltonian system by the
normal form symmetry at a value, say $\sigma$ of the momentum mapping
$J^{\mbox{\scriptsize nf}}$. My objective is an interpretation of the
reduced system via the equations of motion on the reduced space.
Use the notation $r^2={x_1}^2+{x_1}^2$.
The $\sigma$-level of the momentum map $J^{\mbox{\scriptsize nf}}$ is
\begin{equation*}
\pi_3=-\sigma-\frac12r^2.
\end{equation*}
Below, when $x$ appears in the context of a vector in $\mathbb R^3$,
it is as $(x_1,x_2,0)$.
The map
\begin{equation}\lb{80}
\Psi(A,\pi,x)\equiv(y,\alpha,z)\equiv
\bigl(A\mathbf k,A(\pi-(\pi\cdot\mathbf k)\mathbf k),Ax\bigr)
\end{equation}
is a projection of the phase space $T^*SO(3)\times\mathbb R^2$ to the
Whitney direct sum $T^*S^2\oplus TS^2$. The restriction of this map to
the $\sigma$ level set of $J^{\mbox{\scriptsize nf}}$ is clearly a
quotient map for the normal form action, and thus the symplectic
reduced space is $T^*S^2\oplus TS^2$. The action of $SO(3)$ on
$T^*S^2\oplus TS^2$ becomes
\begin{equation*}
A\cdot(y,\alpha,z)=(Ay,A\alpha,Az)
\end{equation*}
To find the reduced vector field at $(y,\alpha,z)\in T^*S^2\oplus TS^2$,
first evaluate the original Hamiltonian vector field, namely
\begin{alignat}{2}
&
\Omega\equiv I_1\pi+I((\pi\cdot\mathbf k)+a)\mathbf k,&\qquad
&A^{-1}\frac{dg}{dt}=\Omega^\wedge,\nonumber\\
&\frac{d\pi}{dt}=\dot\pi=\pi\times\Omega+a\mathbf k,
&\qquad\qquad&\frac{dx}{dt}=\dot x=-\kappa\mathbf k\times\pi\lb{81}
\end{alignat}
at the point
\begin{equation}
\pi= A^{-1}\alpha-\left(\sigma+\frac12r^2\right)\mathbf k,\quad
x=A^{-1}z,\lb{82}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is chosen so that $A\mathbf k=y$, and then apply the
derivative of~\rf{80}, which is
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
\lefteqn{T\Psi(A,\pi,x,\Omega,\dot\pi,\dot x)}\\
&\equiv
\dbyd t0\Psi\bigl(A\exp(\Omega^\wedge t),\pi+t\dot\pi,x+t\dot x\bigr)\\
&=A\cdot\bigl(\Omega\times\mathbf k,
\Omega\times(\pi-(\pi\cdot\mathbf k)\mathbf k)+\dot\pi
-(\dot\pi\cdot\mathbf k)\mathbf k,
\dot x+\Omega\times x\bigr).
\end{split}\lb{83}\end{equation}
Thus it is a matter of substituting~\rf{81} and~\rf{82} into~\rf{83}.
Without care the calculation can be onerous; however, it is
straightforward, and yields the equations of motion
\begin{gather}
\frac{dy}{dt}=(I_1\alpha+\kappa z)\times y,\lb{841}\\
\frac{d\alpha}{dt}=-\pi_3(I_1\alpha+\kappa z)\times y
+\kappa z\times \alpha,\lb{842}\\
\frac{dz}{dt}=\big(\kappa\alpha-(I_2\pi_3+a)z\bigr)\times y
+I_1\alpha\times z,\lb{843}
\end{gather}
where $\pi_3$ stands for $-(\sigma+|z|^2/2)$. To these equations
must be added the constraints $|y|=1$, $\alpha\cdot y=0$ and $z\cdot
y=0$.
I want to impose the viewpoint that there is a ``particle'' at~$y$
having direction~$z$. To do this, I use~\rf{841} to replace $\alpha$
with $dy/dt$ in~\rf{842} and~\rf{843} while writing equation~\rf{842}
as a second order equation in~$y$. I also use the standard
Levi-Cevita connection of $S^2$ for the time derivatives. Thus,
Equation~\rf{842} becomes
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}&=(I_1\alpha+\kappa z)\times\frac{dy}{dt}+
\left(I_1\frac{d\alpha}{dt}+\kappa\frac{dz}{dt}\right)\times y\\
&=\bigl(I_1\alpha+\kappa z\bigr)\times\bigl((I_1\alpha+\kappa z)
\times y\bigr)\\
&\qquad\mbox{}+I_1\pi_3(I_1\alpha+\kappa z)-\kappa\bigl(\kappa\alpha
-(I_2\pi_3+a)z\bigr)\\
&=-\left|\frac{dy}{dt}\right|^2y+I_1\pi_3y\times\frac{dy}{dt}
-\kappa\left(\frac\kappa{I_1}
\left(y\times\frac{dy}{dt}-\kappa z\right)-(I_2\pi_3+a)z\right),
\end{split}\end{equation*}
and similarly with Equation~\rf{843}, so that
\begin{gather}
\frac{\nabla^2y}{dt^2}=\frac{{I_1}^2\pi_3-\kappa^2}{I_1}y\times\frac{dy}{dt}
+\kappa\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{I_1}+I_2\pi_3+a\right)z\lb{85}\\
\frac{\nabla z}{dt}=\frac\kappa{I_1}\frac{dy}{dt}
+\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{I_1}+I_2\pi_3+a\right)y\times z.\lb{86}
\end{gather}
Some aspects of the particle become apparent by replacing
$\alpha$ with $dy/dt$ in the total energy and angular momentum.
Using~\rf{82}, the total energy is
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
H&=\frac12|\alpha|^2+\frac12{\pi_3}^2+a\pi_3+\kappa z\cdot\alpha\\
&=\frac1{2I_1}|I_1\alpha+\kappa z|+\frac12{\pi_3}^2+a\pi_3
-\frac{\kappa^2}{2I_1}|z|^2\\
&=\frac{1}{2I_1}\left|\frac{dy}{dt}\right|^2
+\frac{1}{2I_2}\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{I_1}+I_2\pi_3+a\right)^2
+\frac{\kappa^2\sigma}{I_1},\end{split}\lb{93}
\end{equation}
so the internal energy of the particle is
\begin{equation*}
E_{\mbox{\scriptsize int}}
=\frac{1}{2I_2}\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{I_1}+I_2\pi_3+a\right)^2.
\end{equation*}
The total angular momentum, or the $SO(3)$-momentum-mapping is,
using~\rf{82},
\begin{equation}
J=A\pi=\alpha-\pi_3\mathbf k=\frac1{I_1}y\times\frac{dy}{dt}
-\frac{\kappa}{I_1}z-\pi_3y,\lb{92}
\end{equation}
and below I replace $z$ with the tangent to the sphere part of the angular
momentum, which by~\rf{92} is
\begin{equation*}
L\equiv-\frac\kappa{I_1}z,
\end{equation*}
while the total angular momentum attributed to the particle must
be $L+\pi_3y$.
By the first terms of both~\rf{93} and~\rf{92}, the particle should be
viewed as having mass $1/I_1$.
From~\ct{JacksonJD-1975.1} the classical nonrelativistic equations of
motion on $|y|=1$
of a particle of mass $m$,
charge $Q$, and gyromagnetic ratio $\Gamma$, and magnetic
moment $\mathbf m=\Gamma L$, are
\begin{gather}
m\frac{\nabla^2y}{dt^2}=
\frac QcB\times \mathbf v+\nabla(\mathbf m\cdot B)-(\nabla\cdot B)\mathbf m,\lb{87}\\
\frac{\nabla L}{dt}={\mathcal I}+\Gamma L\times B,\lb{88}
\end{gather}
where $c$ is the velocity of light and $\mathbf v$ is the particle's velocity.
Here $\mathcal I$ is compensates for the inductive forces that would,
were $\mathbf m$ to be constant, be required to maintain the constant current
that generates~$\mathbf m$ itself.
One can fit equations~\rf{85} and~\rf{86} to these equations as follows.
If one takes $B=y$, comparison of the first terms of~\rf{86} and~\rf{88}
gives the inductive term
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal I}=-\frac{\kappa^2}{{I_1}^2}\frac{dy}{dt},\lb{95}
\end{equation}
while the second term of~\rf{86} matches the second term of~\rf{88}
if the gyromagnetic ratio is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma=\frac{{I_1}^2}{\kappa^2}\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{I_1}+I_2\pi_3
+a\right).\lb{89}
\end{equation}
Matching the second term of~\rf{85} with the third term of~\rf{87}
implies $\Gamma$ is $\kappa^2/3I_1$ times the left side of~\rf{89}. So
choose a gauge so that $I_1=\kappa^2/3$.
Then matching the first term of~\rf{85} with the first term of~\rf{87}
yields
\begin{equation*}
\frac Qc=\pi_3-\frac{\kappa^2}{{I_1}^2}.
\end{equation*}
Finally, I note that the inductive term~\rf{95} is exactly
what is required to balance the rate of change of internal energy with the
work done on the particle through its magnetic moment via the last term
of~\rf{85}.
\section{Example: Two coupled rods}
In this section I illustrate and verify the above theory using
numerical simulations of the system of two axially symmetric rods
which are joined by a frictionless ball-and-socket joint. In the
center of mass frame this system can be cast as a geodesic flow with
configuration space $SO(3)^2=\{(A_1,A_2)\}$ and kinetic
energy metric
\begin{equation*}
L=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}{\Omega_1}^t&
{\Omega_2}^t\end{array}\right]J(A)\left[\begin{array}{c}\Omega_1\\ \Omega_2
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation*}
where $A=[A^{ij}]={A_1}^tA_2$, $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ are body
referenced (left translation) angular velocities, and
\begin{equation*}J(A)=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&0&0&-\beta A^{22}&\phantom{-}\beta A^{21}&0\\
0&1&0&\phantom{-}\beta A^{12}&-\beta A^{11}&0\\
0&0&\alpha&0&0&0\\
-\beta A^{22}&\phantom{-}\beta A^{12}&0&1&0&0\\
\phantom{-}\beta A^{21}&-\beta A^{11}&0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&\alpha\end{array}\right].
\end{equation*}
Here $0<\alpha<2-2\beta$ is a parameter which increases with the
diameter of the rods and $0\le\beta<1$ is a parameter which measures
the degree of coupling between the rods; $\beta$ is zero if the joint
lies at the mutual centers of mass of the rods. The continuous
symmetry group of this system is $SO(3)\times (S^1)^2$, which acts on
the configuration space $SO(3)^2$ by
\begin{equation*}
(B,\theta _1,\theta _2 )\cdot(A_1,A_2)=\bigl(BA_1\exp(-\theta_1
\mathbf k^\wedge),BA_2\exp(-\theta_2\mathbf k^\wedge)\bigr).
\end{equation*}
All relative equilibria for this system are explicitly known, as are
their formal stability; a complete list can be found
in~\ct{PatrickGW-1991.1}. The relative equilibria of interest here are
the phase space points $\bigl(\Id,\exp(\theta\mathbf
j^\wedge),\Omega_1,\Omega_2\bigr)$ parameterized
by~$t_1,t_2,\theta\in\mathbb R$ such that $t_1\ne0,t_2\ne0,
0<\theta<\pi$, where
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_1=t_1\mathbf i-\kappa^{t_1t_2\theta}_1\mathbf k,
\Omega_2=t_2\mathbf i+\kappa^{t_2t_1\theta}_1\mathbf k
\end{equation*}
and where
\begin{equation*}
\kappa^{t_1t_2\theta}_\gamma\equiv\frac{(t_1\cos \theta-t_2)(\beta t_2-\gamma t_1)}
{\alpha t_1\sin \theta}.
\end{equation*}
The corresponding generators
$(\Omega,\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\in so(3)\times\mathbb R^2$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_1=\kappa^{t_1t_2\theta}_{1-\alpha},\sigma_2=-
\kappa^{t_2t_1\theta}_{1-\alpha},\Omega=t_1\mathbf i+\frac{t_1\cos \theta-t_2}
{\sin \theta}\mathbf k.
\end{equation*}
By calculating the linearizations, one sees that a 1:1 group reduced
resonance with zero total-angular-momentum can be arranged by setting
\begin{equation*}
\beta=\frac{2t_1t_2}{{t_1}^2+{t_2}^2},
\quad 3{t_1}^4+{t_1}^2{t_2}^2(4\cos^2\theta-10)+3{t_2}^4=0,
\end{equation*}
and for the work presented in this section I have chosen to perturb the
particular relative equilibrium obtained by setting
\begin{equation}\lb{900}
\theta=\frac\pi3,t_1=1,t_2=\frac{1+\sqrt 5}{2},
\alpha=\frac12,\beta=\frac2{\sqrt 5}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Calculations for the coupled rod system}
To compare the dynamics of the drift system to the dynamics of the coupled rod
system near the relative equilibrium~\rf{900}, it is necessary to
calculate the splitting~\rf{1} or~\rf{2} in this special case. Here is
one general way, inspired by the proof of Theorem~3.1.19
of~\ct{AbrahamRMarsdenJE-1978.1}:
\begin{enumerate}\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\alph{enumi})}
\item Calculate the semisimple part $S_{p_e}$ and the nilpotent part
$N_{p_e}$ of the linearization $dX_{H_{\xi_e}}(p_e)$.
\item Since $S_{p_e}$ is semisimple it has a basis of eigenvectors,
some complex and some real, and the complex eigenvectors may be
grouped into complex conjugate pairs. Taking the real and imaginary
parts of one eigenvector in each pair, and then including the real
eigenvectors yields a basis $\mathcal B$ of $T_{p_e}P$ in which
$S_{p_e}$ is {\em skew symmetric}.
\item Let the matrix of $\omega(p_e)$ with respect to the basis $\mathcal
B$ be $-W$. Since $S$ is infinitesimally symplectic and skew,
$0=S^tW+WS=-SW+WS$, so $S$ and $W$ commute. By going to a basis of
eigenvectors of the positive matrix $-W^2$, find a symmetric, positive
square-root $B$ of $-W^2$ such that $B$ and $S$ commute, and set
$J=WB^{-1}$. Using the basis $\mathcal B$, regard $J$ as its
corresponding operator on $T_{p_e}P$, and regard $B$ as the bilinear
form on $T_{p_e} P$ corresponding to $(x,y)\mapsto x^tBy$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\omega(p_e)(v,w)=B(Jv,w),\quad J^2=-\Id,
\end{equation*}
and $J$ commutes with $S_{p_e}$.
\item Set $Z=J(\mathfrak g_{\mu_e})$, so $Z$ is a $S_{p_e}$ invariant
Lagrangian complement to $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ in $\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}\oplus
Z$. Choose an $\onm{Ad}$-invariant complement $\mathfrak b$ to $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}$, and set $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}=(\mathfrak g_{\mu_e} p_e\oplus Z\oplus\mathfrak
bp_e)^{\omega\perp}$. Then $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is symplectic, $S_{p_e}$ invariant
and is contained in $\onm{ker} dJ(p_e)$, since $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}\subseteq
\mathfrak gp_e^{\omega\perp}$. The subspace $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ complements
$\mathfrak g_{\mu_e}$ in $\onm{ker}dJ(p_e)$ since $\mathfrak
g_{\mu_e}\subseteq W_{\!\mathrm{red}}^{\omega\perp}$ and $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ is symplectic.
\end{enumerate}
In the case of two coupled rods, further refinement of the splitting
of $W_{\!\mathrm{red}}$ to resonant and nonresonant parts is not necessary, since
the reduced spaces for zero total-angular-momentum are two
dimensional; there is no ``nonresonant'' part of the phase space.
Final adjustments to
achieve the spherical gauge are easily arranged using~\rf{12} and~\rf{13}. The end result of all this is a
basis of the tangent space at the relative equilibrium which reflects
the splitting~\rf{2}, a basis of the Lie algebra $so(3)\times\mathbb
R^3$, reflecting the splitting~\rf{102} into resonant and nonresonant
parts, the information
\begin{equation}\lb{3000}
\kappa=.9115064,\quad I_1=I_2=4.321619,
\end{equation}
and the information that~\rf{900} is a ``$+$''~type
relative equilibrium.
Further to calculating the splitting~\rf{1} or~\rf{2}, means must be
found to translate initial conditions of the drift system to
perturbations (i.e. initial conditions near~\rf{900}) of the coupled
rod system. For this a map was used, say $\Psi$, of the tangent space
$T_{p_e}P$ into phase space $P$ such that $T_{p_e}\Psi$ is the
identity at $p_e$. The map $\Psi$ only injected initial conditions of
the drift system into perturbations of~\rf{900} to first order; actual
correspondence could not be easily achieved due to the implicit nature of
the coordinates provided by the isotropic embedding theorem.
Moreover, $\Psi$ did not match the momentum of the drift
system exactly to a momentum perturbation of the actual system, while
practice indicated that an exact match of these momenta is
important. For the comparisons just below, given an initial condition
of the drift system with a particular momentum, an initial condition
of the coupled rod system with matching momentum was obtained as
$\Psi$ of another nearby initial condition of the drift system. That
nearby initial condition of the drift system was obtained by a slight
(second order) iterative refinement of the original initial condition
of the drift system.
By the conventions of Section~4, and since the relative
equilibrium~\rf{900} is of ``$+$''~type, the vector
$(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3)=\mathbf k$ is parallel to the normalized rotation
vector $\xi_e$ of the coupled rod system. Also, the quantity $A\in
SO(3)$ of the drift system corresponds to the drifted orientation of
the coupled rod system. Thus, the quantity $A\mathbf k$ of the drift system
corresponds to the drifting rotation vector of the coupled rod
system. Now, the rotation vector of the relative equilibrium~\rf{900}
is a constant linear sum of the locations of the rods, exactly because
the rods when in the relative equilibrium rotate around that vector: if
one defines
\begin{equation*}
\tau\equiv \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\left(t_1A_1\mathbf k -t_2A_2\mathbf k\right)
\end{equation*}
then $\tau=\xi_e$ at the relative equilibrium~\rf{900} and also at any
reorientation of~\rf{900}. Thus, for a perturbation of~\rf{900},
$\tau$ approximates the drifting rotation vector and the prediction of
the preceding theory is that
\begin{equation*}
\bar\tau\equiv\frac\tau{|\tau|}\approx A\mathbf k.
\end{equation*}
The numerical verifications I have undertaken consist of predictions
of the drift system for the motion of $A\mathbf k$ and the comparison
of these predictions with evolution of the the unit vector $\bar\tau$
calculated via a symplectic integration of the coupled rod system.
The particular algorithm used was a (implicit) Riemannian leapfrog
algorithm~(\ct{PatrickGW-1996.1}).
\begin{figure}\setlength{\unitlength}{1in}\centering
\begin{picture}(4.5,2)
\put(1.,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig4a.eps}}}
\put(3.4,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig4b.eps}}}
\end{picture}
\caption{\lb{2500}\protect\footnotesize\it Perturbations within
zero-total-angular momentum. Left: the paths traced out by $\bar\tau$,
resulting from $6$~initial conditions within zero
total-angular-momentum. Right: the rotation rates of $\tau$ vs. the
magnitude of the perturbation $|x|$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical results}
\subsubsection{First comparison: zero total-angular-momentum}
By the results in Section~(4.1), the part of the
drift phase space corresponding
to perturbations with zero total-angular-momentum is occupied by
$SO(3)$ relative equilibria, and the motion of $A\mathbf k$ from initial
condition $\pi=0$ and $x$ arbitrary is that of uniform rotation at
angular frequency $\kappa|x|$ along a great circle through $\mathbf k$
and perpendicular to $(x_1,x_2,0)$. Translated to the coupled rod
system, the prediction is that $\bar\tau$ undergoes regular rotation
in a great circle through $\bar\tau(0)$, the particular great circle
regularly rotating as $x$ is rotated. The left of Figure~\rf{2500}
shows the motion of $\tau$ as $x$ is varied from $0$ to $0$ through
$5\pi/6$ radians by increments of $\pi/6$, so the coupled rod system
conforms to this prediction. As the magnitude of $x$ is varied the
great circles should be traced out at an angular rotation rate $\kappa
|x|$, so $\kappa$ can be determined by plotting that rotation rate
against $|x|$; this is done on the right of Figure~\rf{2500}. The
rotation rates fit well to the curve
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{Rate}= .9284|x|+.7750|x|^2,
\end{equation*}
so from the simulation $\kappa$ is $.9284$, which is $1.8\%$ off the
calculated value of $.9115064$ already displayed in~\rf{3000}.
\subsubsection{Second comparison: a stable relative equilibrium of the
drift system}
For another comparison, I examined the coupled rod system for
perturbations of~\rf{900} corresponding to being near one of the
stable relative equilibria in the list~\rf{65}. For perturbations
of~\rf{900} corresponding to the values
\begin{equation}\lb{1001}
\pi_1=.001,\quad x_1=.04
\end{equation}
in~\rf{65} the predictions of the drift system are that $\tau$ moves
as small periodic oscillation of the full reduction of the drift
system superimposed on the periodic motion $\exp(\eta_e^\wedge t)\mathbf
k$, where $\eta_e$ is the $SO(3)$ generator in the list~\rf{65}. The
two predicted frequencies are the linearized frequency of the
corresponding equilibrium on the reduced space of the drift system
and the rotation
frequency of $\eta_e$, which are by substitution of~\rf{1001}
into~\rf{65} and/or~\rf{201}, respectively,
\begin{equation}\lb{2004}
.04477,\quad .05837.
\end{equation}
Again by substitution of~\rf{1001} into~\rf{65}, the motion of $\tau$
should be such that its projection onto the unit vector
$\eta_e/|\eta_e|$ is near $-.5300$.
\begin{figure}[p]\setlength{\unitlength}{1in}\centering
\begin{picture}(4.5,2)
\put(1.,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig32a.eps}}}
\put(3.4,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig32b.eps}}}
\end{picture}
\vspace*{.05in}\begin{picture}(4.5,2)
\put(2.25,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig34.eps}}}
\end{picture}
\vspace*{.15in}\footnotesize\begin{tabular}{rrrrrr|rrrrrr}
Power&Freq.&Freq.&$z_1$&$z_1$&$z_3$&
Power&Freq.&Freq.&$z_1$&$z_1$&$z_3$\\
\hline
1.195 & .04449 & .04449 & 1 & 0 & 0 &
8.766 & .2266 & .2266 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
2.935 & .05791 & .05791 & 0 & 1 & 0 &
8.848 & .1822 & .1822 & -1 & 1 & 1 \\
3.485 & .01342 & .01342 & -1 & 1 & 0 &
8.874 & .1549 & .1553 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\
4.871 & .1024 & .1024 & 1 & 1 & 0 &
8.893 & .1607 & .1603 & 1 & 2 & 0 \\
5.812 & .1687 & .1687 & 0 & 0 & 1 &
10.3 & .1296 & .1292 & -1 & 3 & 0 \\
6.146 & .1239 & .1243 & -1 & 0 & 1 &
10.58 & .1741 & .1737 & 0 & 3 & 0 \\
6.485 & .07133 & .07133 & -1 & 2 & 0 &
10.63 & .2711 & .2711 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
6.817 & .1162 & .1158 & 0 & 2 & 0 &
12.25 & .2401 & .2401 & -1 & 2 & 1 \\
7.102 & .2132 & .2132 & 1 & 0 & 1 &
12.36 & .2846 & .2846 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
8.24 & .06596 & .06634 & -1 & -1 & 1 &
12.91 & .3371 & .3375 & 0 & 0 & 2 \\
8.742 & .1104 & .1108 & 0 & -1 & 1 &
12.98 & .2926 & .293 & -1 & 0 & 2 \\
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{.15in}\footnotesize
\caption{\lb{1000}\protect\footnotesize\it
Some results of the simulation of the
coupled rod system for a perturbation corresponding to a elliptic
relative equilibrium of the drift system. Top left: the evolution of
the rotation vector projected onto the unit sphere. Top right: the
time evolution of the height corresponding to the top left. Middle:
the power spectrum of a signal derived from the drifting motion; note
the vertical logarithmic scale. Bottom table: the peaks in the power
spectrum, sorted by power. The second column tabulates the
frequencies of the peaks and the third column tabulates the harmonics
$z_1A+Z_2B+Z_3C$ of the frequencies $A$, $B$ and $C$ indicated on the
frequency axis of the power spectrum.}
\end{figure}
Figure~\rf{1000} shows the results of a simulation of the coupled rod
system for the perturbation of~\rf{900} corresponding to the
values~\rf{1001}. In the simulation the normalized rotation vector
$\bar\tau$ moved on the unit sphere as shown in the top left of the
Figure; the sense of the rotation is clockwise as seen from the top,
so that $\eta_e$ is pointing down and away from you as you look upon
the Figure. The height of the rotation vector has been graphed in the
top right of Figure~\rf{1000}, and is visibly quasiperiodic with about
two frequencies. The measured average height of the motion was
$.4970$, compared with the prediction of $.5300$. In the
middle of Figure~\rf{1000} is the power spectrum of one of the
horizontal components of $\tau$. As is shown in the table immediately
below the power spectrum, the power spectrum is consistent with the 3
fundamental angular frequencies
\begin{equation}\lb{2005} .04449,\quad .05791,\quad .1687,
\end{equation}
all other peaks being harmonics of these. The first two of these are
by far the largest peaks (note the vertical logarithmic scale in the
power spectrum) and they agree with the the predicted
frequencies~\rf{2004}. The third observed frequency in~\rf{2005}
corresponds to a far less prominent peak and is likely a frequency
associated to the higher order terms that have been truncated in the
drift approximation.
To give an idea of the speed of the drift, on the short simulation
corresponding to the top left and right of Figure~\rf{1000}, the
system rotated about 300 times while $\bar\tau$ rotated about
7~times. Thus the drift was about 50 times slower than the original
relative equilibrium. Due to this, these kinds of simulations can be
long time: over the duration of the simulation that generated the
power spectrum in Figure~\rf{2} the rods rotated about 10,000 times.
\subsubsection{Third comparison: a singularity-induced phase jump.}
As shown in Section~(4.2), the singularities of the $-j_1=j_2$ reduced
phase spaces of the drift system are occupied by an unstable
equilibria corresponding to $SO(3)$~relative equilibria of the drift
system. A single homoclinic orbit, tracing out the intersection of
each reduced space with the plane $w_2=0$, emanates from every such
equilibrium. These homoclinic orbits are interesting features of the
drift system, in part because they provide an opportunity to
investigate dynamics near singularities of reduced spaces. I will show
here that, due to the singularity of the reduced space, the
drift system suffers a jump in its reconstruction phase as initial
conditions traverse the homoclinic orbits, and (numerically) that this
feature of the drift system persists to the coupled rod system.
The reconstruction phase jump
shows the presence of Hamiltonian monodromy in the completely
integrable drift system; for more information on Hamiltonian
monodromy see~\ct{CushmanRHBatesLM-1997.1}, page~175, the summary
on page~403 of the same reference, as well as~\ct{BatesLM-1991.1}.
So choose $j_1$ small and consider perturbations of the relative
equilibrium
\begin{equation*}
\pi=j_1\mathbf k,\quad x=0,\quad A=\Id,
\end{equation*}
where by abuse of notation $j_1$ serves as the constant value of the
Casimir~\rf{70} of the same name. This relative equilibrium corresponds to
the equilibrium
\begin{equation}
\lb{550}w_1=w_2=0,\quad \pi_3=j_1
\end{equation}
on the $SO(3)\times S^1$~reduced space. Near~\rf{550} the motion on
the reduced space of the drift system is periodic along the
intersection of the $w_2=h$ plane where $h$ is small: for a long time
the system remains near the singularity, and then moves off, passes
near $\pi_3=j_1$ and then returns to the singularity, similar to, for
example, the motion of an inverted pendulum. One $S^1$ reconstruction
gives the motion on the phase space $\{(x,\pi)\}$ and, since the
motion is periodic on the $SO(3)\times S^1$~reduced space, there is a
well defined \defemph{$S^1$ reconstruction phase}. On the phase space
$\{(\pi,x)\}$, the only points on the level sets of $j_1$ and $j_2$
that map to~\rf{550} are
\begin{equation}\lb{551}
\pi=j_1\mathbf k,\quad x=0,
\end{equation}
since $\pi_3=j_1=-j_2$ implies by~\rf{70} and~\rf{71} that
$\pi_1=\pi_2=x_1=x_2=0$. Thus, when the $SO(3)\times S^1$ reduced
system is near~\rf{550}, the reduced system with phase
space~$\{(x,\pi)\}$ is near~\rf{551}. An $SO(3)$
reconstruction gives the motion on the phase space $\mathbb R\times
T^*SO(3)=\{(x,A,\pi)\}$, starting, say, at $A=\Id$. By
conservation of the momentum $J=A\pi$, the variable $A$ is nearly a
rotation about $\mathbf k$ whenever the reduced system is
near~\rf{551}. Thus, the motion of the point
$A\mathbf k$ on the unit sphere is this: \emph{for a long time
$A\mathbf k$ remains near $\mathbf k$, then moves off, passes near
$-\mathbf k$, and then returns near to $\mathbf k$. This motion
repeats but rotated (with respect to the previous excursion from
$\mathbf k$) by a excursion-independent angle about $\mathbf k$. This
rotation is what I mean by the \defemph{$SO(3)$~reconstruction
phase shift} of the motion.}
\begin{figure}\setlength{\unitlength}{1in}\centering
\begin{picture}(4.5,2)
\put(1.,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig6.eps}}}
\put(3.4,1){\makebox(0,0){\epsfbox{fig2a.eps}}}
\end{picture}
\caption{\lb{4002}\protect\footnotesize\it Left: the motion of $\bar\tau$
for a perturbation corresponding to being near the homoclinic orbit of
the reduced space of the drift system. The vector $\bar\tau$ begins
near the top of the sphere and moves off to the left, comes around the
sphere, makes an approximate $\pi/2$ turn, then moves away from you,
and goes around the sphere again. On the right: the $SO(3)$
reconstruction phase of the coupled rod system as initial conditions
are rotated around the singularity of the reduced phase space of the
drift system.}
\end{figure}
By simulation of the coupled rod system I have verified that the gross
details of the motion of $A\mathbf k$ in the drift system also occur
in the coupled rod system (see the left of Figure~\rf{4002}). This
situation is robust; no particular care is required, in choosing the
coupled rod system's initial conditions to evoke these kinds of
motions. The robust nature under addition of higher order terms of the
homoclinic orbit is expected through averaging theorems such as the
one in~\ct{GuckenheimerJHolmesP-1983.1},~page~168.
It is the behavior of the reconstruction phase of the drift system
near to $\pi=0$ that is relevant for predictions of the motion of the
coupled rod system near to its resonant relative equilibrium. One way
to examine this behavior is to numerically integrate initial
conditions of the drift system that are reconstructions of initial
conditions starting at a small circle surrounding the singularity of
the $SO(3)\times S^1$ reduced space. For the $S^1$ reconstruction
phase shift the result is a constant phase shift of $\pm\pi/2$ with a
jump of $\pi$ as the homoclinic orbit is traversed. The corresponding
phase shift of $A\mathbf k$ in fact becomes undefined as the
perturbation vanishes. The reason for this is that
the equation of motion for $A$, namely Equation~\rf{55},
becomes, near to~\rf{551}, the equation
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dA}{dt}=(I_2j_1+a)\mathbf k^\wedge,
\end{equation*}
while $A(t)\mathbf k$ is not exactly $\mathbf k$ due the the presence
of the perturbation itself. Consequently the $A\mathbf k$ picks up a
rotation of angular frequency $I_2j_1+a$ during its long visit
of~\rf{551}. As the perturbation vanishes this long visit becomes an
eternity and this undefines the $SO(3)$ reconstruction phase shift as an
asymptotic effect. However, viewed from a frame that corotates with
the same angular frequency, namely $I_2j_1+a$, one can expect a well
defined phase shift. I have numerically verified this: from the
corotating frame the $SO(3)$ reconstruction phase shift of the drift
system is nearly $\pm\pi/2$ with a jump of $\pi$ as the homoclinic
orbit is traversed. This compares favorably with the $SO(3)$
reconstruction phase shift of the coupled rod system shown in right of
Figure~\rf{4002}.
Finally, so that the comparison of these phases of the drift system
and the coupled rod system are not entirely numerical, I give a
calculation showing that, asymptotically as the homoclinic orbit is
approached, these phases arise mostly from the singularity of the
reduced space. The $S^1$ reconstruction phase of the drift system may
be calculated by a slight modification (to allow reparameterization)
of the usual reconstruction method found
in~\ct{AbrahamRMarsdenJE-1978.1}: Generally, suppose $H$ is a
Hamiltonian on a symplectic phase space $P$ and that a curve
$c_\mu(s)$ is a reparameterization an evolution $c_\mu(t)$ on some
Marsden-Weinstien reduced phase
space~$P_\mu=J^{-1}(\mu)/G_\mu$. Choose a curve $d(s)\in J^{-1}(\mu)$
such that $c=\pi_\mu\circ d$, where $\pi_\mu:J^{-1}(\mu)\rightarrow
P_\mu$ is the quotient projection. Then there is a unique smooth curve
$\xi(s)\in\mathfrak g_\mu$ and a unique smooth function $a(s)$ such
that
\begin{equation}\lb{554}
X_H\bigl(d(s)\bigr)=\xi(s)p(s)+a(s)d^\prime(s).
\end{equation}
By differentiation, the curve $g\bigl(s(t)\bigr)d\bigl(s(t)\bigr)$
satisfies Hamilton's equations on $P$ if
\begin{equation*}
g^{-1}\frac{dg}{ds}=\frac1{a(s)}\xi(s),\quad\frac{dt}{ds}=\frac1{a(s)}.
\end{equation*}
Perfectly obvious generalizations hold if $d$ is just a $1$-manifold
in $J^{-1}(\mu)$ covering the image of $c_\mu$. Particularly, by
setting $\pi_2=0$, $d$ can be the subset of $P_{\mathrm{drift}}$ defined by
\begin{gather}
\pi_1^2+\pi_2^2=j_1^2,\quad \pi_2=0,\quad
x_1=\frac{h}{2\pi_1},\quad x_2=\frac{-w_1}{2\pi_1},\lb{5553}\\
w_1^2+h^2=8(\pi_3^2-j_1^2)(\pi_3-j_1),\lb{553}
\end{gather}
in which case one calculates using~\rf{54},~\rf{554},~\rf{5553}
and~\rf{553} that
\begin{equation}\lb{555}
\frac{d\theta}{d\pi_3}=\frac{-h\pi_3}{({j_1}^2-{\pi_3}^2)w_1},\quad
\frac{d\pi_3}{dt}=-\frac{\kappa w_1}2
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the $S^1$ reconstruction phase as the
counterclockwise angle of the vector $\bigl(\pi_1(t),\pi_2(t)\bigr)$
from the $\pi_2=0$ axis.
Let $r_1(h)<r_2(h)<r_3(h)$ be the roots of the cubic
$8(\pi_3-j_1)^2(\pi_3+j_1)-h^2$. By standard perturbation arguments
\begin{gather*}
r_1=-j_1+\frac1{32{j_1}^2}h^2+O(h^3),\\
r_2=j_1-\frac1{4\sqrt{j_1}}h+O(h^2),\\
r_3=j_1+\frac1{4\sqrt{j_1}}h+O(h^2).
\end{gather*}
The $S^1$ reconstruction phase over the curve
$w_1^2+h^2=8(\pi_3^2-j_1^2)(\pi_3-j_1)$ is calculated as follows. Let
the reduced system start at $w_1=0$, $\pi_3=r_2$ at time $t=t_0$, move to
$w_1=0$, $\pi_3=r_1$ at time $t=t_1$ and then complete its periodic
orbit by moving back to $w_1=0$, $\pi_3=r_2$ at time $t_2$. Then the
contribution of~\rf{555} to phase shift over the interval $[t_0,t_1]$
is
\begin{equation*}
\phi(t_1)-\phi(t_0)=\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\frac{d\phi}{dt}\,dt
=\int_{\pi_3(t_0)}^{\pi_3(t_1)}\frac{d\phi}{dt}\frac{dt}{d\pi_3}\,d\pi_3
=\int_{r_2}^{r_1}\frac{d\phi}{d\pi_3}\,d\pi_3,
\end{equation*}
where the positive square root must be used when solving for $w_1$
in~\rf{553}, since $\pi_3$ must immediately decrease after time
$t=t_0$, and by the second of~\rf{555}, $w_1$ is positive over the
interval $[t_0,t_1]$. The contribution of~\rf{555} over the interval
$[t_1,t_2]$ is identical (use the negative root here). Thus, the
total phase shift $\phi\equiv\phi(t_2)-\phi(t_0)$ over the loop as the
loop approaches the homoclinic orbit through $h>0$ is
\begin{equation}\lb{557}
\phi=-2\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\int_{r_1}^{r_2}\frac{-h\pi_3}{({j_1}^2-{\pi_3}^2)
\sqrt{8(\pi_3-r_1)(r_2-\pi_3)(r_3-\pi_3)}}\,d\pi_3.
\end{equation}
For small $h$ the integrand of~\rf{557} is small away from its two
singularities at $\pi_3=r_1$ and $\pi_3=r_2$. I begin with the left
singularity at $\pi_3=r_1$, so I calculate
\begin{equation*}
\phi_1\equiv\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\int_{r_1}^0
\frac{-h\pi_3}{({j_1}^2-{\pi_3}^2)
\sqrt{(\pi_3-r_1)(r_2-\pi_3)(r_3-\pi_3)}}\,d\pi_3.
\end{equation*}
Elementary estimates show that zero error is made
as $h\rightarrow0$ by the replacement of
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\pi_3}{(j_1-\pi_3)\sqrt{(\pi_3-r_2)(\pi_3-r_3)}}
\end{equation*}
with its limit as $h\rightarrow0$ of its evaluation at $\pi_3=r_1$, which is
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\frac{r_1}{(j_1-r_1)\sqrt{(r_2-r_1)(r_3-r_1)}}=
\frac{-j_1}{2j_1(\sqrt{2j_1})^2}=\frac{-1}{4j_1}.
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
\phi_1=&\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}
\frac {-h}{4j_1\sqrt 8}\int_{r_1}^0
\frac{-1}{(j_1+\pi_3)\sqrt{\pi_3-r_1}}\,d\pi_3\\
=&\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\frac h{4j_1\sqrt 8}
\frac 2{\sqrt{j_1+r_1}}\arctan
\left.\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi_3-r_1}}{\sqrt{j_1+r_1}}\right)\right|_{\pi_3=r_1}
^{\pi_3=0}\\
=&\frac h{4j_1\sqrt 8}
\frac2{\sqrt{\frac{h^2}{32{j_1}^2}}}\frac\pi2\\
=&\frac\pi2.
\end{split}\end{equation*}
The right singularity of~\rf{557} arises corresponds to the singularity of
the reduced spaces of the drift system, and it gives a phase shift of
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
\phi_2&\equiv
\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\int_0^{r_2}\frac{-h\pi_3}{({j_1}^2-{\pi_3}^2)
\sqrt{8(\pi_3-r_1)(r_2-\pi_3)(r_3-\pi_3)}}\,d\pi_3\\
&=\frac{-h}{\sqrt8}
\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\frac{\pi_3}{(j_1+r_2)\sqrt{r_2-r_1}}
\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\int_0^{r_2}\frac{1}{(j_1-\pi_3)
\sqrt{(r_2-\pi_3)(r_3-\pi_3)}}\,d\pi_3\\
&=\frac{-h}{\sqrt8}\frac{j_1}{2j_1\sqrt{2j_1}}
\lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\Biggl(\frac{-1}{\sqrt{(r_3-j_1)(j_1-r_2)}}\\
&\qquad\times\left.\arctan\left(
\frac12\frac{\pi_3(2j_1-r_2-r_3)+2r_2r_3-j_1(r_2+r_3)}
{\sqrt{(r_3-j_1)(j_1-r_2)(r_2-\pi_3)(r_3-\pi_3)}}\right)
\right|_{\pi_3=0}^{\pi_3=r_2}\Biggr)\\
&=\frac{-h}{\sqrt8}\frac{j_1}{2j_1\sqrt{2j_1}}
\frac{-1}{\frac{h}{4\sqrt{j_1}}}\frac{-\pi}{2}\\
&=-\frac\pi4,
\end{split}\end{equation*}
so that the phase shift as the homoclinic orbit is approached through
positive $h$ is
\begin{equation*}
\phi=-2(\phi_1+\phi_2)=-2\left(\frac\pi2-\frac\pi4\right)=-\frac\pi2.
\end{equation*}
The same calculation for $h$ negative gives $\phi_1=-\pi/2$ and
$\phi_2=\pi/4$ for a total phase shift of $\phi=\pi/2$.
\footnotesize\frenchspacing
|
\section{Introduction}
Cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRB) are believed to be produced in the
fireballs of very energetic explosions, when a large amount of energy,
$E\sim10^{51-54}\textrm{ erg}$, is released over a few seconds in a small volume
in with a negligible baryonic load, $Mc^2\ll E$
(see Piran 1999 for a review). Most of the energy is eventually transferred
to the baryons which are accelerated to ultra-relativistic velocities with
a Lorentz factor $\gamma\simeq E/Mc^2\sim10^2$--$10^3$ (e.g., \cite{ShP90};
\cite{Paczynski90}). A substantial fraction of the kinetic energy of the
baryons is transferred to a non-thermal population of relativistic
electrons through Fermi acceleration at the shock (\cite{MR93}). The
accelerated electrons cool via inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron
emission in the post-shock magnetic fields and produce the radiation
observed in GRBs and their afterglows (e.g., \cite{Katz94}; \cite{SNP96};
\cite{Vietri97}; \cite{Waxman97}; \cite{WRM97}). The shock could be either
{\it internal} due to collisions between fireball shells caused by source
variability (Paczy\'nski \& Xu 1994; \cite{RM94}), or {\it external} due to
the interaction of the fireball with the surrounding interstellar medium
(ISM; \cite{MR93}). The radiation from internal shocks can explain the
spectra (Pilla \& Loeb 1998) and the fast irregular variability of GRBs
(Sari \& Piran 1997a), while the synchrotron emission from the external
shocks provides a successful model for the broken power-law spectra and
smooth temporal behavior of afterglows (e.g., Waxman 1997a,b). In both
cases, strong magnetic fields are required behind the shocks at all times
in order to fit the observational data.
The properties of the synchrotron emission from GRB shocks are determined
by the magnetic field strength, $B$, and the electron energy distribution
behind the shock. Both of these quantities are difficult to estimate from
first principles, and so the following dimensionless parameters are often
used to incorporate modeling uncertainties (\cite{SNP96}), \begin{equation}
\epsilon_B\equiv\frac{U_B} {e_{\rm th}} ,\qquad
\epsilon_e\equiv\frac{U_e}{e_{\rm th}} . \end{equation} Here $U_B={B^2}/{8\pi}$ and
$U_e$ are the magnetic and electron energy densities and $e_{\rm
th}=nm_pc^2(\bar\gamma_p-1)$ is the total thermal energy density behind the
shock; where $m_p$ is the proton mass, $n$ is the proton number density,
and $\bar\gamma_p$ is the mean thermal Lorentz factor of the protons. The
observed afterglow spectra and lightcurves typically yield values of the
magnetic energy parameter ranging from $\epsilon_B\sim0.1$ (Waxman 1997;
Wijers \& Galama 1998), down to $10^{-2}$ (Granot et al. 1998) or even
$\epsilon_B\sim10^{-5}$ (Galama et al. 1999; \cite{Vreeswijk99}) --- all
below the {\em equipartition} limit $\epsilon_B\sim 1$.
The existence of strong magnetic fields is naturally expected in the
compact environments of potential GRB progenitors. First, the field might
originate from a highly magnetized stellar remnant, such as a neutron star,
with $B\la 10^{16}\textrm{ gauss}$. Second, a turbulent magnetic dynamo could
amplify a relatively weak seed magnetic field in the vicinity of the
progenitor. This process, however, requires the turbulence to be
anisotropic and have a nonzero total helicity, ${\bf v\cdot(\nabla\times
v)}\not=0$. A similar mechanism, called the $\alpha$-$\Omega$-dynamo, might
operate in rapidly rotating objects (\cite{Thompson94}, see also
\cite{MLR93}). Finally, the magnetic shearing instability
(\cite{BalbusHawley91}) could amplify the magnetic field (but not the flux)
in strongly sheared flows. The $e$-folding time for this instability is
approximately the rotation period, which decreases with radius as $R^{-2}$
due to angular momentum conservation in the outflowing wind. Thus, being
possibly important in the early stages of the fireball expansion
(\cite{NPP92}), this instability is inefficient at large radii, where its
$e$-folding time greatly exceeds the dynamical time of the fireball.
In contrast to such progenitor environments where large magnetic fields are
natural, there is currently no satisfactory explanation for the origin of
the strong magnetic fields required in GRB shocks (see discussions in
\cite{Thompson94}; \cite{MLR93}; \cite{SNP96}). Compression of the ISM
magnetic field in external shocks yields a field amplitude $B\sim\gamma
B_{\rm ISM}\sim 10^{-4} (\gamma/10^2) \textrm{ gauss}$, which is too weak
(\cite{SNP96}) compared to the required equipartition value $B_{eq}\sim 50
(\gamma/10^2)(n_{\rm ISM}/1~{\rm cm^{-3}})^{1/2} \textrm{ gauss}$, and can account
only for $\epsilon_B=(B/B_{eq})^2\la 10^{-11}$. Alternatively, some
magnetic flux might originate at the GRB progenitor and be carried by the
outflowing fireball plasma (or by a precursor wind). Because of flux
freezing, the field amplitude would decrease as the wind expands. In this
case, only a progenitor with a rather strong magnetic field $\sim
10^{16}\textrm{ gauss}$ might produce sufficiently strong fields during the GRB
emission. However, since the field amplitude scales as $B\propto V^{-2/3}$
for an expanding shell of volume $V$, even a highly magnetized plasma at
$R\sim 10^7\textrm{ cm}$ would possess only a negligible field amplitude of $\sim
10^{-2}\textrm{ gauss}$, or $\epsilon_{B}\la 10^{-7}$, at a radius of $R\ga
10^{16}\textrm{ cm}$, where the afterglow radiation is emitted\footnote{Both the
magnetic field energy density and the thermal energy of the fireball scale
as $\propto V^{-4/3}$ for adiabatic expansion. However, when shocks are
generated, the plasma is heated due to the dissipation of the fireball
kinetic energy, and the magnetic energy parameter decreases far below
equipartition in the post shock gas.} (see also \cite{MLR93}). Moreover,
the emitting material behind the external shock is continuously replenished
by the ISM, and so the field originally carried by the fireball ejecta
cannot account for the afterglow radiation.
None of the above mechanisms is capable of generating near equipartition
magnetic fields in the {\em external shocks} which produce the delayed
afterglow emission. In this paper, we propose a different, {\em universal}
mechanism of magnetic field generation in GRB shocks. It involves the
relativistic generalization of the two-stream (Weibel) instability in a
plasma. This instability is driven by the {\em anisotropy} of the Particle
Distribution Function (PDF) and, hence, could operate in both internal and
external shocks. Our main results are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The characteristic $e$-folding time in the shock frame for the instability
is $\sim10^{-7}\textrm{ s}$ for internal shocks and $10^{-4}\textrm{ s}$ for external shocks.
This time is much shorter than the dynamical time of GRB fireballs.
\item
The generated magnetic field is randomly oriented in space, but always lies
in the plane of the shock front.
\item
The instability is powerful. It saturates only by nonlinear effects when
the magnetic field amplitude approaches equipartition with the electrons
(and possibly with the ions).
\item
The instability isotropizes the PDF and, thus, effectively heats the electrons
and protons.
\item
The characteristic coherence scale of the generated magnetic field is of
the order of the relativistic skin depth, i.e. $\sim10^3\textrm{ cm}$ for internal
shocks and $\sim10^5\textrm{ cm}$ for external shocks. This scale is much smaller
than the spatial scale of the source.
\item
The mean free path for Coulomb collisions is larger than the fireball
size. However, the randomness of the generated magnetic field provides
effective collisions due to pitch angle scattering of the particles in an
otherwise collisionless plasma and, thus, justifies the use of the
magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) approximation for GRB shocks. The magnetic
fields communicate the momentum and pressure of the outflowing fireball
plasma to the ambient medium and define the shock boundary.
\end{enumerate}
The above mechanism results in tangential magnetic fields near the apparent
limb of the source. Hence, the long-term synchrotron emission from the limb
would be linearly polarized along the radial direction relative to the
source center. Although the net polarization of a circularly symmetric
source is zero, scattering of the radio afterglow emission of GRBs by the
intervening Galactic interstellar medium would break the symmetry in the
source image and result in polarization scintillations. This effect can be
used to test the reality of our proposed mechanism for the generation of
magnetic fields in GRB blast waves.
The outline of the paper is as follows. The physical mechanism of the
instability is discussed in \S \ref{S:WEIBEL}. The generation of magnetic
fields in internal and external shocks is discussed in \S
\ref{S:SHOCKS}. In \S \ref{S:PREDICT} we predict the polarization
scintillation signal in our model. Finally, \S \ref{S:DISC} summarizes our
main conclusions.
\section{The Two-Stream Instability \label{S:WEIBEL}}
The instability under consideration was first predicted by Weibel (1959) for a
non-relativistic plasma with an anisotropic distribution function. The simple
physical interpretation provided later by Fried (1959) treated the PDF
anisotropy more generally as a two-stream configuration of a cold plasma.
Below we give a brief, qualitative description of this two-stream magnetic
instability.
Let us consider, for simplicity, the dynamics of the electrons only, and
assume that the protons are at rest and provide global charge neutrality.
The electrons are assumed to move along the $x$-axis (as illustrated in
Figure\ \ref{fig}) with a velocity ${\bf v}=\pm {\bf \hat x}v_x$ and equal
particle fluxes in opposite directions along the $x$-axis (so that the net
current is zero). Next, we add an infinitesimal magnetic field fluctuation,
${\bf B}= {\bf\hat z}B_z\cos(ky)$. The Lorentz force, $-e{{{\bf v}\over
c}\times{\bf B}}$, deflects the electron trajectories as shown by the
dashed lines in Figure\ \ref{fig}. As a result, the electrons moving to the
right will concentrate in layer I, and those moving to the left -- in
layer II. Thus, current sheaths form which appear to {\em increase} the
initial magnetic field fluctuation. The growth rate is $\Gamma=\omega_{\rm
p}v_y/c$, where $\omega_{\rm p}^2=(4\pi e^2n/m)$ is the non-relativistic
plasma frequency (\cite{Fried59}). Similar considerations imply that
perpendicular electron motions along $y$-axis, result in oppositely
directed currents which suppress the instability. The particle motions
along ${\bf\hat z}$ are insignificant as they are unaffected by the
magnetic field. Thus, the instability is indeed driven by the PDF
anisotropy and should quench for the isotropic case.
The Lorentz force deflection of particle orbits increases as the magnetic
field perturbation grows in amplitude. The amplified magnetic field is
{\em random} in the plane perpendicular to the particle motion, since it is
generated from a random seed field. Thus, the Lorentz deflections result in
a pitch angle scattering which makes the PDF isotropic. If one starts from a
strong anisotropy, so that the thermal spread is much smaller than the
particle bulk velocity, the particles will eventually isotropize and the
thermal energy associated with their random motions will be equal to their
initial directed kinetic energy. This final state will bring the
instability to saturation.
We note the following points about the nature of the instability:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The instability is {\em aperiodic}, i.e., ${\rm Re}\,\omega=0$. Thus, it
can be saturated by nonlinear effects only, and not by kinetic effects such
as collisionless damping or resonance broadening. Hence, the magnetic field
can be amplified up to high values.
\item
Despite its intrinsically kinetic nature, the instability is
non-resonant,\footnote{This instability may be treated as an analog
of the fire-hose instability in the absence of the external magnetic field.}
i.e., it is impossible to single out a group of particles that is
responsible for the instability. Since the bulk of the plasma participates
in the process, the energy transferred to the magnetic field could be
comparable to the total kinetic energy of the plasma. Hence, the
instability is {\em powerful}.
\item
The instability is self-saturating. It continues until all the free energy
due to the PDF anisotropy is transferred to the magnetic field energy.
\item
The generated magnetic field always lies in the plane perpendicular to the
initial anisotropy axis of the PDF, i.e., to the shock propagation
direction.
\item
The produced magnetic field is randomly oriented in the shock plane. The
Lorentz forces randomizes particle motion over the pitch angle and, hence,
introduces an effective scattering process into the otherwise collisionless
system. This validates the use of the MHD approximation in the study of
collisionless GRB shocks.
\end{enumerate}
\cite{SGbook} and \cite{MS63} provide a kinetic, non-relativistic treatment
of the instability in both the linear and the quasi-linear regimes, and
apply the theory of collisionless shocks to space plasmas. In the next
section we will extend their analysis to the case of ultra-relativistic GRB
shocks.
\section{Magnetic Field Generation in GRB Shocks \label{S:SHOCKS}}
We consider a GRB shock front expanding at a Lorentz factor, $\gamma_{\rm
sh}$, behind which the particles have a thermal Lorentz factor,
$\bar\gamma$. In this section, we will derive equations which are equally
applicable to electrons and protons, whichever species dominates the growth
of the instability. Later, we shall use the subscripts ``$e$'' and ``$p$''
to denote electrons and protons, respectively. We calculate all quantities
in the comoving frame of the shock.
A fully kinetic, relativistic treatment of the magnetic two-stream (Weibel)
instability is a complicated task. The dispersion relation for a simplified
``water-bag'' PDF was derived by Yoon \& Davidson (1987) and is given by
equation\ (\ref{disp}) in Appendix \ref{A1}. This dispersion relation
implies that only a range of modes above a critical wavelength will grow
[cf. Eq.\ (\ref{range})]. Naturally, the mode with the largest growth rate,
$\Gamma_{\rm max}$, dominates and sets the characteristic length-scale of
the magnetic field fluctuations, $\lambda\sim k_{\rm max}^{-1}$. The
ultra-relativistic expressions for $\Gamma_{\rm max}$ and $k_{\rm max}$ are
given by equation\ (\ref{gamma-k}) for a strong initial anisotropy. We
write the corresponding $e$-folding time and correlation length of the
field as \begin{equation} \tau\simeq\frac{\gamma_{\rm sh}^{1/2}}{\omega_{\rm p}} ,\quad
\lambda\simeq2^{1/4}\frac{c\bar\gamma^{1/2}}{\omega_{\rm p}} .
\label{scales}
\end{equation}
We can now estimate the nonlinear saturation amplitude of the magnetic
field. The instability is due to the free streaming of particles. As the
field amplitude grows, the transverse deflection of particles gets
stronger, and their free streaming across the field lines is
suppressed. The typical curvature scale for the deflections is the Larmor
radius, $\rho=v_{\bot B}/\Omega_{\rm c}\simeq(\gamma_{\bot
B}^2-1)^{1/2}mc^2/eB$, where $v_{\bot B}$ and $\gamma_{\bot B}$ are the
transverse velocity and Lorentz factor of a particle relative to the local
magnetic field. On scales larger than $\rho$, particles can only move
along field lines. Hence, when the growing magnetic fields become such that
$k_{\rm max}\rho\sim1$, the particles are magnetically trapped and can no
longer amplify the field. Assuming an isotropic particle distribution at
saturation ($\gamma_{\bot B}\sim\bar\gamma$), this condition can be
re-written as \begin{equation} \frac{B^2/8\pi}{mc^2n(\bar\gamma-1)}
\sim\frac{(\bar\gamma+1)}{2\sqrt2\,\bar\gamma} .
\label{sat}
\end{equation} For ${\bar\gamma}\gg 1$, this corresponds to a magnetic energy density
close to equipartion with the amplifying particles. Interestingly, one may
obtain the same result following a different analysis. First, the
instability leads to a growth of the field amplitude [as given by the last
term in Eq.\ (\ref{ke}), $\sim{\bf v\cdot}\partial_{\bf x} f$]. Second,
nonlinearity leads to the transfer of energy to shorter wave lengths,
$k>k_{\rm crit}$, where the fluctuations are damped [as described by the
second term in Eq.\ (\ref{ke}), $\sim(e/c) {\bf v\times
B\cdot}\partial_{\bf p} f$]. Thus, the steady value of $B$ is determined by
balancing these two processes. Equating these two terms and replacing
$\partial_x$ by $k_{\rm crit}\simeq k_{\rm max}/\sqrt2
\sim\rho_p/\sqrt{2}$, yields \begin{equation} v_{\bot B} k_{\rm crit}f\sim v_{\bot
B}eBf/mc^2\gamma_{\bot B} . \end{equation} The field strength estimated here is
equivalent to that given in equation\ (\ref{sat}) to within a factor of
order unity.
Direct computer simulations of the instability in both non-relativistic and
relativistic electron plasmas confirm that the saturation occurs at
slightly {\em sub-equipartition} values of $B$ (see, e.g.,
\cite{Califanoetal98}; Kazimura et al. 1998; \cite{Yangetal94};
\cite{WE91}),
\begin{equation} \frac{B^2/8\pi}{mc^2n(\bar\gamma-1)}\equiv\eta\sim0.01 - 0.1\, .
\label{field}
\end{equation}
where we introduced the efficiency factor $\eta\lesssim0.1$. The precise
saturation level depends on the nonlinear modification of the PDF during
the instability which is not accounted for by our linear analysis. We
shall retain the efficiency factor, $\eta$, in our estimates.
Note that the thermal Lorentz factor of particles, $\bar\gamma$, varies in
time as the instability develops. Due to particle scattering by the
generated magnetic fields, an initially highly anisotropic PDF with
$\bar\gamma\ll\gamma_{\rm sh}$ will eventually evolve to an isotropic,
ring-like distribution, for which $\bar\gamma\simeq\gamma_{\rm sh}$. Thus,
the spatial scale and amplitude of the resultant magnetic field, given by
equations\ (\ref{scales}) and (\ref{field}), will evolve during the
lifetime of the instability because they are functions of $\bar\gamma$. In
estimating these values at a GRB shock when the instability saturates, we
take $\bar\gamma\simeq\gamma_{\rm sh}$. The $e$-folding time for the
instability is independent of $\bar\gamma$ in the case of strong
anisotropy. In the case of weak anisotropy, $\bar\gamma\approx\gamma_{\rm
sh}$, the ``water-bag'' model used here is formally invalid, but the
comparison of the ultra-relativistic results with non-relativistic results
(e.g., Moiseev \& Sagdeev 1963) suggests that the instability quenches and
the $e$-folding time scales as \begin{equation} \tau\simeq\lambda/c
\propto\left[(\epsilon_\|-\epsilon_\perp)/\epsilon_\|\right]^{-3/2},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_\|$ and $\epsilon_\perp$ are the average energies of
particle motions along the direction of shock propagation and transverse to
it. The field correlation length follows a similar scaling.
The diffusive decay time of the generated magnetic field is $\tau_{\rm
diff}\simeq1/\eta_Bk_{\rm max}^2$, where $\eta_B=mc^2\nu_{\rm coll}/4\pi
ne^2$ is the magnetic diffusivity and $\nu_{\rm coll}$ is the particle
collision frequency. Hence, the diffusion time \begin{equation} \tau_{\rm
diff}\simeq\bar\gamma/\nu_{\rm coll} , \end{equation} is much longer than the
fireball expansion time since the particle collision frequency in the
fireball plasma is negligible. Thus, the magnetic field is not expected to
dissipate its energy Ohmically over the fireball lifetime. Note that
magnetic fields cannot be produced during the optically-thick phase of the
fireball, because Compton scattering on the photons rapidly removes any
anisotropy of the PDF. Next, we consider two types of GRB shocks in which
magnetic fields might be generated.
\subsection{Internal Shocks due to Shell Collisions Inside the Fireball}
Rapid variability of a GRB source results in a fireball which is composed
of thin layers (shells) moving with different Lorentz factors. To produce
the observed non-thermal $\gamma$-ray spectrum, the shells must collide at
sufficiently large radii where the internal shock region is optically-thin
to both Compton scattering and $e^+e^-$-pair production. The collision
should also occur before the fireball slows-down on the ambient
medium. These conditions imply that the internal shock be mildly
relativistic, with a Lorentz factor $\gamma_{\rm int}$ of order a few in
the center of mass frame of the colliding shells (see Piran 1999 for more
details). Prior to a collision, the electrons and protons in the colliding
shells are cold relative to their bulk Lorentz factor,
$\bar\gamma_{e,p}\lesssim\gamma_{\rm int}$. As typical parameters for the
shells we assume a plasma density of $n\approx3\times10^{10}\textrm{ cm}^{-3}$,
$\gamma_{\rm int}=4$, and initial thermal Lorentz factors
$\bar\gamma_{p,e}\approx2$ (see e.g., Piran 1999; \cite{PL98}). The plasma
frequencies for the electrons and protons are given by the relations,
${\omega_{\rm p}}_e=9.0\times10^3n^{1/2}\textrm{ s}^{-1}$ and ${\omega_{\rm
p}}_p=2.1\times10^2n^{1/2}\textrm{ s}^{-1}$, where $n$ is in $\textrm{ cm}^{-3}$.
For simplicity, we consider the collision of two identical shells. In the
center of mass frame, the interaction of these collisionless shells yields
a state of two inter-penetrating plasma streams, which is readily unstable
to the generation of magnetic fields. Since ${\omega_{\rm
p}}_e\gg{\omega_{\rm p}}_p$, the instability grows faster for the electrons
than for the protons and so the electrons dominate the magnetic field
generation process at early times. The electron instability saturates when
the magnetic energy density becomes comparable to the electron energy
density, $\gamma_{\rm int}n m_ec^2$. This energy is still much smaller than
that associated with the protons\footnote{We assume that the dominant ion
species in the relativistic GRB wind is protons. The generalization of our
discussion to heavier ion species is straightforward.}. Thus, when the
instability saturates for the electrons, it could still continue on a
longer time-scale for the protons. The protons dominate energetically and
could lead to near equipartition magnetic energy with
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_B\lesssim \eta\sim 0.1.
\end{equation}
From equation\ (\ref{scales}) we get the characteristic
scale length and growth time of the instability for the protons,
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda&\simeq&2\times10^3
\left(\frac{n}{3\times10^{10}\textrm{ cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{\gamma_{\rm int}}{4}\right)^{1/2}\textrm{ cm} ,~~~~~~~
\\
\tau&\simeq&6\times10^{-8}
\left(\frac{n}{3\times10^{10}\textrm{ cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{\gamma_{\rm int}}{4}\right)^{1/2}\textrm{ s}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
These quantities are decreased by a factor of $(m_p/m_e)^{1/2}=43$ for the
electrons.
The generation of magnetic fields in counter-streaming, electron-positron
plasmas has been extensively studied numerically using particle-in-cell codes
(e.g., \cite{Kazimuraetal98}; \cite{Califanoetal98}; \cite{Yangetal94}).
A clear visual demonstration of the magnetic
field amplification process is provided by Figure 2 of Kazimura et
al. (1998). The rapid generation of a strong, small-scale magnetic field
occurs at the interface of the colliding streams, and is followed by the
gradual modification of the field structure around the interface, due to
the nonlinear saturation and relaxation of the particle velocity
anisotropy. The inferred value of $\eta\sim0.01-0.1$ is generic
(\cite{Kazimuraetal98}; \cite{Yangetal94}). The amplication process
produces also random electric fields with an energy density that is at most
comparable to that of the magnetic component, $\langle
E^2\rangle\sim(v/c)\langle B^2\rangle$ (\cite{Kazimuraetal98}).
Unfortunately, no simulations were performed so far for colliding
electron-proton plasmas. Numerical simulations of a plasma with species of
somewhat different masses suggests that the energetics of the process is
indeed dominated by the heavier species (\cite{Arons96}). Nevertheless,
direct relativistic simulations with dynamical protons and electrons are
required in order to assess the saturation amplitude of the magnetic field
in GRB shocks of different properties.
If the colliding shells do not possess similar densities, then the growth
rate of the instability decreases or even shuts off beyond a particular
density contrast, as discussed in Appendix \ref{A2}. In this regime, the
shock may be dominated by electrostatic (Langmuir) turbulence. Unless the
outflowing plasma is already contaminated by strong magnetic fields, the
synchrotron emission from the collision of shells with very different
densities would therefore be weak.
\subsection{External Shock due to the Interaction of the Fireball with the ISM}
Eventually, the fireball slows down due to its interaction with the
surrounding ISM. The external shock produced by this interaction yields the
delayed afterglow emission and is assumed to carry a strong magnetic
field. As the shock propagates into the ISM, the fresh electrons and
protons are reflected from the magnetized shock front back into the
ISM. Thus, a two-stream state forms in the comoving frame of the shock and
a magnetic field is amplified in the ISM, just in front of the shock.
We assume that the fraction of reflected particles is of order unity, and
so the above two-stream state is analogous to that produced in internal
shocks\footnote{The existence of a shock discontinuity relies on the fact
that the fraction of scattered particles at the shock front is close to
unity. The relevant scattering process could be produced by either strong
Langmuir or magnetic turbulence which mediates the pressure force of the
post-shock gas to the pre-shock gas.}. The instability first acts on the
electrons. The correlation scale and saturation amplitude of the field are
given by equations\ (\ref{scales}) and (\ref{field}). Since the magnetic
field is generated upstream and then transported downstream, we need to
take account of the compression factor at the shock. Given the jump
conditions for a relativistic shock, we have $\lambda=\lambda'/4\gamma_{\rm
sh}$ (where ``prime'' denotes the parameter in front of the shock), while
the ratio of the magnetic to thermal energy remains constant. For an ISM
density $n_{\rm ISM}\approx1\textrm{ cm}^{-3}$, we therefore get the following
parameters behind the shock,
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\epsilon_B}_e&=&\eta\,\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)
\simeq5.5\times10^{-5}\eta_{.1} , \label{sat-e}
\\
\lambda_e&=&3\times10^5
\left(\frac{\gamma_{\rm sh}}{10}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{n_{\rm ISM}}{1\textrm{ cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/2} \textrm{ cm} ,~~~~~~~
\\
\tau_e&=&4\times10^{-4}
\left(\frac{\gamma_{\rm sh}}{10}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{n_{\rm ISM}}{1\textrm{ cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/2} \textrm{ s}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
where $\eta_{.1}\equiv (\eta/0.1)$ and the subscript ``$e$'' denotes
amplification of the magnetic field by the electrons only. The magnetic
energy parameter is still normalized relative to the proton thermal energy.
When the instability of the electrons saturates, further amplification by
the protons may become important. The magnetic field is amplified in a thin
layer in front of the shock, the width of which is of order the Larmor
radius of the protons\footnotemark\ at the shock. \footnotetext{Regardless
of whether the electrons or protons contribute to the instability, the
width of the shock front is set by the heavier protons. The electrons
follow the protons to ensure quasi-neutrality of the plasma (an electric
field forms which keeps the electrons tied to the protons). The magnetic
field amplification by the electrons occurs in a pre-shock region of width
$\sim\rho_e\ll\rho_p$, and the electrons have sufficient time to amplify
the magnetic field up to their saturation amplitude.} The time
available for field amplification is, thus, roughly the crossing time,
$t_{\rm amp}\sim\rho_p/c\sim\bar\gamma_p(\bar\gamma_e\gamma_{\rm sh}\eta)^{-1/2}
(m_p/m_e)^{1/2}(B_{{\rm sat,}e}/B) \tau_p \sim 3(m_p/m_e)^{1/2}
(B_{{\rm sat,}e}/B) \tau_p$,
where $B_{{\rm sat,}e}$ denotes the field strength after saturation on the
electrons [as given by Eq.~(\ref{sat-e})]. On the other hand, the growth of
the field to a sub-equipartition amplitude with the protons would take at
least $t_{\rm growth}= \tau_p\ln(B_{{\rm sat,}p}/B_{{\rm sat,}e})
\sim\tau_p\ln(m_p/m_e)^{1/2} \sim 3.8\tau_p$, i.e. comparable to
the time available for the amplification of $B_{{\rm sat,}e}$
up to $B_{{\rm sat,}p}=(m_p/m_e)^{1/2}B_{{\rm sat,}e}$. However, since the
growth of the field near saturation is slower than that during the linear
stage of the process, the Weibel instability may not be able to build the
field up to equipartition with the protons and yield $\epsilon_B\sim\eta$.
Whether maximal amplification of the magnetic field can occur in this
environment is uncertain\footnotemark\ and can be found only through
detailed numerical simulations. \footnotetext{The uncertain saturation
level might be affected by energy exchange between of the protons and the
electrons and the excitation of competing modes. Initially, the electron
Larmor radius is smaller than the proton Larmor radius. A slight charge
separation results in a strong electric field, which maintains the
quasi-neutrality of the moving plasma. The electric field keeps the
electrons and protons at the same bulk velocity, but might also heat the
electrons up to equipartition with the protons. Values of $\epsilon_e\sim
0.1$ are indeed indicated by afterglow data (but could result also from
Fermi acceleration of the electrons at the shock front). The accelerated
electrons might then amplify the magnetic field further. Otherwise, the
so-called low-hybrid plasma waves are excited in collisionless shocks with
magnetized electrons and unmagnetized protons. These waves are generated by
the protons and have a typical growth rate
$\Gamma_{LH}\sim(\Omega_p\Omega_e)^{1/2} \sim{\omega_{\rm p}}_p$ for $B\sim
B_{{\rm sat,}e}$, i.e., comparable to the two-stream instability growth
rate. Such waves may carry a significant amount of energy and also transfer
it to the electrons via resonant interactions. In addition, Langmuir
(electrostatic) turbulence might be generated via the interaction of the
low-density beam (ISM) with the high-density shocked material (see Appendix
\ref{A2}) and, thus, lower the efficiency $\eta$. } We thus conclude that
the most robust prediction for the value of the magnetic field energy is
$\epsilon_B\sim \eta(m_e/m_p)$, but somewhat higher values are also
possible, so that
\begin{equation}
5\times10^{-5}\eta_{.1} \lesssim \epsilon_B \la
0.1\eta_{.1} .
\label{eq:limits}
\end{equation}
The predicted range of $\epsilon_B\sim10^{-1}$--$10^{-5}$ matches the
results from modeling of recent afterglow data. Wijers \& Galama (1998)
show that X-ray to radio spectrum of GRB970508 afterglow is consistent with
the values of $\epsilon_B\sim0.07$, indicating the proton dominated regime
of field generation. The field energy density for GRB990123 and GRB971214
is estimated to be $\epsilon_B\sim10^{-5}$ (\cite{Galama99}), and for
GRP980703 $\epsilon_B\sim6\times10^{-5}$ (\cite{Vreeswijk99}),
consistently with the electron dominated regime.
\section{Polarization Scintillations \label{S:PREDICT} }
In the previous section, we have found that the characteristic time it
takes the magnetic field to grow up to equipartition values is orders of
magnitude shorter than the dynamical time-scale of GRB shocks. Hence, the
growth of the field does not have observational consequences. Similarly,
the typical correlation length of the magnetic field is much smaller than
the source size and cannot be resolved. Thus, conventional light-curve
observations are unable to test the magnetic instability mechanism.
However, polarization measurements might be more promising, as we show
next.
\subsection{General Considerations}
Synchrotron radiation produced by relativistic electrons is known to be
highly polarized, predominantly in the direction perpendicular to the local
magnetic field (\cite{Ginzburg-book}; \cite{RybickiLightman}). It was shown
in \S \ref{S:WEIBEL} that the generated magnetic field is randomly oriented
in the plane of the shock front.
The afterglow radiation emitted by any infinitesimal section of the GRB
blast wave is relativistically beamed to within an opening angle
$\theta_{\rm b}\sim\gamma_{\rm sh}^{-1}\ll 1$. Hence, an external observer
sees a conical section of the fireball, as defined by this opening
angle. In addition, the rapid deceleration of the fireball reduces its
surface brightness as it expands. For a particular observed time, emission
along the line-of-sight axis to the source center suffers from the shortest
geometric time-delay, and hence originates at a larger radius and is dimmer
than slightly off-axis emission. The source therefore appears as a narrow
limb-brightened ring (Waxman 1997c; Sari 1998; Panaitescu \& Meszaros 1998;
Granot et al. 1998a). The outer cut-off of the ring is set by the sharp
decline in the relativistic beaming at angles greater than $\gamma_{\rm
sh}^{-1}$. Interestingly, the shock surface appears to a distant observer
as almost perfectly aligned along the line-of-sight at the edge of the
ring. This effect results from relativistic aberration (Rybicky \&
Lightman 1979, p. 110), i.e. the Lorentz transformation of angles from the
shock frame (in which the normal to the shock surface is inclined at an
angle $\gamma_{\rm sh}^{-1}$ relative to the line-of-sight) to the observer
frame. Therefore, at the limb-brightened edge of the ring, the small-scale
magnetic field is oriented tangentially on the sky. Consequently, the
random magnetic field does not average-out but rather produces linear
polarization which is oriented radially from the center at any point on the
ring. The resulting synchrotron radiation obtains a degree of polarization of
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\rm syn}=\frac{p_e+1}{p_e+7/3}\simeq72\%
\label{eq:pi_syn}
\end{equation}
for the typical value of the power-law index, $p_e=2.5$, of the
electron energy distribution, $dN_e/d\gamma_e\propto\gamma_e^{-p_e}$, in
GRB sources.
The two-stream mechanism for the amplification of the magnetic field can be
tested only if the source is resolved, since the {\em net} polarization of
a circularly-symmetric image is zero\footnote{A net polarization signal
might still result from an asymmetric source (e.g., due to a misaligned
jet) or due to an inverse cascade of the magnetic field to large scales
(Gruzinov \& Waxman 1998).}. There are two ways for resolving a compact
GRB source: (i) scintillations of radio afterglows due to electron density
irregularities in the ISM of the Milky Way galaxy (Goodman 1997); and (ii)
gravitational microlensing due to an intervening star along the
line-of-sight (Loeb \& Perna 1998). Since lensing occurs only rarely, we
focus our discussion on the first method. Observations of interstellar
scintillations probe angular scales of order a few micro-arcseconds
($\ \mu {\rm as}$), far below the VLBI resolution ($\sim300\ \mu {\rm as}$).
The interstellar scintillations arise when fluctuations in the electron
density randomly modulate the refractive index of the turbulent ISM. As a
result of random focusing and diffraction of the electromagnetic wave,
a point source produces a spatial pattern of random bright and dim
spots --- the speckle pattern. The source brightness fluctuates as
the observer moves across the pattern. The characteristic angular
correlation length of the pattern, $\theta_0$, is set by the statistical
properties of the ISM turbulence. If, however, the source is extended, then
the overall pattern is obtained from the superposition of the incoherent
patterns of its individual parts. Thus, if the angular size of the source,
$\theta_{\rm s}$, is larger than the characteristic scale of the speckles,
namely $\theta_{\rm s}>\theta_0$, then the intensity fluctuations wash-out
and the scintillation amplitude diminishes. The observations of a late-time
decline in the amplitude of intensity scintillations for the radio
afterglows GRB970508 (\cite{Frail-etal97}; \cite{Waxman-etal98}) and
GRB980329 (\cite{Taylor-etal98}) provide an estimate for the shock radius,
$R_{\rm s}\sim10^{17}\textrm{ cm}$ at times of $\sim1$ month and $\sim2$ weeks after
these bursts, respectively. These estimates are consistent with the
simplest fireball model predictions.
The Weibel instability mechanism predicts that different segments of the
ring-like source emit synchrotron radiation which is linearly polarized
along the radial axis, so that the net polarization vanishes when averaged
over the source. If $\theta_{\rm s}\ll\theta_0$, the source is effectively
point-like and hence symmetric. This regime is characterized by strong
intensity scintillations and weak polarization fluctuations. In contrast,
when $\theta_{\rm s}>\theta_0$, different parts of the source are mapped
differently, and the source is resolved. As the earth moves through the
scintillation pattern, an observer will measure fluctuations in the
direction and amplitude of the polarization, while the intensity would vary
only weakly due to the overlap of the separate speckle patterns. The
polarization scintillations should therefore be strong when the flux
fluctuations are weak.
We consider two types of scintillations, diffractive and
refractive\footnote{Effects due to differential Faraday rotation or
anisotropy of the ISM turbulence are unimportant because of the smallness
of the scattering angle, $\sim \ \mu {\rm as}$ (\cite{Narayan99}).} (\cite{GN85};
\cite{BN85}). Diffractive scintillations occur when the source is nearly
point-like, $\theta_{\rm s}\ll\theta_{\rm d}$, relative to
\begin{equation} \theta_{\rm d}\simeq
3\left(\frac{\nu}{10\textrm{ GHz}}\right)^{-11/5} \ \mu {\rm as} ,
\end{equation}
which is the diffraction angle for a typical scattering measure of
$10^{-3.5} {\rm m}^{-20/3}~{\rm kpc}$ (\cite{Goodman97}). The flux
modulation amplitude in the strong scattering regime is close to $100\%$.
For a Kolmogorov spectrum of ISM turbulence, the characteristic speckle
length is
\begin{equation}
\theta_0\simeq2.3\left(\frac{\nu}{10\textrm{GHz}}\right)^{6/5}\ \ \mu {\rm as},
\label{theta0}
\end{equation}
assuming a scattering screen distance of $\sim 1~{\rm kpc}$ and a
typical scattering measure of $10^{-3.5} {\rm m}^{-20/3}~{\rm kpc}$
(Goodman 1997). The time-scale for diffractive scintillations is
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm diff}\simeq3\left(\frac{\nu}{10\textrm{ GHz}}\right)^{6/5}\textrm{ hr}
\end{equation}
if the transverse velocity of the line of sight is dominated by
the earth with $v_\bot\simeq30\textrm{ km s}^{-1}$. As long as
$\theta_{\rm s}\ll\theta_0$, the polarization is close to zero, but when
the source approaches the speckle correlation length, $\theta_{\rm
s}\sim\theta_0$, the polarization scintillations could grow up to a large
amplitude, of order a few tens of percents [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:pi_syn})].
For these scintillations to be detected, the source must be observed at
relatively low frequencies (\cite{Goodman97}), namely
$\nu\lesssim10\textrm{GHz}$ for typical ISM conditions. Unfortunately, the
synchrotron self-absorption often occurs at frequencies below 5~GHz, and so
the afterglow might be fainter at these low frequencies, making the
detection of polarization scintillations more difficult. In addition, the
source image resembles more a filled disk rather than a hollow ring at low
frequencies (Granot et al. 1998a). The unpolarized radiation emitted near
the center of the disk will thus lower the overall degree of polarization.
As the source gets larger, $\theta_{\rm s}\gg\theta_{\rm d}$, the
diffractive effect weakens, and the scintillations are dominated by the
refractive effect, which yields only modest intensity fluctuations with an
amplitude $\sim10\%$. The polarization fluctuations in this regime have a
corresponding amplitude of only a few percents. The characteristic time-scale
for the refractive modulation is
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm ref}\simeq14\left(\frac{\theta_{\rm eff}}{10\ \mu {\rm as}}\right)\textrm{ hr},
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{\rm eff}$ is the effective size of the source
(see \cite{Goodman97} for details).
\subsection{Polarization Scintillations: Formalism}
The properties of the radiation field are fully described by four {\em
scalar} parameters --- the Stokes parameters (\cite{Ginzburg-book}), which
are {\em additive} for incoherent sources. For synchrotron radiation
produced by relativistic electrons, these parameters include the intensity
$I$ and
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
Q&=&I\,\cos 2\psi\,\cos 2\chi,\\
U&=&I\,\cos 2\psi\,\sin 2\chi,\\
V&=&0.
\end{eqnarray}
\label{Stokes}
\end{mathletters}
The last parameter, $V$, describes circular polarization while $Q$ and $U$
describe linear polarization. $\chi$ is the angle between the polarization
axis and an arbitrary fixed direction in the sky and $\cos
2\psi=(I_{\|}-I_{\perp})/(I_{\|}+I_{\perp})$ is the difference between the
radiation intensity along the two orthogonal axes of polarization divided
by the sum (see \cite{Ginzburg-book}; and \cite{RybickiLightman}, p. 180).
Both $\chi({\bf r})$ and $\psi({\bf r})$ are determined by the source, but
are not affected by the scintillations.
The degree of polarization is defined as
\begin{equation}
\pi=\left(Q^2+U^2+V^2\right)^{1/2}/I .
\label{degree-def}
\end{equation}
Given a power spectrum of electron density fluctuations in the ISM, the
statistics of speckles in a scintillation pattern is usually characterized
by the second moment correlation of the complex electric field of the
electromagnetic radiation,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\sf W}(\Delta{\bf x})&=&{\overline{E({\bf x})E^*({\bf x}+\Delta{\bf x})}}
\nonumber\\
&\propto&\exp\left[-D_\varphi(\Delta{\bf x})/2\right]
\nonumber\\
&\propto&\exp\left[-const\times (|\Delta{\bf x}|)^{\beta-2}\right],
\label{eq:beta}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf x}$ and $\Delta{\bf x}$ are two-dimensional vectors on the
plane normal to the line of sight, the ``bar'' denotes an
ensemble average, and $\beta$ is the power-law index of the power spectrum
of electron density fluctuations, $|\delta n_e(q)|^2\propto q^{\beta}$ with
$q$ being the spatial wave-number. The quantity $D_\varphi$ is the {\em
phase structure function} which yields the phase shift along different
paths and is determined by the ISM turbulence. The inferred value of
$\beta$ for the Galactic ISM is somewhat uncertain but close to the
Kolmogorov theory prediction $\beta=11/3$ (\cite{Armstrong-etal95}). In
calculating the scintillation indexes below, we adopt the approximate value
of $\beta\approx 4$ for which the ${\sf W}$ is Gaussian, which greatly
simplifies the calculation.
The Fourier transform of ${\sf W}$ is the apparent brightness distribution
of the scattered image of a point source:
\begin{equation}
W(\theta,\phi)=\left(I_0-\overline{I_0}\,\right)/\,\overline{I_0}
\rightleftharpoons{\sf W},
\end{equation}
where $\rightleftharpoons$ denotes a
Fourier conjugated pair, and $\theta=r/const$ and $\phi$ are the radial and
angular polar coordinates on the sky relative to the source center.
The scattered image of an extended source is the convolution of the image
kernel of a point source with the brightness distribution at the source,
$P_I(\theta,\phi)$,
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\theta,\phi)&=&W(\theta,\phi)\ast P_I(\theta,\phi) \nonumber\\
&\equiv&\int\!\!\! \int W(\theta-\theta',\phi-\phi')\,P_I(\theta',\phi')\,
\theta'{\rm d} \theta'\, {\rm d} \phi' .
\nonumber\\& &
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, the ``images'' of the other Stokes parameters are \begin{equation}
Q(\theta,\phi)=W\ast P_Q ,\qquad U(\theta,\phi)=W\ast P_U . \end{equation}
\label{IQU}
\end{mathletters}
Finally, the amplitude of the intensity fluctuations due to scintillations
is determined by the so-called {\em scintillation index}: \begin{equation}
S_I=\left({\langle I^2\rangle\over \langle W^2\rangle}\right)^{1/2}
\label{Si}
\end{equation} with analogous definitions for the indexes of the other Stokes
parameters $S_Q$ and $S_U$. We use angular brackets to denote integrals of
the form, $\langle W^2\rangle\equiv\int[W(\theta,\phi)]^2\,\theta{\rm
d}\theta \,{\rm d}\phi$. The normalized amplitude of the polarization
scintillations is described by the scintillation indexes of the
polarization signal $S_{QU}$ and the degree of polarization $S_\pi$, \begin{equation}
S_{QU}\equiv\left(S_Q^2+S_U^2\right)^{1/2} , \qquad S_\pi=S_{QU}/S_I .
\label{Squ}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Polarization Scintillations of GRB Afterglows}
To illustrate the qualitative properties of the polarization scintillations
in GRB afterglows we consider a crude model for the source that simplifies
the related integrals considerably. We approximate the circular source as
having a uniform surface brightness over the region $0<\theta<\theta_{\rm
s}(t)$, on the sky. We also normalize the total flux to unity at all times
since it enters only as a multiplicative factor to the polarization
indexes. The linear polarization is oriented along the radial direction, so
that the polarization angle is equal to the polar angle $\chi\equiv\phi$ in
equations\ (\ref{Stokes}), and the degree of polarization is assumed to be
constant over the source, $\pi_{\rm s}=0.72$ [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:pi_syn})].
Much of the radiation from the ring-like image of a real source acquires
this polarization level, although the overall polarization is somewhat
degraded by emission from the central part of the ring. Our estimates
should therefore be regarded as an upper limit on the measurable
polarization amplitude. The brightness distribution function for the
scattered image of a point source, $W$, is taken to be a Gaussian with a
variance set by the speckle angular scale,
$W=\exp[-\theta^2/\theta_0^2]$. The angular size of the source as a
function of time, $\theta_{\rm s}(t)$, was evaluated by Waxman et al.
(1998). For a cosmological source at a redshift $z_{\rm s}\sim1$, it reads
\begin{equation}
\theta_{\rm s}\simeq1.4\left(\frac{E}{10^{52} \textrm{ erg}}\right)^{1/8}
\left(\frac{n_{\rm ISM}}{1 \textrm{ cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/8} \left({t\over 1~{\rm
week}}\right)^{5/8} \ \mu {\rm as},
\end{equation}
where $E$ is the total energy of the
fireball and $t$ is elapsed time from the detection of the explosion. The
scintillation indexes can then be numerically calculated as functions of
$\theta_{\rm s}(t)/\theta_0$, using equations~(\ref{Stokes})--(\ref{Squ}).
The temporal evolution of the scintillation indexes for a source with
$z_{\rm s}=1$, $E=10^{52}~{\rm ergs}$ and $n_{\rm ISM}=1~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ is
presented in Figure\ \ref{scint}. At early times, when the source size is
small ($\theta_{\rm s}\ll\theta_0$), the polarization fluctuations are weak
while the intensity fluctuations are at maximum. When the source size
approaches the diffractive scattering angle, $\theta_d$, the source is
resolved and the observed radiation is partially polarized. At the same
time, the intensity fluctuation amplitude declines due to the overlap
between speckles. The polarization fluctuations peak when $\theta_{\rm
s}\sim\theta_0$ at a value of $\sim20\%\times (\pi_{\rm s}/0.72)$. As the
source size increases even further, the fluctuation amplitude of both the
intensity ($S_{I}$) and the polarization ($S_{QU}$) decrease, due to the
overlap of scattering patterns from different regions of the source.
However, the fluctuation level of the {\em degree} of polarization
($S_\pi$) continues to increase with increasing source size and asymptotes
at $\sim \pi_{\rm s}=72\%$. Thus, the saturation level of $S_\pi$ is
independent of the details of the scattering processes and provides
information about the intrinsic degree of polarization at the source.
\section{Conclusions \label{S:DISC}}
We have shown that the relativistic two-stream magnetic instability is
capable of producing strong magnetic fields in the internal and external
shocks of GRB sources. The generated fields are randomly oriented in the
plane of the collisionless shock front, and fluctuate on scales much
smaller than the size of the emission region. The instability inevitably
produces magnetic fields with the magnetic energy parameter of $\epsilon_B \sim
10^{-5}$--$10^{-4}$ due to the isotropization of the electrons at the shock
(see, e.g., the simulations by Kazimura et al. 1998), and could saturate at
yet higher values of $\epsilon_B\la 0.1$ if the protons do the same.
Numerical simulation of electron-proton plasmas are necessary in order to
examine under which conditions the protons might enhance the magnetic
energy up to these high values.
Galama et al. (1999) suggested a distinction between two classes of GRB
afterglows: radio-weak GRBs like GRB971214 or GRB990123 where the magnetic
energy parameter might be as low as $\epsilon_B\sim 10^{-6}$--$10^{-5}$,
and radio-loud GRBs like GRB970508 where $\epsilon_B \sim 10^{-1}$ (Waxman
1997a,b; Wijers \& Galama 1998; Sari et al. 1998). Low-field afterglows are
short and dim in the radio (and account for the majority of the afterglow
population) while high-field afterglows are long-lived and bright in the
radio. In our model, low-field GRBs would arise naturally due to the
saturation of the instability at the initial kinetic energy of the
electrons. High-field afterglows might result from proton amplification of
the magnetic energy.
Our model for the magnetic field generation predicts the existence of
polarization scintillations in the radio afterglows of GRBs. Since the
typical correlation length of the generated magnetic field is very small,
no net polarization is expected in the absence of scintillations, unless
the circular symmetry of the source is broken (e.g. due to a jet which is
misaligned with the line-of-sight) or if there is an inverse cascade of the
generated magnetic field to much larger scales. In the absence of such
complications, the polarization scintillations should appear typically
after a week, when the angular size of the source becomes of order a
micro-arcsecond, or equivalently when its physical size is
$\sim10^{17}\textrm{ cm}$. The normalized amplitude of the polarization
scintillation signal at that time could be as high as $\sim 10$--$20\%$.
\acknowledgements
We thank Ramesh Narayan, Martin Rees, and Pawan Kumar for insightful comments,
and Dale Frail, Bohdan Paczy\'nski, Eli Waxman, Ralf Wijers, Valentin
Shevchenko, and Vitaly Shapiro for useful discussions. This work was
supported in part by NASA ATP grants NAG 5-7768 and NAG 5-7039 (for AL) and
NAG 5-3516 (for MM).
\begin{appendix}
\section{Ultra-relativistic Treatment of the Magnetic Instability \label{A1}}
Starting with the kinetic equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t f + {\bf v\cdot}\partial_{\bf x} f
+ (e/c){\bf v\times B\cdot}\partial_{\bf p} f = 0,
\label{ke}
\end{equation} for the collisionless plasma, separating the PDF into an unperturbed
part and an infinitesimal perturbation, $f=F({\bf p})+\tilde f$, and
specifying $F({\bf p})$, one can obtain (\cite{YD87}) the following
dispersion relation for the magnetic (Weibel) instability in the
relativistic regime: \begin{equation} 1=\frac{c^2k^2}{\omega^2}+\frac{\omega_{\rm
p}^2/\hat\gamma}{\omega^2}
\left(G(\beta_\bot)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta_\|^2}{(1-\beta_\bot^2)}
\left[\frac{c^2k^2-\omega^2}{\omega^2-c^2k^2\beta_\bot^2}\right]\right) ,
\label{disp}
\end{equation} where $ \beta_\|=p_\|/\hat\gamma mc, \ \beta_\bot=p_\bot/\hat\gamma
mc, \ \hat\gamma=(1-\beta_\|^2-\beta_\bot^2)^{-1/2}, \
G(\beta_\bot)=(2\beta_\bot)^{-1}\ln\!
\left[(1+\beta_\bot)/(1-\beta_\bot)\right]$, and $p_\|$ abd $p_\bot$ are
the components of particle momentum averaged over the PDF. Here we denote
quantities parallel and perpendicular with respect to the direction of the
shock propagation, opposite to the convention used by \cite{YD87}. It is
easy to demonstrate that the instability occurs for the range of $k^2$
given by \begin{equation} 0<k^2<k^2_{\rm crit}\equiv \left(\frac{\omega_{\rm
p}^2}{\hat\gamma c^2}\right)
\left[\frac{\beta_\|^2}{2\beta_\bot^2(1-\beta_\bot^2)}-G(\beta_\bot)\right],
\label{range}
\end{equation} and only with anisotropic PDFs for which the expression in square
brackets is positive.
The mode with the largest growth rate dominates in the evolution. We
therefore want to find the maximum growth rate, $\Gamma_{\rm max}$, and the
corresponding wave vector of the fastest growing mode, $k_{\rm max}$. Upon
straightforward but lengthy calculations, we obtain:
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{\rm max}^2&=&\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2}{\hat\gamma(1-\beta_\bot^2)}
\left[\frac{\beta_\|^2}{1-\beta_\bot^2}+2\beta_\bot^2G(\beta_\bot)-
\frac{2\sqrt{2}\beta_\|\beta_\bot}{(1-\beta_\bot^2)^{3/2}}
\left(\frac{\beta_\|^2\beta_\bot^2}{1-\beta_\bot^2}+
\left(1-2\beta_\bot^2-\beta_\bot^4\right)G(\beta_\bot)\right)^{1/2}\right],
\nonumber\\
\\ k_{\rm max}^2&=&\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2}{\hat\gamma
c^2(1-\beta_\bot^2)}
\left[\frac{-\beta_\|^2}{2(1-\beta_\bot^2)}-G(\beta_\bot)+
\frac{(1+\beta_\bot^2)\beta_\|}{\sqrt{2}(1-\beta_\bot^2)^{3/2}}
\left(\frac{\beta_\|^2}{1-\beta_\bot^2}+
\frac{1-2\beta_\bot^2-\beta_\bot^4}{\beta_\bot^2}\:
G(\beta_\bot)\right)^{1/2}\right] .
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
These exact equations may be greatly simplified by assuming that the plasma
is ultra-relativistic and the particle parallel momenta (associated with
the bulk motion) are much larger than their perpendicular ones (due to
their thermal motion): $\gamma_\|\gg\gamma_\bot\gg1$. Then
$\hat\gamma\simeq\gamma_\|=\gamma$, and we readily obtain, \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\rm
max}^2\simeq\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2}{\gamma}
\left(1-2\sqrt{2}\frac{\gamma_\bot}{\gamma}\right) , \qquad k_{\rm
max}^2\simeq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2}{\gamma_\bot c^2}
\left(1-\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\gamma_\bot}{\gamma}\right) .
\label{gamma-k}
\end{equation}
Note that in the second equation, $\omega_{\rm p}^2$ is divided by
$\gamma_\bot$, which is much smaller than $\gamma$.
\section{Asymmetric Two-stream Instability \label{A2}}
\subsection{Cold beam -- Plasma Instability }
Here we consider the case when two interpenetrating collisionless plasma
streams have different densities and speeds in the center of mass
frame. Instabilities which occur in such a situation are often referred to
as beam -- plasma instabilities. The lack of symmetry in the system
complicates analytical, fully relativistic analysis and requires numerical
simulations. Below we provide quantitative estimates based on extrapolation
of the nonrelativistic results to the ultra-relativistic case.
The non-relativistic case of a beam--plasma instability has been considered
in different regimes (see e.g., \cite{Akhiezer-book}). If the densities of
the two streams are very different from each other, the center of mass
frame coincides with the rest frame of the denser stream, which we refer to
as the ``bulk plasma.'' The lower density stream is moving with some
velocity $u$ relative to it and is referred to as ``beam''. We denote the
parameters of the beam by a prime. The dispersion relation for the
magnetic instability in the case of a cold beam reads
(\cite{Akhiezer-book}, v.1, p.306) \begin{equation} \omega^2=-{\omega'^2_{\rm
p}}_e\left(\frac{k^2u^2} {k^2c^2+{\omega'^2_{\rm p}}_e} -\frac{k^2{v_{\rm
th}^2}_e{v_{\rm th}^2}_p} {{\omega^2_{\rm p}}_e{v_{\rm th}^2}_p +
{\omega^2_{\rm p}}_p{v_{\rm th}^2}_e} \right), \end{equation} where $u$ is the beam
velocity. We can then find the maximal growth rate and the fastest growing
mode, as in Appendix \ref{A1}, \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\rm max}^2=k^2_{\rm
max}c^2 \simeq{\omega_{\rm p}}_e{\omega'_{\rm p}}_e(u/{v_{\rm th}}_e) .
\end{equation} This result suggests the following scalings with the density ratio of
the beams \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\rm max}\propto k_{\rm max}\propto
\left(n_e'/n_e\right)^{1/4}, \qquad \epsilon_B\propto
\left(n_e'/n_e\right)^{1/2}.
\label{re-scale}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Hot beam -- Plasma Instability }
When particle pitch-angle scattering at a shock is strong, the beam becomes
``hot'', $u\sim v'_{{\rm th}_e}\gg v_{{\rm th}_e}$. Then, the dispersion
relation becomes (\cite{Akhiezer-book}) \begin{equation}
\omega=i\,\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\, \frac{k{v'^2_{\rm th}}_e}{{\omega'^2_{\rm
p}}_e({v'^2_{\rm th}}_e+u^2)} \left(\frac{u^2}{{v'^2_{\rm
th}}_e}\,{\omega'^2_{\rm p}}_e-k^2c^2 -{\omega^2_{\rm p}}_e\right),
\qquad\textrm{where } \quad k^2c^2+{\omega^2_{\rm p}}_e\approx
\frac{u^2}{{v'^2_{\rm th}}_e}\,{\omega'^2_{\rm p}}_e . \end{equation} The
instability occurs when \begin{equation} k^2c^2+{\omega^2_{\rm p}}_e
<\frac{u^2}{{v'^2_{\rm th}}_e}\,{\omega'^2_{\rm p}}_e . \end{equation} Thus, the
instability {\em shuts off} for $k\to0$ when \begin{equation} {\omega'_{\rm
p}}_e/{\omega_{\rm p}}_e =(n'/n)^{1/2}< {{v'_{\rm th}}_e}/u\lesssim1, \end{equation}
which is satisfied when $n'/n\lesssim1$.
In this case, however, Langmuir (longitudinal, electrostatic, high-frequency)
waves are efficiently generated with the (maximum) growth rate comparable to
that of magnetic instability in the previous cases:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\rm
Langmuir}\simeq\frac{3^{1/2}}{2^{4/3}}\left(\frac{n'_e}{n_e}\right)^{1/3}
{\omega_{\rm p}}_e .
\end{equation}
Random electric fields of Langmuir turbulence scatter plasma particles and
provide effective collisions at the shock, so that the MHD approximation
is applicable. A detailed analysis of this process is, however, beyond the
scope of this paper.
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
The problem of the quantum state of a nucleating bubble has been addressed in
the literature several times\cite{coleman,rubakov,VV,MT,TMdecay}. The results
relevant for our discussion can be summarized as follows. We have a
self-interacting scalar field $\sigma$ (the tunneling field) described by the
lagrangian
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}_\sigma = -\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\sigma\partial^\mu\sigma-V(\sigma)
\end{equation}
where $V(\sigma)$ has a local (metastable) minimum at some value
$\sigma_F$ and a global one at $\sigma_T$ (see Fig.~\ref{potencial}).
The bubble nucleation can be pictured as the evolution of the $\sigma$
field in imaginary time. The solution of the corresponding Euclidean
time equation which interpolates between the false vacuum at spacetime
infinity and the true vacuum inside the bubble is called the bounce.
In the absence of gravity, vacuum decay is dominated by the $O(4)$
symmetric bounce solution \cite{colemanmin}. So we shall write the
tunneling field as a function of $\tau\equiv(T_E^2+{\bf X})^{1/2}$
alone,
\begin{equation}
\sigma = \sigma_0(\tau),
\end{equation}
where $(T_E,{\bf X})$ are Cartesian coordinates in Euclidean space. The
solution describing the bubble after nucleation is given by the analytic
continuation of the bounce to Minkowski time $T$ through the substitution
$T_E=-iT$. Then, the bubble solution depends only on the Lorentz
invariant quantity $({\bf X}^2-T^2)^{1/2}$, where $(T,{\bf X})$ are the usual
Minkowski coordinates.
If there are quantum fields interacting with the tunneling field, their state
will be significantly affected by the change of vacuum state. Pioneering
investigations of this matter were carried out by Rubakov \cite{rubakov} and
Vachaspati and Vilenkin \cite{VV}. These latter authors considered a model of
two interacting scalar fields $\sigma$ and $\Phi$, and found the quantum state
for $\widehat{\bf \Phi}$ (the quantum counterpart of $\Phi$) by solving its
functional Scr{\"o}dinger equation. In order to find a solution, they impose
as boundary conditions for the wave function $\Psi(\tau;\Phi]$ regularity
under the barrier and the tunneling boundary condition (see \cite{VV} for
details). They found that the quantum state must be SO(3,1) invariant.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode\epsfysize=5cm \epsfbox{potencial.eps}\\[3mm]
\begin{quote}
{\sl
\caption[fig1]{\label{potencial} Assumed shape for the potential of the
tunneling field. It has a local minimum which corresponds to the false
vacuum at $\sigma_F$ and a global minimum, the true vacuum, at $\sigma_T$.
The bounce corresponds to the Euclidean evolution of the tunneling field under
the barrier.}}
\end{quote}
\end{figure}
A somewhat different approach was pursued later by Sasaki and Tanaka
\cite{MT}. They carried out a refinement of the method for
constructing the WKB wave function for multidimensional systems, first
introduced by Banks, Bender and Wu \cite{banks} and extended to field
theory by Vega, Gervais and Sakita \cite{vega}, and obtained the so
called quasi-ground state wave function. The quasi-ground state wave
function is a solution of the time independent functional
Schr{\"o}dinger equation to the second order in the WKB approximation
which is sufficiently localized at the false vacuum so that it would
be the ground state wave functional it there were no tunneling. They
also found that the state must be SO(3,1) invariant.
Moreover, general arguments, due to Coleman \cite{gencol}, suggest
that the decay must be SO(3,1) invariant. If not, the infinite volume
Lorentz group will make the nucleation probability diverge. From a
practical point of view, therefore, it would be interesting to know to
what extent symmetry considerations alone can be used to determine the
quantum state after nucleations. As a first approach to this question
it will be useful to compute the two-point function and the
renormalized expectation value of the stress tensor in a SO(3,1)
invariant quantum state for two simples models of one-bubble
spacetimes.
\section{General Formalism}
Our aim is to study the quantum state of a field $\Phi$ described by
a Lagrangian of the general form
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}_\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\Phi\partial^\mu\Phi -
\frac{1}{2}m(\sigma)^2 \Phi^2,\label{wish}
\end{equation}
where the mass term is due to the interaction of the field $\Phi$ with
a nucleating bubble. Working from the very beginning in the Heisenberg
picture, we will construct an SO(3,1) invariant quantum state for the
field $\widehat{\bf \Phi}$. After we will find its Hadamard two-point
function $G^{(1)}(x,x')\equiv \langle
0|\{\widehat{\bf\Phi},(x)\widehat{\bf\Phi}(x')\}|0\rangle$, and we
will check whether it is of the Hadamard form
\cite{hadamardA,hadamardB,hadamardC,waldkay}. Loosely speaking, a
Hadamard state can be described\footnote{For a more precise definition
of Hadamard states see \cite{waldkay}.} as a state for which the
singular part of $G^{(1)}(x,x')$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
G^{(1)}_{\rm sing}(x,x') = \frac{u}{\sigma}+v\log(\sigma),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ denotes half of the square of the geodesic distance between $x$
and $x'$, and $u$ and $v$ are smooth functions that can be expanded as a power
series in $\sigma$, at least for $x'$ in a small neighborhood of $x$. Hadamard
states are considered physically acceptable because for them the
point-splitting prescription gives a satisfactory definition of the
expectation value of the stress-energy tensor. After clarifying the singular
structure of $G^{(1)}(x,x')$, we will use the point-splitting formalism
\cite{christensen,waldreg,folacci,dorca} to compute the renormalized expectation
value of the energy-momentum tensor in this quantum state.
Finally we will briefly discuss the applicability of a uniqueness theorem for
quantum states due to Kay and Wald \cite{waldkay}.
\section{SO(3,1) coordinates}
In the present paper we will restrict ourselves to piecewise flat
spacetime. It proves very useful to use coordinates adapted to the
symmetry of the problem. So we will coordinatize flat Minkowski space
using hyperbolic slices, which will embody the symmetry under Lorentz
transformations. We define the new coordinates $(t,r)$ (Milne
coordinates) by the equations
\begin{equation}
t \equiv (T^2-{\bf X}^2)^{1/2} \hskip 1cm r\equiv
\mbox{tanh}^{-1} (|{\bf X}|/T),
\end{equation}
where $(T,{\bf X})$ are the usual Minkowski coordinates. In terms of these
coordinates, we have
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-dt^2+t^2d\Omega_{H_3},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
d\Omega_{H_3}=dr^2+\sinh^2r\,d\Omega_{S_2}
\end{equation}
is the metric on the unit 3-dimensional spacelike hyperboloid, and
$d\Omega_{S_2}$ is the line element on a unit sphere.
The above coordinates cover only the interior of the lightcone from the
origin. In order to cover the exterior, we will use the Rindler coordinates
\begin{equation}
\xi_R\equiv({\bf X}-T^2)^{1/2} \hskip 1cm \chi_R \equiv
\mbox{tanh}^{-1}(T/|{\bf X}|).
\end{equation}
In terms of this coordinates, the line element reads
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = d\xi_R^2 + g_{AB} dx^A dx^B = d\xi_R^2 + \xi_R^2\,d\Omega_{dS_3},
\end{equation}
where $g_{AB}$ is the metric on the $\xi_R=\mbox{ct.}$ hypersurfaces,
and $dS_3$ is the line element on a unit ``radius'' (2+1)-dimensional
de Sitter space,
\begin{equation}
d\Omega_{dS_3} = -d\chi_R^2 + \cosh^2\chi_R \,d\Omega_{S_2}.
\end{equation}
The Milne and the Rindler coordinates are related by analytic
continuation,
\begin{equation}
\chi_R = r-i\pi/2 \hskip 1cm \xi_R = i t.
\end{equation}
Notice that $t$ is timelike inside the lightcone and becomes
spacelike after analytical continuation to the outside, whereas $r$ is
spacelike inside the lightcone but its analytical continuation is
time-like.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{minkowski.eps}\\[3mm]
\begin{quote}
{\sl
\caption[fig2]{\label{minkowski} Conformal diagram of Minkowski spacetime. The
Milne coordinates $(t,r)$ cover the region inside the lightcone
emanating from the origin $O$. The Rindler coordinates
$(\xi_R,\chi_R)$ cover the outside of this lightcone. The thicker
solid line in the central diamond shaped region corresponds to the
position of the bubble wall.}}
\end{quote}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum state}
Here we will consider two simple models. First we shall consider a
massless field living in the Vilenkin-Ipser-Sikivie spacetime\cite{VIS}. The
VIS spacetime represents the global gravitational field of a reflection
symmetric domain wall, and can be constructed by gluing two Minkowski spaces
at some $\xi_R=R_0$, the locus corresponding to the evolution of the bubble
wall (see Fig.~\ref{VIS}). The second model we will study is a field which
interacts with the tunneling field only on the bubble wall. For the tunneling
field, we will assume the thin bubble wall approximation. More general models
of the form (\ref{wish}) will be considered elsewhere\cite{next}.
The quantization will be performed in the ``Rindler wedges'' of these spaces,
because the hypersurfaces $\chi_R=\text{ct.}$ are Cauchy surfaces for the whole
spacetime.
\subsection{VIS model}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{VIS.eps}\\[3mm]
\begin{quote}
{\sl
\caption[fig3]{\label{VIS} Conformal diagram of the VIS spacetime. This
spacetime, which corresponds to the global gravitational field of a
reflection symmetric domain wall, is constructed by identifying two
Minkowski spacetimes at some $\xi_R=R_0$.}}
\end{quote}
\end{figure}
Here we consider a massless field living in a spacetime constructed by gluing
two Minkowski spaces at some $\xi_R=R_0$. We take Rindler coordinates in the
region outside the origin of the two pieces, using a Rindler patch for each
one. On each side, the Rindler coordinate $^{(l/r)}\xi_R$ , where the index
$l$ or $r$ refers to the left or right pieces, ranges from $^{(l/r)}\xi_R=0$
on the lightcone to some value $^{(l/r)}\xi_R=R_0$, where the two Minkowski
pieces are identified. Defining $^{(l)}\xi_R = R_0e^{\eta}$ and $^{(r)}\xi_R
= R_0 e^{-\eta}$, we can coordinatize both pieces letting $\eta $ range from
$-\infty$ to $\infty$. Then the line element outside the lightcone becomes
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = a(\eta)^2\left(d\eta^2-d\chi_R^2+\cosh^2\chi_Rd\,\Omega_2\right),
\end{equation}
where $a(\eta)=R_0e^{\eta}\theta(-\eta) + R_0e^{-\eta}\theta(\eta)$. Here
$\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function.
In order to construct a quantum state, we expand the field operator
$\widehat{\bf\Phi}$ in terms of a sum over a complete set of mode
functions times the corresponding creation and annihilation operators,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bf\Phi}=\sum_{plm}a_{plm}\Phi_{plm} + \mbox{h.c.},
\end{equation}
The mode functions $\Phi_{plm}$ satisfy the field equation
\begin{equation}
\Box\Phi_{plm}=0\label{eqmassless},
\end{equation}
where $\Box$ stands here for the four dimensional d'Alambertian operator in
the VIS spacetime. Taking the ansatz
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{plm} = \frac{F_p(\eta)}{a(\eta)}{\mathcal
Y}_{plm}(\tilde x)
\end{equation}
where $\tilde x = (\chi_R,\Omega) $, $\Omega=(\theta,\varphi)$, equation
(\ref{eqmassless}) decouples into
\begin{align}
^{dS}\Box {\mathcal Y}_{plm} &= (p^2+1){\mathcal Y}_{plm}\label{eqY}\\
\left[-\frac{d^2}{d\eta^2}-2\delta(\eta)\right]F_p &= p^2 F_p.\label{eqF}
\end{align}
Here $^{dS}\Box$ stands for the covariant d'Alembertian on a (2+1) de
Sitter space. Equations (\ref{eqY})-(\ref{eqF}) have the
interpretation that ${\mathcal Y}_{plm}$ are massive fields living in a
(2+1) de Sitter space, with the mass spectrum given by the eigenvalues
of the Schr{\"o}dinger equation for $F_p$. Solving (\ref{eqF}), we
find that the spectrum has a continuous two-fold degenerate part for
$p^2>0$ and a bound state with $p^2=-1$ (a zero mode). If we let $p$
take positive and negative values, the normalized mode functions $F_p$
for $p^2>0$, which are the usual scattering waves, can be written as
\begin{equation}
F_p = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left((e^{ip\eta}+\rho(p)
e^{-ip\eta})\theta(-\mbox{sgn}(p)\,\eta)\ +
\sigma(p)e^{ip\eta}\theta\left(\mbox{sgn}(p)\,\eta\right)\right),\label{scatt}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\rho(p) &= -\frac{1}{i|p|+1},\\
\sigma(p) &= \frac{i|p|}{i|p|+1}.
\end{align}
The normalized supercurvature mode $p^2=-1$ is given by
\begin{equation}
F_{,-1} = \frac{a(\eta)}{R_0},
\end{equation}
where the coma indicates that $-1$ refers to $p^2$ instead of $p$.
As we are interested in a SO(3,1) invariant state, the natural choice
for ${\mathcal Y}_{plm}$ are the positive frequency (2+1) Bunch-Davies
modes \cite{bunchdavies},
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal Y}_{plm}(\tilde x) = \sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(l+1+ip)\Gamma(l+1-ip)}{2}}
\frac{P_{ip-1/2}^{-l-1/2}(i \sinh \chi_R)}
{\sqrt{i \cosh \chi_R}}Y_{lm}(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where $Y_{lm}(\Omega)$ are the usual spherical harmonics. With this choice, it
is straightforward to show that the quantum state for $\widehat\Phi$ is SO(3,1)
invariant.
Now we proceed to compute the two-point Wightman function $G^{(+)}(x,x')$,
\begin{align}
G^{(+)}(x,x') &\equiv \langle0|\widehat{\bf\Phi}(x)\widehat{\bf\Phi}(x')
|0\rangle =\sum_{lm}\Phi_{-1,lm}(x)\overline{\Phi_{-1,lm}(x')}
\nonumber\\&+
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp\sum_{lm}\Phi_{plm}(x)
\overline{\Phi_{plm}(x')}.
\end{align}
From now on we will suppose that the two points $x$ and $x'$ belong to the
Rindler wedge of the ``left Minkowski'' space, so we will omit the $(l)$ index
for notational simplicity. Direct substitution of the mode functions gives
\begin{align}
G^{(+)}(x,x') &= \frac{1}{R_0^2}\sum_{lm}{\mathcal Y}_{-1,lm}(\tilde
x)\overline{{\mathcal Y}_{-1,lm}(\tilde x')}\nonumber\\&+
\frac{1}{2\pi R_0^2}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dp
\left(\xi_M^{ip-1}\xi'_{M}{}^{-ip-1}\nonumber\right.\\&+\left.
\frac{1}{ip-1}\xi_M^{ip-1}\xi'_{M}{}^{ip-1}\right)\sum_{lm}
{\mathcal Y}_{plm}(\tilde x)\overline{{\mathcal
Y}_{plm}(\tilde x')},
\end{align}
where we have defined $\xi_M=e^\eta=\xi_R/R_0$. The two-point function
$G^{(+)}$ is SO(3,1) invariant because is a sum of SO(3,1) invariant
terms. Due to our choice of positive frequency modes, the $lm$ sums
correspond to the two-point Wightman functions in the Euclidean vacuum
for massive and a massless scalar fields living in $(2+1)$ de Sitter
spacetime. The (3+1)-dimensional Lorentz group SO(3,1) is the same as
the group of (2+1)-dimensional de Sitter transformations, so the
two-point functions are Lorentz invariant by
construction\footnote{\label{zeroinv}We will
follow\cite{zeromodeA,zeromodeB,zeromodeC,jaumekirsten} to construct
an SO(3,1) invariant state for the supercurvature massless mode with
$p^2=-1$.} (its explicit form is given below). $G^{(+)}$ also
depens on the quantity $\xi_R$. This is a function of the interval in
Minkowski space time, so it is Lorentz invariant too.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode\epsfysize=6cm \epsfbox{deSitter.eps}\\[3mm]
\begin{quote}
{\sl
\caption[fig6]{\label{deSitter} Conformal diagram of a (2+1) de Sitter
hyperboloid $\xi_R$=ct. Without loss of generality, we can
take the point $\tilde x$ to lie in the ``origin'' O. Then $Z>1$ if $\tilde
x'$ is timelike related with the origin, and $-1<Z<1$ if $\tilde x'$ is
spacelike related with the origin and can be joined with it by means of a
geodesic. If $Z<-1$, $\tilde x'$ is spacelike related with the origin but
there are no geodesics connecting it with the origin. The function
$\epsilon(x,x')$ is introduced in order to take into account the time
ordering of those points which are timelike related. If this is the case,
it evaluates to $\varepsilon$ if $\chi_R>\chi_R'$ and to $-\varepsilon$ if
$\chi_R<\chi_R'$, where $\varepsilon$ is a small positive value. Two
possible paths for $\chi'_R$ which pass through the origin are drawn (see
discussion in Fig.~\ref{Zplane})}}
\end{quote}
\end{figure}
First we will compute the contribution of the continuum. The $lm$ sum has
been explicitly computed \cite{sumaY},
\begin{align}
G^{(+)}_p(\tilde x,\tilde x') &\equiv \sum_{lm}{\mathcal Y}_{plm}\overline{{\mathcal
Y}_{plm}} \nonumber\\&= \frac{\Gamma(1+ip)\Gamma(1-ip)}{(4\pi)^{3/2}
\Gamma(3/2)}
{}_2F_1\left[1+ip,1-ip;\frac{3}{2};{\frac{1+Z-i\epsilon}{2}}\right]
\label{sumcont},
\end{align}
where $Z(\tilde x,\tilde x')\equiv X^\mu(\tilde x)X_\mu(\tilde x') =
-\sinh\chi_R\sinh\chi_R'+
\cosh\chi_R\cosh\chi_R'\cos\widehat{\Omega\Omega'}$, which is
explicitly Lorentz invariant. Here $X^\mu(\tilde x)$ is the position
of the point $\tilde x$ in the (3+1) Minkowski space where the $(2+1)$
de Sitter space is embedded as a timelike hyperboloid. The function
$\epsilon(\tilde x,\tilde x')$ has been introduced to indicate at
which side of the cut the hypergeometric function should be
computed\footnote{The hypergeometric function in (\ref{sumcont}) has a
branch cut along the real axis in the complex $Z$ plane from $Z=1$
to $Z=\infty$.}. It evaluates to $\varepsilon$ if $\tilde x$ and
$\tilde x'$ are timelike related and $\chi_R>\chi_R'$, to
$-\varepsilon$ if $\tilde x$ and $\tilde x'$ are timelike related and
$\chi_R<\chi_R'$, and vanishes if $\tilde x$ and $\tilde x'$ are
spacelike related, where $\varepsilon$ is a small positive constant
(see Fig.~\ref{deSitter}). At the end of the calculation, we will
take the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$. Introducing
$\cos\tilde\zeta\equiv-\tilde Z \equiv -Z+i\epsilon$, the two-point
function $G^{(+)}_p(\tilde x,\tilde x')$ can be compactly written as
\begin{equation}
G^{(+)}_p(\tilde x,\tilde x') = \frac{1}{4\pi\sin\tilde\zeta}
\frac{\sinh p\tilde\zeta}{\sinh\pi p}.
\end{equation}
After performing the $p$ integration we obtain
\begin{align}
G^{(+)}_{\rm cont}(x,x') &= \frac{1}{8\pi^2\sigma}+\frac{1}{8\pi R_0^2}\left(
2\cot\tilde\zeta\left(\tilde\zeta - \mbox{arc
tan}\frac{\sin\tilde\zeta}{\cos\tilde\zeta+\xi_M\xi_M'}\right)\right.
\nonumber\\
&+\left. \log\frac{(\xi_M\xi'_M)^2}
{\sin\tilde\zeta^2+(\cos\tilde\zeta+\xi_M\xi'_M)^2}\right).
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode\epsfysize=4cm \epsfbox{Zplane.eps}\\[3mm]
\begin{quote}
{\sl
\caption[fig6]{\label{Zplane} Paths in the complex $\tilde Z$- and
$\tilde \zeta$-planes for the curves shown in Fig.~\ref{deSitter}, where we
hold the point $\tilde x$ fixed at O while moving $\tilde x'$ around the
$(2+1)$ de Sitter space. If $Z<-1$, then $\tilde\zeta$ is purely imaginary.
If $-1<Z<1$, $\tilde \zeta$ is essentially real (if it were not for the
small $i\epsilon$ imaginary part). In this case, if $\chi_R<\chi_R'$,
$-\pi<\tilde \zeta<0$, but if $\chi_R>\chi_R'$ then $0<\tilde\zeta<\pi$. The
coincidence limit corresponds to both $\tilde\zeta=\pm \pi$, depending on
that we approach $\tilde x$ from ``abov'' or ``below''. When $\tilde x$ and
$\tilde x'$ are timelike related, $\tilde\zeta$ has both imaginary and real
parts. Its real part is $\pm\pi$ depending on whether $\chi_R$ is greater or
less than $\chi_R'$, respectively.}}
\end{quote}
\end{figure}
The ``supercurvature'' contribution of the $p^2=-1$ mode is in fact divergent.
This is related to the zero mode problem of massless quantum fields in
spacetimes with compact Cauchy surfaces. Following the usual prescription
\cite{zeromodeA,zeromodeB,zeromodeC,jaumekirsten}, we formally write this
divergent term as a divergent piece plus a finite one,
\begin{equation}
G^{(+)}_{\rm sup}(x,x') = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\langle0|Q^2|0\rangle +
\sum_{l>0,m}\frac{1}{R_0^2}{\mathcal Y}_{-1,lm}\overline{{\mathcal
Y}_{-1,lm}} ,
\end{equation}
where the infinity has been hidden in an infinite constant (see
\cite{jaumekirsten} for details). After, when taking derivatives to
compute the energy-momentum tensor, this divergent constant term will
give no contribution. The sum can be performed, and the result is
\begin{align}
G^{(+)}_{\rm sup}(x,x') &=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\langle0|Q^2|0\rangle +
\frac{1}{8\pi^2R_0^2}\left(
- 2\tilde\zeta\cot\tilde\zeta\right.\nonumber\\&+\left.
(2\chi+i\pi)\tanh\chi_R+(2\chi'-i\pi)\tanh\chi'_R\frac{}{}\right),
\end{align}
where we have dropped an irrelevant constant.
Adding the continuum and supercurvature contributions, and
symmetrizing the result with respect to $x$ and $x'$, we finally find
the symmetric Hadamard two-point function (for pairs of points $x$,
$x'$ outside the lightcone in the ``left'' Minkowski patch),
\begin{align}
G^{(1)}(x,x') &=\frac{1}{4\pi^2\sigma}+\frac{1}{4\pi^2R_0^2}
\left(2\chi_R\tanh\chi_R+
2\chi'_R\tanh\chi'_R\nonumber\right.\\ &- \left.2\,\cot\tilde\zeta\,\mbox{arc
tan}\frac{\sin\tilde\zeta}{\cos\tilde\zeta+\xi_M\xi_M'}\nonumber\right.\\
&+\left. \log\frac{(\xi_M\xi'_M)^2}
{\sin^2\tilde\zeta+(\cos\tilde\zeta+\xi_M\xi'_M)^2}\right)+
\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\langle0|Q^2|0\rangle \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{4\pi^2\sigma}+W(x,x'),
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma=\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi_R^2+\xi'_{R}{}^2+
2\xi_R\xi'_R\cos\tilde\zeta\right)
\end{equation}
is one half of the square geodesic distance in flat spacetime. The first term
in the final expression for $G^{(1)}(x,x')$ is the usual Minkowski ultraviolet
divergence. The second term, $W(x,x')$, is due to the nontrivial geometric
boundary conditions imposed by the symmetry of our problem. If $W(x,x')$ were
not singular, the state would be of the Hadamard
form\cite{hadamardA,hadamardB,hadamardC}. But $W(x,x')$ has local and
nonlocal singularities. In the coincidence limit, it is divergent on the
bubble wall. It is logarithmically singular whenever one of the points is on
the lightcone emanating from the origin. It is also singular when $x$ and $x'$
satisfy the relation $\sin^2\tilde\zeta+(\cos\tilde\zeta+\xi_M\xi'_M)^2=0$, so
the argument of the logarithm diverges. The roots of this equation are at
\begin{equation}
\xi_M^{\rm s}{\xi'}^{\rm s}_M=-e^{\pm i\tilde\zeta_{\rm s}}.\label{rootsing}
\end{equation}
To clarify the position of the singularities, let us fix the point
$x_{\rm s}$ and look for the points $x'_{\rm s}$ which make
$G^{(+)}(x_{\rm s},x'_{\rm s})$ singular. Taking into account that
$\xi_M^{\rm s}$ and ${\xi'}^{\rm s}_M$ should be real and should
satisfy $0<\xi_M^{\rm s},{\xi'}^{\rm s}_M<1$, it is seen from
(\ref{rootsing}) that the allowed values of $\tilde\zeta_{\rm s}$ are
of the form $\pm\pi+iy$ (i.e., $\tilde x_{\rm s}$ and $\tilde x'_{\rm
s}$ are ``timelike'' separated on a (2+1) de Sitter hyperboloid, see
Fig.~\ref{Zplane}), with $y>-\log\xi_M^{\rm s}>0$. Without loss of
generality, we can assume that $\tilde x_{\rm s}= (0,0,0)$. Then
$\cos\tilde\zeta_{\rm s}=-\cosh y=-\cosh {\chi_R'}^{\rm
s}\cos\theta'_{\rm s}$. This implies that $0\leq\theta'_{\rm
s}\leq\pi/2$, and we have no restriction on $\varphi'_{\rm s}$.
Since $\cosh {\chi_R'}^{\rm s} = \cosh y/\cos\theta'_{\rm s}\geq \cosh
y$, we find that ${\chi_R'}^{\rm s}\geq y\geq-\log\xi_M^{\rm s}$ or
${\chi_R'}^{\rm s}\leq-y\leq\log\xi_M^{\rm s}$. So the region inside
of which (for any value of $\Omega'$) $G^{(+)}(x,x')$ is non singular
(apart from the singular points on the lightcone from $x$) is limited
by the curves
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\leavevmode\epsfysize=6cm \epsfbox{singularities.eps}\\[3mm]
\begin{quote}
{\sl
\caption[fig6]{\label{singularities} Nonlocal singularities in the upper
half ``left Minkowski'', in the VIS model. Inside the shadowed region the
two-point function $G^{(1)}(x,x')$, considered as a function of $x'$ with
$x$ fixed, is singular only on the lightcone from $x$.}}
\end{quote}
\end{figure}
\begin{align}
{\xi'}^{\rm n.s.}_M&=\frac{1}{e^y\xi_M^{\rm s.}}\label{singularA}\\
{\chi'}^{\rm n.s.}_R &= \pm y\label{singularB},
\end{align}
with $y>-\log\xi_M^{\rm s}$, the lightcone from the origin and the
bubble wall (the superscript n.s. stands for ``nearest (nonlocal)
singularity'', see Fig.~\ref{singularities}). Note that as $x$
approaches to the bubble wall (i.e., $\xi_M\to 1$), the distance to
the nearest singular point $x'$ reduces. Consistently, in the
limiting case when $x$ is on the wall, $W(x,x')$ is singular on the
coincidence limit.
Let us now check the causal relationship between singular points
satisfying equation (\ref{rootsing}). If we compute $\sigma(x_{\rm s},x'_{\rm
s})$, we will find
\begin{equation}
\sigma(x_{\rm s},x'_{\rm s})=\frac{e^{-2
y}}{2\xi_M^{{\rm s}\,2}}(1-\xi_M^{{\rm s}\,2})
(1-\xi_M^{{\rm s}\,2} e^{2y})\leq 0,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from $y\geq-\log\xi_M^{\rm s}$,
$0\leq\xi_M^{\rm s}\leq 1$. The equality can only be realized if $x_{\rm
s}$ is on the bubble wall. Then, in this case, there exist nonlocal
singularities (of $W(x,x')$) which are null related. But if $x_{\rm s}$ is
not on the bubble wall, its singular partners are always time-like related
with it.
Summarizing, the two-point function is locally Hadamard everywhere except on
the bubble wall and on the lightcone. Moreover, it has (harmless, see
discussion below) nonlocal singularities.
\subsection{ST model}
In this second model, which has previously been considered by Sasaki
and Tanaka \cite{TMdecay}, the $\widehat\Phi$ field interacts with the
tunneling field $\sigma$ only on the bubble wall. We assume the
infinitely thin-wall approximation, so the interaction term can be
written as
\begin{equation}
m^2(\eta) = 2 \frac{V_0}{R_0^2} \delta(\eta),
\end{equation}
where $V_0>0$ characterizes the strength of the interaction and $R_0$ is the
radius of the bubble wall.
Decomposing the field $\widehat{\bf \Phi}$ as before, we find that the
Schr{\"o}dinger equation for $F_p$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
-F''_p+2 V_0\delta(\eta)F_p = p^2 F_p,
\end{equation}
Now the spectrum is purely
continuous with $p^2>0$. The solution of this Schr{\"o}dinger equation is the
scattering basis (\ref{scatt}) with the transmission and reflection
coefficients given by
\begin{align}
\rho(p) &= \frac{V_0}{i|p|-V_0},\\
\sigma(p) &= \frac{i|p|}{i|p|-V_0}.
\end{align}
Following a similar path\footnote{Detailed computations
will be presented elsewhere\cite{next}}, we arrive at the following
Hadamard two-point function (for points $x$, $x'$ in the Rindler wedge
and inside the bubble),
\begin{align}
G^{(1)}(x,x')&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2\sigma}+
\frac{1}{4\pi^2 i}\frac{1}{\xi_R\xi'_R\sin\tilde\zeta}
\left(_2F_1\left[1,V_0;V_0+1;-e^{i\tilde\zeta}
\frac{\xi_R\xi'_R}{R_0^2}\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&- \left._2F_1\left[1,V_0;V_0+1;-e^{-i\tilde\zeta}
\frac{\xi_R\xi'_R}{R_0^2}\right]\right)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2\sigma}+W(x,x'),
\end{align}
which is explicitly SO(3,1) invariant. If we take the coincidence limit, the
function $W(x,x')$ has divergences on the bubble wall, so the state is not
locally Hadamard. Apart from this, it has nonlocal logarithmic singularities
at the points where the argument of the hypergeometric functions become 1,
i.e., whenever $\xi_M\xi_M'=-\exp(\pm i\tilde \zeta)$. This is the same
relation we found in the VIS model. Borrowing the conclusions from the VIS
model, the state is locally Hadamard everywhere except on the bubble wall, and
has (harmless) timelike nonlocal singularities (except also on the
bubble wall).
As we have seen, the two models we have considered share two singular
behaviors: the existence of nonlocal singularities and the singularity of
$W(x,x')$ in the coincidence limit on the bubble wall. These singularities
seem to be related with the oversimplification of the model. Presumably, if
instead of a $\delta$-like term interaction we had introduced a smooth
function, these divergences would disappear.
\section{Renormalized expectation value of the stress tensor}
As we have pointed out, for the two models we have studied the singularities
of $G^{(1)}(x,x')$ are nearly of the Hadamard type. We can use the
point-splitting regularization prescription to compute the renormalized
expectation value of the stress-energy momentum tensor
\cite{christensen,waldreg,folacci},
\begin{align}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle &= \frac{1}{2}\lim_{x\to x'}{\mathcal
D}_{ab'}[W(x,x')],\\
{\mathcal D}_{ab'} &= \nabla_a\nabla_{b'}-
\frac{1}{2}g_{ab'}g^{cd'}\nabla_c\nabla_{d'}.
\end{align}
Noticing that $\cos\tilde\zeta =
-Z+i\epsilon=-\cos\sqrt{2\,\,^{dS}\sigma}+i\epsilon$, where $^{dS}\sigma$ is
one half of the square distance in a unit (2+1) de Sitter spacetime, the
covariant derivatives in the ``de Sitter'' direction are easily computed from
\cite{christensen,hadamardC}
\begin{align}
[^{dS}\sigma_{;A}] &=0, \\
{[^{dS}\sigma_{;AB'}]} &= -\frac{g_{AB}}{\xi_R^2},
\end{align}
where the brackets stand for the coincidence limit.
\subsection{VIS model}
The renormalized expectation value of the stress tensor turns out to be
\begin{align}
\langle T_{\xi_R\xi_R}\rangle&=\frac{\xi_R^2-2 R_0^2}{4\pi^2 R_0^2
(R_0^2-\xi_R^2)^2}, \\
\langle T_{AB}\rangle &= -\frac{\xi_R^4-3 R_0^2\xi_R^2+6 R_0^4}
{12\pi^2R_0^2(R_0^2-\xi_R^2)^3}\,g_{AB}.
\end{align}
where $0\leq\xi_R\leq R_0$ (i.e., $x$ is in the left Rindler wedge and
inside the bubble).
It is clear from the
expression that the energy-momentum tensor behaves somewhat better than the
two-point function. It is divergent on the bubble wall, but behaves smoothly
on the lightcone. So it can be analytically continued to the inside of the
lightcone. There it behaves like the energy-momentum tensor
of a perfect fluid,
\begin{align}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle = (\rho + p)u_a u_b + p g_{ab},
\end{align}
where $u^a=(\partial_t)^a$. On the lightcone it satisfies the equation
of state $p=-\rho$ whith
\begin{align}
\rho=\frac{1}{2\pi R_0^4}
\end{align}
For large $t$ the equation of state turns out to be
\begin{equation}
p=-\frac{1}{3}\rho,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\rho=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\frac{1}{R_0^2t^2}.
\end{equation}
Taking into account that the field is massless except on the
bubble-wall, one might naively expect that the energy momentum tensor
would behave like radiation, with $\rho\propto t^{-4}$. Instead of
this, we have found that it decreases slower. In fact, it can be shown
that its behaviour is dominated by gradients of the supercurvature
modes\footnote{The particle content and interpretation of the vacuum we
have considered will be discussed
elsewhere\cite{next}\label{particle}}.
\subsection{ST model}
For the ST model, we find
\begin{align}
\langle T_{\xi_R\xi_R}\rangle &= \frac{1}{2\pi^2R_0^4}
\frac{V_0}{V_0+2}{}_2F_1\left[3,V_0+2;V_0+3;
\left(\frac{\xi_R}{R_0}\right)^2\right],\\
\langle T_{AB}\rangle &= \frac{1}{2\pi^2R_0^4}\frac{V_0}{V_0+2}\left(
_2F_1\left[3,V_0+2;V_0+3;
\left(\frac{\xi_R}{R_0}\right)^2\right]\nonumber\right.\\
&+\left.2\left(\frac{\xi_R}{R_0}\right)^2
\frac{V_0+2}{V_0+3}{}_2F_1\left[4,V_0+3;V_0+4;
\left(\frac{\xi_R}{R_0}\right)^2\right]\right)g_{AB},
\end{align}
where $0\leq\xi_R\leq R_0$. As before, the energy-momentum tensor
turns out to be singular only on the bubble wall\footnote{The quantum
state found in\cite{TMdecay} has the problem of being ill defined on
the light-cone. This singularity propagates to the renormalized
energy-momentum tensor, making it to blow up on the light cone.
This seems to be due to an inappropiate normalization of the mode
functions.}. Continuing analytically the results to the inside of
the light-cone, we find that it is of the perfect fluid form.
On the lightcone it satisfies the equation of state $p=-\rho$ with
\begin{align}
\rho=-\frac{1}{2 \pi^2 R_0^4}\frac{V_0}{V_0+2}.
\end{align}
For large $t$ the equation of state turns
out to be
\begin{equation}
p=\rho,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\rho = -\frac{4\,R_0^2}{t^6}.
\end{equation}
Notice that in this model the energy density is negative and
decreases faster than radiation\footnotemark[5].
\section{Discussion}
In this paper we have performed the computation of $\langle T_{ab}\rangle$ in
a quantum state which fulfills our basic requirement of SO(3,1) invariance.
In fact, we have just outlined the most simple method to find a SO(3,1)
invariant state. The question is whether by choosing a different set of modes
we can also obtain an inequivalent SO(3,1) invariant state but also of the
Hadamard form. A theorem due to Kay and Wald \cite{waldkay} is illuminating in
this respect. The theorem states that in a spacetime with a bifurcate Killing
horizon there can exist at most one regular quasifree state invariant under
the isometry which generates the bifurcate Killing horizon. Let us briefly
analyze the conditions under which the theorem holds.
In (3+1) spacetimes, we get a bifurcate Killing horizon whenever a one
parameter group of isometries leaves invariant a 2-dimensional spacelike
manifold $\Sigma$. The bifurcate Killing horizon is generated by the null
geodesics orthogonal to $\Sigma$\cite{waldkay}. For example, Minkowski
spacetime has bifurcate Killing horizons. The isometry group is a
one-parameter subgroup of Lorentz boosts, and the manifold $\Sigma$ is a
two-plane. Any SO(3,1) invariant spacetime, where the line element can be
written in the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = d\xi_R^2 + a(\xi_R)^2(-d\chi_R^2+\cosh^2\chi_Rd\Omega),
\end{equation}
has a SO(3,1) invariant bifurcate Killing horizon. Noticing that the
$\xi_R=\mbox{ct.}$ hypersurfaces are (2+1) de Sitter spaces which can be
thought as embedded in a (3+1) Minkowski space, any boost generator on these
hypersurfaces is the infinitesimal generator of a isometry which 1) leaves
invariant a spacelike 2-manifold (so we get a bifurcate Killing horizon) and
2) leaves any SO(3,1) symmetric state invariant. We can take, for example,
the boost generator in the $ZT$ plane of the embedding Minkowski space.
Expressed in the Rindler coordinates, it becomes
\begin{equation}
\xi^a = -\cos\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial\chi_R} + \tanh\chi_R\sin\theta
\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}.
\end{equation}
The Killing field $\xi^a$ leaves invariant the spacelike 2-manifold
$\theta=\pi/2$, $\chi_R=0$. All bubble spacetimes with or without the
inclusion of gravity do possess this bifurcate Killing horizon.
A (pure) quasifree ground state is the (wider) algebraic version (see
\cite{waldkay} and references therein) of what is usually called a
``frequency splitting'' Fock vacuum state. A quasifree state has the
special property of being completely characterized from its two-point
function. A regular\footnote{We include the notion of globally
Hadamard in the definition of a regular state.} quasifree ground
state is a quasifree ground state whose two-point symmetric function
is globally Hadamard and which has no zero modes. The VIS model has a
zero mode (as any massless field in spacetimes with compact Cauchy
surfaces have \cite{waldkay}), so the theorem cannot be directly
applied. Also strictly speaking, the quantum state we have found for
the ST model does not fulfill the requirements of the theorem, because
it is not globally Hadamard. Roughly speaking, a two-point function
is said to be globally Hadamard if it is locally Hadamard and in
addition has nonlocal singularities only at points $x$, $x'$ which are
null related within a causal normal neighborhood of a Cauchy
hypersurface\footnote{A more rigorous definition of globally Hadamard
states can be found in \cite{waldkay}}. As we have seen, if we
ignore the problems on the bubble wall, the Hadamard function
$G^{(1)}(x,x'$) we have found for the ST model has nonlocal
singularities, but they are timelike related. So, if it were not for
the singularities on the bubble wall, the state would be globally
Hadamard and without zero modes. As stated before, we think that the
singularities on the bubble wall would disappear if the potential were
modeled by a smooth function instead of by a $\delta$-like term,
making the state globally Hadamard. Then, symmetry would suffice to
determine the (physically admissible) quantum state for this model.
Generic models which would not present these pathologies will be
presented elsewhere\cite{next}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Edgard Gunzig for his kind hospitality at the
Peyresq-3 meeting. I am grateful to Jaume Garriga for many helpful
discussions. I acknowledge support from European Project
CI1-CT94-0004, and from CICYT under contract AEN98-1093.
|
\section{Introduction}
Low mass X--ray binaries, where a stellar mass black hole or neutron star
accretes matter from its Roche Lobe filling companion, are generally {\it
transient\/} systems. The mass accretion rate is low enough for the
accretion disc to be unstable, leading to long quiescence periods followed by
dramatic outbursts (e.g.\ King et al.\ 1997a; King, Kolb \&
Szuszkiewicz 1997b). For the
black hole systems, the outburst often shows a rapid rise from a very faint
quiescent state, reaching luminosities close to the Eddington limit in a course
of a few days. The outburst then declines roughly exponentially, with a
characteristic time scale of 30--40 days in both the X--ray and optical flux
(e.g.\ Chen, Schrader \& Livio 1997).
During the decline the X--ray spectra and variability go through a sequence of
well defined states. For luminosities close to the Eddington limit,
$L_{\rm Edd}$, the
spectrum has both a strong soft component from the accretion disc and a strong
power law tail (the very high state). At lower luminosities the hard tail
decreases and steepens, so the spectrum is dominated by the soft component (the
high state). There is then a dramatic transition, where the soft component
decreases substantially in temperature and luminosity, and the spectrum is
instead dominated by a hard power law tail (the low state) (see e.g.\
Tanaka \& Lewin 1995; van der Klis 1995; Tanaka \& Shibazaki 1996).
{GS~2023+338}\ broke with this pattern in several ways.
Firstly, it never clearly showed
the very high or high state spectrum even though its luminosity was close to
the
Eddington limit. Secondly, it showed dramatic flux and spectral variability,
part of which can be attributed to a heavy and strongly variable
photo--electric
absorption (Tanaka \& Lewin 1995; Oosterbroek et al.\ 1997). Thirdly, its
optical spectrum was unlike that from any other transient system, with strong,
broad lines from H, HeI and HeII: normally these lines are rather weak (Casares
et al.\ 1991).
In this paper we analyze in detail archival {\it Ginga}\ data of {GS~2023+338}\ covering the
beginning of its outburst, 23--30 May 1989, attempting to deconvolve the
primary
spectrum from effects of subsequent reprocessing (absorption, Compton
reflection, line fluorescence). The spectrum at the peak luminosity is very
different to that seen in more canonical transient systems such as Nova
Muscae 1991. We postulate that this spectrum represents super Eddington
accretion rates (Inoue 1993),
and speculate that this and many of the other peculiar properties of {GS~2023+338}\
are due to the wide separation of the binary, as suggested for GRO J1655--40
(Hynes et al.\ 1998). The accumulating accretion disc is
then very large, so that when the disc instability is triggered there is much
more mass in the quiescent disc than in a more typical transient. The accretion
can then be super Eddington, giving rise to some form of strong mass outflow
which manifests itself as heavy photo--electric absorption, and produces the
intense optical line emission. This absorption shrouds the source as the
accretion rate declines below Eddington, masking its transition to the standard
very high spectrum expected at these luminosities. As the
outflow expands with time, the absorption becomes less extreme. Eventually,
there are times when the intrinsic source spectrum is not obscured, but by this
point the mass accretion rate has declined so that the source is in the
low/hard state.
\section{Data reduction and background subtraction}
Data were extracted from the UK {\it Ginga}\ data archive at Leicester University
and reduced in the usual manner. Background subtraction poses a problem for
a source as bright and hard as {GS~2023+338}\ since the background monitors
(most importantly the Surplus above Upper Discriminator, or SUD) are
contaminated
by counts from the source. We have used the same method as described in
\.{Z}ycki, Done \& Smith (1999; hereafter Paper I) to recover the
uncontaminated SUD values and then we used the
'universal' background subtraction method (Hayashida et al.\ 1989) to
estimate and subtract the background. We assume 0.5 per cent systematic errors
in the data unless stated otherwise.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth
\epsfbox[10 190 590 670]{lc_1-30k.ps}
\caption{{\it Ginga\/} light--curve (count rate in 1--30 keV; 2 sec time bins)
on 30th May, when the source's flux reached its maximum and apparently
saturated as well as showed dramatic
variability. The count rate was corrected for background, dead-time and
aspect. Beginning of good data, $t_0$, is 4:31:13.
Data for the unabsorbed spectrum (Section~\ref{sec:may30};
Figure~\ref{fig:may30spec}; Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}),
and for the absorbed one shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s329_abs} were extracted
from time interval $i-1$. Spectra from time intervals $i-4$ and $i-5$
are analyzed in Section~\ref{sec:soft}. They are consistent with soft/high
state spectra of SXT, when corrected for absorption.
\label{fig:may30_lc}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth
\epsfbox[10 180 600 690]{colcol.ps}
\caption{
Colour--colour plot for data obtained on 30th May. Time bin is 1 second.
The circle marks the region where data for the unabsorbed spectrum were
extracted from (Section~\ref{sec:may30}), while the rectangle marks similar
region for the absorbed spectrum shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s329_abs}.
Contours labeled $i-4$ and $i-5$ mark approximate regions where the soft
state data were extracted from (cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc};
Section~\ref{sec:soft}). Very rapid and chaotic variability was observed
during time interval $i-7$, most likely due to photo-electric absorption
(Section~\ref{sec:heavyabs}). For comparison, the two big dots show position
of Nova Muscae 1991 on January 11 and January 16 (see Section~\ref{sec:compar},
Figure~\ref{fig:gs_nm}). The crosses show typical error bars on the colours:
the bigger one is for $i-7$, the smaller one for earlier observations.
\label{fig:colcol}}
\end{figure}
\section{Models}
We use a variety of models for spectral description. For the soft component we
generally use the multi-temperature blackbody model (Mitsuda et al.\ 1984). For
simple estimates we use the simple version implemented as {\tt diskbb} in {\sc
XSPEC}. This however does not include the colour temperature correction (e.g.\
Shimura \& Takahara 1995), or the torque-free boundary condition term in the
expression for temperature, $1-\sqrt{6R_{\rm g}/r}$ (assuming Newtonian dynamics;
Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973), where $R_{\rm g}\equiv G M/c^2$. We implemented these
corrections in a model called {\tt diskspec} (see also Gierli\'{n}ski et al.\
1998). The main parameter can be chosen to be either the temperature at the
inner disc radius or the ratio of mass accretion rate and the mass of the
central object.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Model fitting of the May 30.\ unabsorbed spectrum.
\label{tab:may30spec}}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
parameter & units & 0 & A &
B &
C \\
\hline
$N_{\rm H}$ & $10^{22}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$ &
3.7 & $0.50^{+0.24}$ &
$0.50^{+0.13}$ &
$0.50^{+0.22}$ \\
$k T_{\rm soft}$ & keV &
0.23 & $0.270\pm 0.015$ &
$0.322\pm 0.015$ &
$0.281\pm 0.013$ \\
$D_{\rm in}$ & $R_{\rm g}$ &
370 & $71^{+15}_{-12}$ &
$41 \pm 8$ &
$62^{+13}_{-10}$ \\
$\Gamma$ & &
1.57 & $1.03\pm 0.04$ &
$1.690^{+0.023}_{-0.011}\,^{a\,b}$&
$1.700^{+0.013}_{-0.011}\,^{a\,b}$ \\
$E_c$ & keV &
60 & $19.6^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$&
-- &
-- \\
$k T_{\rm e}$ & keV & -- & -- & $9.2^{+0.4}_{-0.2}\,^b$ &
$9.6^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\,^b$ \\
$\tau_{\rm es}$ & & -- & -- & -- &
$6.49\pm 0.07\,^b$ \\
$T_0$ & keV & -- & -- & $0.83\pm 0.03$ &
$1.44\pm 0.09$ \\
\hline
$\Omega_{\rm r}$ & & -- & -- & $0.13^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ &
$0.17^{+0.16}_{-0.05}$ \\
$\xi$ & erg/cm s &-- & -- & $(2.5^{+7.5}_{-2.0})\times 10^3$ &
$(6^{+18}_{-4})\times 10^3 $ \\
$R_{\rm in}$ & $R_{\rm g}$ & -- & -- & $6^{+1.1}$ &
$6^{+2}$ \\
$E_{\rm edge}$& keV& -- & $7.70\pm 0.13$ & -- & -- \\
$\tau_{\rm edge}$& & -- & $1.19\pm 0.13$ & -- & -- \\
EW & eV & -- & $80^{+13}_{-20}$ & $67 \pm 16$ &
$70 \pm 17 $ \\
$\chi^2/$dof & & 555/32 & 23.5/29 & 37.3/27 &
25.7/27 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
Model 0: absorption*(disc blackbody + cutoff power law)
Model A: absorption*smeared edge*( disc blackbody + cutoff power law +
gaussian)
Model B: absorption*(disc blackbody + comptonized blackbody ({\tt thComp}) +
{\tt relrepr}\ + gaussian)
Model C: absorption*(disc blackbody + comptonized disc blackbody
({\tt thComp})
+ {\tt relrepr}\ +gaussian)
$N_{\rm H}$ -- hydrogen column density.
Its hard lower limit (interstellar value) is assumed 0.5.\\
$D_{\rm in}$ -- inner disc radius computed from the amplitude of the
{\tt diskbb} model \\
$k T_{\rm e}$, $\tau_{\rm es}$ -- electron temperature and optical depth of the
comptonizing cloud \\
$T_0$ -- temperature of the seed photon input spectrum for comptonization \\
$E_c$ -- e-folding energy in the cutoff power law model \\
$\Omega_{\rm r},\ \xi$ -- amplitude and ionization parameter of the reprocessed
component \\
$R_{\rm in}$ -- inner disc radius determining the level of relativistic smearing \\
EW -- equivalent width of the additional gaussian line \\
$^{a}\,$ Asymptotic value of $\Gamma$ in the ST80 solution. \\
$^b\,$ $\Gamma$, $k T_{\rm e}$ and $\tau_{\rm es}$ are of course not independent. \\
Parameters' uncertainties are 90 per cent confidence limits for one
interesting parameter i.e.\ $\Delta\chi^2=2.71$.
\end{table*}
We use an analytic thermal comptonization model to describe the hard component:
{\tt thComp}, based on
solution of the Kompaneets equation (Lightman \& Zdziarski 1987). For accurate
modelling of inverse Compton spectra we also use a Monte Carlo simulation
code. It is based on standard methods of simulations of the inverse Compton
process as described in detail by Pozdnyakov, Sobol \& Sunyaev (1983) and
G\'{o}recki \& Wilczewski (1984) (see Appendix A).
The X--ray reprocessed component is modelled using the angle-dependent
Green's functions of Magdziarz \& Zdziarski (1995) convolved with a given
continuum model to produce the reflected continuum, with photo--electric
opacities calculated by a simple photo-ionization code described in
Done et al.\
(1992). For the iron fluorescent/recombination K$\alpha$ line we used the Monte
Carlo code of \.{Z}ycki \& Czerny (1994). We constructed Green's functions for
the line emission (i.e.\ emission for a monochromatic irradiation flux), as
functions of ionization and iron abundance, which can be folded with a given
continuum model, to compute total line profile, which is then added to the
reflected continuum. Parameters of the model are: the amplitude of the total
reprocessed component, defined as the solid angle of the reprocessor as seen
from the X--ray source, $\Omega$, normalized to $2 \pi$, $\Omega_{\rm r}\equiv \Omega/2
\pi$ and the ionization parameter, $\xi \equiv 4\pi F_{\rm X}/n$, where $F_{\rm
X}$ is the illuminating flux in the 5 eV -- 20 keV band and $n$ is the electron
number density. We assume cosmic abundances of Morrison \& McCammon (1983)
with the possibility of a variable iron abundance in the reprocessor.
For more model details see Paper I.
The total reprocessed spectrum can then be convolved with
the {\sc XSPEC} {\tt diskline} model (Fabian et al.\ 1989; modified to include
light bending in Schwarzschild metric) to simulate the relativistic
smearing. The main parameter here is the inner radius of the disc, $R_{\rm in}$,
assuming a given form of the irradiation emissivity, for which we adopt
$F_{\rm irr}(r) \propto r^{-3}$ (see Paper I). The outer disc radius is fixed
at $10^4\,R_{\rm g}$. This is smaller than the expected outer radius of the disc
in {GS~2023+338}\ ($\sim 10^5\,R_{\rm g}$; see Section~\ref{sec:discuss}), but with our
assumed $F_{\rm irr}(r)$ the fractional contribution from the ring
$10^4$--$10^5\,R_{\rm g}$ would be negligible, $\approx 5\times 10^{-4}$.
The total model will be referred to as {\tt relrepr}.
Strong photo--electric absorption is modelled by either the simple
formula $F \propto \exp(-\tau_{\rm eff})$ where
$\tau_{\rm eff} = \sqrt{\tau_{\rm abs} (\tau_{\rm abs} + \tau_{\rm es})}$ (Rybicki \& Lightman 1979;
called {\tt thabs})
or by a proper Monte Carlo transmission code for spherical geometry.
We fix the inclination of the source at $i=56^{\circ}$ and assume the mass of
the black hole is $12\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ (Shahbaz et al.\ 1994). We assume the
interstellar
$N_{\rm H}=5\times 10^{21}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$, corresponding to $A_V=3$ (Chen et al.\
1997; Shahbaz et al.\ 1994).
The spectral analysis was performed using {\sc XSPEC} ver.\ 10 (Arnaud 1996)
into which all the non-standard models mentioned above were implemented as
local models.
\section{The unabsorbed spectrum}
\label{sec:may30}
On the 30th of May {\it Ginga}\ observed {GS~2023+338}\ in a very bright state
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:may30_lc}). The observed source flux reached $6.5\times 10^{-7}$
erg/s/cm$^2$ (1 -- 40 keV; corresponding to
$L_{\rm X}\approx 10^{39} {\rm erg\ s}^{-1}$ at $d=3.5$ kpc)
and it apparently saturated at this level.
For about 200 sec after the beginning of observation the source spectrum
was very stable (Fig.~\ref{fig:colcol}) and it did not show any strong
photo--electric absorption, so we used the 200 sec average spectrum
for detailed analysis.
\subsection{Phenomenological description}
Generally, the data can be described (Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}) as a sum of a
soft component and a hard cutoff power law component ($\Gamma\approx 1.0$) with
e-folding energy of $E_{\rm c}\approx 20\,$keV (i.e.\ the cutoff is obviously visible
in the {\it Ginga}\ band). Superimposed on this are spectral features near 6--10
keV. These features can be phenomenologically modelled by a narrow gaussian at
6.4 keV (EW=77 eV) and the smeared edge (Ebisawa 1991) with $E\approx 7.7\,$keV
and $\tau\approx 1.2$ (Model A in Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}. The presence of
the spectral features is highly significant; the best fit model using only two
continuum components gives $\chi^2=555/32\,$dof (Model 0 in
Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}).
The soft component can be described equally well by both simple blackbody and
disc blackbody model. This is due to the fact that only the Wien cutoff is
visible in {\it Ginga}\ band. Assuming the model which would give the lowest
bolometric correction i.e.\ a blackbody spectrum and assuming further that at
that time there was no photo-electric absorption in excess of the interstellar
value, the derived temperature is $k T_{\rm soft}=0.21\,$keV and the normalization of
the component corresponds to the emitting area of $\approx 3\times 10^{6}\,{\rm
km^2}\approx (90\,R_{\rm g})^2$. Extrapolated to lower energies, this component then
contributes significantly to the total energy budget, with a total bolometric
flux of $10^{-6}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Thus the lowest possible luminosity
is around the Eddington limit, but it is likely to be rather higher since
the soft
spectrum must be broader than a single blackbody and the absorption may be
rather higher than the (poorly known) interstellar value of $5\times 10^{21}$
cm$^{-2}$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize = 0.45\textwidth
\epsfbox[0 190 550 720]{unabs_sp.ps}
\caption{Source spectrum on 30 May, 4:31:13 -- 4:34:33 (200 sec), when
the flux apparently saturated at very high level (Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc},
part of time interval $i-1$). The spectrum can be
described as optically thick comptonization of a disc blackbody seed
spectrum of temperature $k T_0\approx 1.4\,$keV, electron temperature
$k T_{\rm e}\approx 10\,$keV and $\tau_{\rm es}\approx 6$, with a corresponding
reprocessed component (model C in Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}).
An additional soft component is also required: its
temperature is rather low: $k T \approx 0.28\,$keV and its amplitude
corresponds to inner radius of the emitting disc $\sim 60\,R_{\rm g}$
(for the {\tt diskbb} model). Counts
in the first channel are much above the model contribution suggesting more
complicated modelling is necessary. This channel was ignored in spectral
fitting. \label{fig:may30spec}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analytical comptonization models}
A cutoff power law is not necessarily a good approximation to a comptonized
spectrum. We first use the {\tt thComp} model as an analytic description of the
spectrum, including its self--consistently calculated reprocessed spectrum.
We also include a separate Fe K$\alpha$ line from fluorescence from distant
material. The presence of this was inferred by Oosterbroek et al.\ (1996)
from timing analysis of the May 30th data. Since it is from distant material
we fix its energy at 6.4 keV, and assume that it is narrow. We also
include a narrow K$\beta$ line at 7.05 keV, tied to 11 per cent of the
intensity of the narrow K$\alpha$ line. The best fit {\tt thComp} model has
$\chi^2=37.3/27\,$dof,
with low electron temperature, $k T_{\rm e} = 9.2\pm 0.4\,$keV, rather large
optical depth, $\tau_{\rm es} = 6.73\pm 0.07$, but requires that the seed photon
blackbody temperature is very much higher than that of the observed soft flux,
with $T_0 = 0.83\pm 0.04\,$keV. Fixing the seed photons to the temperature of
the observed soft excess gives a very much poorer fit as it is unable to
reproduce the curvature seen in the hard spectrum at low energies.
This best fit model also requires a strongly ionized and smeared reprocessed
component, with amplitude $\Omega_{\rm r}\approx 0.13$ (Model B in Table~\ref{tab:may30spec})
A significantly better fit can be obtained assuming a broader spectral
distribution of the seed photons for comptonization. We have constructed
a version of the {\tt thComp} model in which the input soft
photon spectrum is a disc blackbody, rather than a simple blackbody.
This model (model C in Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}), with its corresponding
reprocessed component, can now adequately describe the data, with
best fit $\chi^2=25.7/27\,$dof (i.e. $\Delta\chi^2=11.6$ compared to
previous case).
The comptonizing cloud is rather similar to that derived previously. It is
optically thick, $\tau_{\rm es}= 6.49\pm 0.07$
and has temperature of $k T_{\rm e} = 9.6^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\,$keV.
The amplitude of the reprocessed component is much smaller than 1,
$\Omega_{\rm r} = 0.17^{+0.16}_{-0.05}$, but the reflector properties are
nevertheless well constrained. It has to be strongly ionized
($\xi\approx 6000$, so H-like iron ions dominate)
and strongly smeared, $R_{\rm in}=6\,R_{\rm g}$.
The narrow gaussian at 6.4 keV is still required, its equivalent width
is $\sim 70\,$eV.
The best fit model spectrum is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:may30spec}.
An almost equally good fit ($\chi^2=29/27$) can be obtained by replacing the
gaussian lines by an unsmeared, neutral reflected spectrum, so it is not
possible to distinguish from the spectrum whether the distant material inferred
from the timing analysis (Oosterbroek et al.\ 1996) is optically thick or
thin for electron scattering.
Hard lower limit on $N_{\rm H}$ equal to the likely interstellar value of
$5\times 10^{21}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$ was imposed in the above fits. Allowing
$N_{\rm H}$ to be a free parameter in model C we actually find that the best fit
value is 0,
although the fit is now better by only $\Delta\chi^2=2.6$ (F-test significance
$\approx 90$ per cent). This may indicate possible complexity of the soft
component with further evidence for it coming from the observed excess
of counts in the first channel (Figure~\ref{fig:may30spec}). We note however
that the excess cannot be solely the result of (unlikely) changes
of $N_{\rm H}$ during the integration interval, since the excess remains
(although reduced) even if $N_{\rm H}$ is fixed at 0.
\subsection{Monte Carlo comptonization models}
The analytical solutions for comptonization Green's functions of
Sunyaev \& Titarchuk (1980), Lightman \& Zdziarski (1987) and Titarchuk (1994)
are not accurate
when the seed photon energy is close to the plasma temperature, even in the
diffusion approximation. Discrepancies also appear close to the plasma
temperature (irrespectively of the seed photons energy) as the models
are usually not able to correctly reproduce the shape of the high energy
cutoff/Wien peak (see e.g.\ Fig.~2 in Titarchuk 1994). Since in our case the
considered energy range is close to both the seed photons energy and plasma
temperature, we can expect differences between analytic and simulated spectra.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize = 0.45\textwidth
\epsfbox[30 300 550 690]{ext_specs.ps}
\caption{Comptonization spectra in the geometry where the source of seed
photons
is external to the comptonizing cloud {\it cannot\/} explain the unabsorbed
spectrum of GS~2023+338. Solid and dashed curves
are best fit models C and 0 (Table~\ref{tab:may30spec}), respectively.
The seed photons spectrum was assumed a disc blackbody of temperature
$T_0=0.28\,$keV,
as observed. Spectrum 0 is for $k T_{\rm e}=11\,$keV and $\tau_{\rm es}=6$, i.e.\ the same
parameters as model C with central source, but with the external illumination
the spectrum is much softer. Spectra {\it a}, {\it b} and {\it c\/}
are for $k T_{\rm e}=11,\ 9,\ 5$ keV and $\tau_{\rm es}=8,\ 9,\ 15$, respectively,
and are normalized so that they do not exceed the observed spectrum.
\label{fig:ext_spec}}
\end{figure}
However, we demonstrate in Appendix A that for these parameters it is
possible to approximate 'exact' spectra (obtained by Monte Carlo
simulations) to better than 1 per cent by the analytical models.
The results obtained in previous section are therefore vindicated
even though we are not able to do proper fitting of Monte Carlo spectra
to the data. The spectral curvature observed in the hard component
is not an artifact of the deficiencies of analytic comptonization models. The
Monte Carlo spectra also require that the seed photons are at much higher
temperatures than those from the observed soft excess.
The analytic and Monte Carlo models compared here both assume that the seed
photons are distributed within the comptonizing cloud. However, this is not the
case if the hard X--rays form a central source, surrounded by the accretion
disc
(see e.g.\ the review by Poutanen 1998 for observational pointers to such a
geometry). We computed Monte Carlo spectra assuming a central, spherical plasma
cloud of radial optical thickness $\tau_{\rm es}$ and electron temperature $k T_{\rm e}$,
surrounded by a geometrically thin disc. The disc is a source of soft photons
with a multi-temperature (disc) blackbody spectral distribution parameterized
by
the temperature at the inner edge, $T_0$. These soft photons then form both the
observed soft excess spectrum and act as the {\it external\/} illuminating seed
photons for the comptonizing cloud. Figure~\ref{fig:ext_spec} shows examples
of
inverse Compton spectra obtained in such a geometry. It is not possible to
generate a hard and broad enough spectrum in such a geometry, given the
constraints on the electron temperature from the observed high energy roll-over
and the temperature of the observed soft component.
To produce a sufficiently hard spectrum, the optical depth of the cloud has
to be large enough for the comptonized spectrum to resemble a Wien peak,
which is then rather narrower than the observed spectrum.
Thus it seems inescapable that the comptonized spectrum seen is {\it not\/}
produced by scattering the observed soft photons, but rather has as its seed
photons a rather higher temperature component which cannot be seen directly
(probably because it is embedded in the optically thick comptonizing cloud).
\subsection{Comparison with Nova Muscae 1991}
\label{sec:compar}
The spectral and timing behaviour of GS~2023+338 were quite different from
those of Nova Muscae 1991 at the peak of its outburst. Takizawa et al.\ (1997)
examined {\it Ginga\/} data of Nova Muscae 1991 covering first month
of its outburst, when the source luminosity was above $\sim 0.5L_{\rm Edd}$.
We computed positions of the peak spectrum of
{GS~2023+338}\ on their colour--colour and colour--count rate
diagrams (their Figure~9bc). The positions are well outside their diagrams,
in the directions indicating that the spectrum of {GS~2023+338}\ is much harder than
any of the spectra of Nova Muscae below $\sim 10\,$keV, but it is softer
than those above this energy. We illustrate this point in
Figure~\ref{fig:gs_nm}, where we plot the spectra of both objects:
two spectra of Nova Muscae are plotted: one obtained on 11 Jan
($L\approx 0.5 L_{\rm Edd}$) and the other on 16 Jan, which has $L\approx L_{\rm Edd}$
(number 1 and 6 in Takizawa et al.\ 1997;
where the outburst of Nova Muscae was first detected on 8 Jan).
The latter spectrum has similar luminosity to the
peak spectrum of GS~2023+338, yet is very different in shape. For Nova Muscae
the soft component is much hotter ($T_0=0.87\pm 0.03\,$keV) and dominates
the luminosity, while the power law is very soft,
$\Gamma = 2.76^{+0.08}_{-0.22}$. Even on Jan 11, where the spectrum
of Nova Muscae has a strong hard component, its spectrum is much softer than
that seen in GS~2023+338 at its peak luminosity. The peak GS~2023+338 spectrum
looks similar to the low state spectra seen in both Nova Muscae, GS~2023+338,
and other GBH at $L\approx 0.05 L_{\rm Edd}$ except for its roll-over at $\sim 20$
keV, and much stronger soft component.
\begin{figure*}
\epsfysize = 7 cm
\epsfbox[18 460 590 690]{gs_nm_comp.ps}
\caption{Comparison of energy spectra of {GS~2023+338}\ and Nova Muscae 1991 at peaks of
their outbursts. The spectra (Jan 16 of Nova Muscae and the {GS~2023+338}\ one) are
very different even though sources' luminosities (in Eddington units) are
very similar and very close to 1. On Jan 11, when $L \approx 0.5\,L_{\rm Edd}$,
the soft component cannot be described by a (disc) blackbody -- an additional
power law tail is required. The strength of the soft component was comparable
to that of the hard
component. Further increase in $\dot m$ results in weakening of the hard
component (its slope increases), and strengthening of the soft component
which now {\it can\/} be described by the disc blackbody model.
\label{fig:gs_nm}}
\end{figure*}
The power spectral density (PSD) of {GS~2023+338}\ during the first 200~s of the $i-1$
interval (excluding the dramatic intensity drop; Figure~\ref{fig:i-1psd}) has
intermediate properties between PSDs seen for the two high luminosity spectra
of
Nova Muscae shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gs_nm} (cf. Figure~2 in Takizawa et al.\
1997, panels 1 and 6). Its shape is close to a power law, which in Nova Muscae
seems to correlate with energy spectra being dominated by a thermal component.
Its amplitude is however larger, comparable to the amplitude of the
(flat-topped) PSD obtained when the energy spectra show strong comptonized
power
law. This PSD is nothing like that obtained for GBH low state spectra, where
the normalized variability amplitude is much larger, at $\sim 0.1$ at 1~Hz.
So even though the energy spectrum bears a (rather small) resemblance to
the low
state spectrum, its variability behaviour clearly shows that it is very
different.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize = 0.45\textwidth
\epsfbox[30 200 550 690]{psd.ps}
\caption{Comparison of power spectra of Nova Muscae 1991 and GS~2023+338
at peaks of their outbursts. The same data as for energy spectra
(Figure~\ref{fig:gs_nm}) are used. Only data between 1--5 keV are used
for the 16.\ Jan PSD of Nova Muscae.
\label{fig:i-1psd}}
\end{figure}
Both the spectrum and PSD
of GS~2023+338 at its peak luminosity look very different from any known
spectral state of GBH.
\subsection{Discussion}
The spectrum and variability of GS~2023+338 at its peak luminosity show that
this is very different from any known GBH spectral state. The soft component
is at a very low temperature $\sim 0.3$~keV -- much lower than expected for a
disc which extends down to 3 Schwarzschild radii, accreting at close to
(or more probably somewhat above) Eddington limit. The hard component looks
like a comptonized spectrum where the electrons have a fairly low
temperature since the high energy
roll-over can clearly be seen. The parameters of the comptonizing cloud are
then fairly well constrained. It has to be optically thick,
$\tau=5-6$, with electron temperature $\le 10$ keV. These electrons scatter
an internal source of soft seed photons whose spectral distribution is
broader than a blackbody, with maximum temperature $\ge 1$ keV.
These are {\it not\/} the same as the much lower temperature
($\sim 0.3$~keV) observed soft excess.
If the seed photons are from the accretion disc
then the comptonizing cloud is probably an optically thick corona overlying the
accretion disc. This then leads us to a picture where the inner disc is
covered by the optically thick comptonizing layers.
A rather large extent of the cloud is suggested by simple energetic
arguments: since the comptonized spectrum
carries $\sim 50$ per cent of the total luminosity, its radius can be expected
to be $\sim 25\, R_{\rm g}$, if pure radial stratification of the flow is assumed.
We see the normal disc spectrum only from larger radii, which is why the
observed soft excess temperature is so much smaller than the $\sim 1$ keV
expected from a $12 {\rm M}_{\odot}$ black hole accreting at Eddington rates.
The only problem with this picture is that the detected reprocessed
spectrum is strongly smeared, to the extent expected if it were reflecting
from a disc which extended all the way down to $6R_{\rm g}$. However,
the constraints from relativistic smearing can be alleviated if an
additional comptonization of the reprocessed component is postulated.
Introducing purely phenomenological extension of our model,
where the reprocessed component
is additionally comptonized in a plasma of temperature $k T_{\rm r}$ and
optical depth $\tau_{\rm r}$
(using the Green's function of Titarchuk 1994 in disc geometry), we obtain
a good fit, with $\chi^2=19.3/25\,$dof, and the additional plasma
parameters $k T_{\rm r} \sim 3.7 $keV and $\tau_{\rm r} \sim 2.5 $. The reflection amplitude
is now $f\sim 0.7$ and the inner disc radius is now unconstrained.
We note that our implementation of the additional comptonization does not
correspond to the effect recently emphasized by Ross, Fabian \& Young
(1998). They point out that the reflected X-rays below $\sim 10$ keV will be
comptonized when diffusing through strongly ionized outer layers of the
reflecting disc, an effect that is not accounted for in {\tt relrepr}\ model (more
accurately, this additional comptonization is included in the line profile
computations but not in the continuum). While this effect can also be important
in our case, as the reflector is indeed strongly ionized, we impose the
additional comptonization on the entire reprocessed component, thus changing
its overall shape, rather than only below 10 keV.
\section{Spectra influenced by strong photo--electric absorption}
\label{sec:heavyabs}
\subsection{The initial variability}
After the steady 200 seconds, the flux from {GS~2023+338}\ dropped dramatically.
Is this intrinsic variability, or is it caused solely by photo--electric
absorption?
As a first example we show a 6--seconds averaged spectrum beginning at
$t = t_0 + 329\,$s (Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc}, \ref{fig:colcol}).
The spectrum is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:s329_abs}, together with the
unabsorbed spectrum discussed in Section~\ref{sec:may30}. Plainly they are
rather similar at the highest energies, but with a factor of $\sim 3-10$
deficit of counts below 15 keV in the later spectrum. This deficit is far
too gradual a function of
energy to be caused by complete covering by neutral material, so we first
use partial covering by heavy absorption, {\tt thabs}, on a good description
of the unabsorbed spectrum (model C in Section~\ref{sec:may30}:
disc blackbody and the {\tt thComp} comptonization model with consistent
reprocessing). All the unabsorbed spectral parameters are frozen, except
for its
overall normalization. This gives a very poor fit to the data, with
$\chi^2=2028/36$, but including an additional neutral absorber gives a
much improved fit with $\chi^2=634/35$, where the absorption parameters
are: complete covering with $N_{\rm H}\sim 1.6\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, and partial
covering with $N_{\rm H}\sim 3\times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ of 65 per cent of the source.
However, the fit underestimates the spectrum in the iron line region and
at energies beyond 10 keV.
Allowing the additional gaussians to be free gives $\chi^2=130/34$, while
including the amount of reflection in the fit
gives $\chi^2=77/33$, for an reflected fraction of
$\Omega_{\rm r}\sim 0.7$ and line EW of $\sim 290$ eV (compare with $\Omega_{\rm r}\sim 0.17$ and EW
$\sim 70$ eV in the unabsorbed spectrum). The complex neutral absorption then
has $N_{\rm H} \sim 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ for complete covering and $N_{\rm H}\sim 2 \times
10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ covering 65 per of the source.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize = 0.45\textwidth
\epsfbox[30 180 550 690]{may30_abs_spec.ps}
\caption{Source spectrum (upper panel) on 30 May, 4:36:42 -- 4:36:48,
($\Delta t=6$ sec; 329 sec after the beginning of our data), when
the flux dropped by a factor of 3 after an initial, very stable level
(cf.\ the light-curve in Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc}). The spectrum can be
described as strongly absorbed spectrum used for the first 200 sec
(Figure~\ref{fig:may30spec}; Section~\ref{sec:may30}). The hydrogen
column density is
$N_{\rm H}\approx 3.5\times 10^{24}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$, ionization parameter of the
absorber $\xi_{\rm abs}\sim 100$ and the covering fraction $\sim 0.62$.
The uppermost dashed curve shows the unabsorbed hard component.
Lower panel shows the ratio of data to best fit model. The fit is
formally unacceptable, $\chi^2=79/33\,$dof, but the residuals do not
exceed 5 per cent. They suggest that the absorption cannot be modelled
in a single--zone approximation used here.
\label{fig:s329_abs}}
\end{figure}
The apparent changes to the reflection and line emission can be caused by our
use of {\tt thabs} to describe the very heavy absorption. At such high columns,
Compton down-scattering can distort the shape of the absorbed spectrum. We
replace the analytic approximation by our Monte Carlo transfer code to model
the heavy partial absorption. With only the line emission allowed to be free we
obtain $\chi^2=90/34$, with absorption parameters $N_{\rm H}\sim 1.4\times
10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, and partial
covering with $N_{\rm H}\sim 3\times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ of 62 per cent of the source.
For this model, the normalization of the underlying spectrum is less than
5 per cent
different to that of the unabsorbed spectrum except that the addition (narrow
gaussian) iron line intensity has increased by a factor of $\sim 3$.
The fit can be improved somewhat by allowing the heavy partial absorber to be
ionized. This is the best fit spectrum shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s329_abs}. The
column density is $N_{\rm H}=3.5\times 10^{24}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$ i.e.\ $\tau_{\rm es}\approx
2.8$, $\xi_{\rm abs}\sim 100$ and the covering fraction $\sim 0.6$. However,
even this gives $\chi^2\sim 79/33$, i.e.\ the fit is formally unacceptable with
residuals at the 5 per cent level. The fit cannot be improved by small changes
to the parameters of the primary (comptonized) spectrum or the soft component.
Thus even though the overall spectrum is fairly well explained
by the absorption hypothesis, the presence of significant residuals points
towards complexity of the absorber. Since the data are an average over
a long enough time for the absorber to change, a model involving a range
of column densities may be required, rather than a single--zone approximation
used here.
\subsection{All variability}
We use the colour--colour diagram as a guide to the variability.
On May 30th the
source showed dramatic spectral variability (Figure~\ref{fig:colcol}), and this
continued during the first month of the decline from outburst
(Figure~\ref{fig:heavyabs}). The unobscured spectra are easy to spot on such
diagrams, since they fall at the leftmost end of a distinct horizontal track in
the colour--colour plots (see also Oosterbroek et al.\ 1997). The unusual
spectrum seen at the unobscured peak outburst luminosity of {GS~2023+338}\ is {\it not\/}
the
same as the unobscured spectra seen several days later (see Paper I). The
unobscured spectra at the end of the absorption track from June 3rd onwards are
fairly typical low/hard state spectra (see Paper I), and have inferred
luminosities of $\le 5$ per cent of $L_{\rm Edd}$. Hence there must
be some intrinsic
spectral and intensity variability as well as the photo--electric absorption.
We will not attempt to construct a full time history of the absorber but will
limit our efforts to identifying the spectral components present when the
source was in various locations on the colour--colour diagram.
Because of the dramatic variability (often on 1 sec time scale),
the time intervals over which we summed the spectra are a
compromise between requirements of a stable position on the colour--colour
diagram and photon statistics. We generally assume that the intrinsic spectrum
consists of three components: a soft thermal component which may or may not
contribute the seed photons for Compton upscattering to make the hard power
law, the comptonized power law and its corresponding reprocessed component.
The absorbing material,
as well as distorting the intrinsic spectrum, may produce fluorescent line
emission, or a reprocessed component of its own.
In the May 30th $i-1$ interval we have shown that the spectral and intensity
variability is consistent with complex, heavy absorption. The $i-2$ interval
shows similar behaviour to the $i-1$ interval on the colour--colour plot
(Figure~\ref{fig:colcol}), with strong variability in the soft colour but
little change in the hard colour. Thus it seems likely that most of the
variability during this interval is also caused by a changing column of
the heavy absorption which covers 60--70 per cent of the source, while
the intrinsic spectrum remains more or less constant. The variability in the
$i-3$ interval is apparently different, starting off in a very low intensity
state which is much harder at high energies (approximate position in the
diagram $[1.4,2.5]$), which then rises to $[2,3]$, and then rejoins the $i-1$
and $i-2$ absorption track at $\sim [3,1.5]$. However,
even here the
spectrum is roughly consistent with that of the peak luminosity state (in both
shape and intensity), with the heavy absorption changing from a covering
fraction of $\ge 90$ per cent at the start to $\sim 70$ per cent as seen
in the $i-1$ and $i-2$ intervals at the end.
However, the $i-4$ spectrum is completely different. It cannot be fit by
any form
of absorption of the peak luminosity spectrum. There is a distinct hard tail,
showing that there is indeed some heavy photo--electric absorption, but the low
energy spectrum is much softer than that of the peak spectrum (as shown by it
having a smaller hardness ratio at low energies). The intrinsic spectrum has
changed! We can model this spectrum using a soft component whose temperature
is now
$\sim 1$ keV. The hard X--ray spectrum is then compatible with these being
the seed
photons for Compton upscattering, forming a fairly steep power law with
$\Gamma\sim 2$, and where the rollover from the electron temperature is not
detectable. This is then partially covered by heavy photo--electric absorption.
We will discuss the nature of the intrinsic spectrum in more detail in the next
section. Here we will merely note its resemblance to the classic high state
spectrum (high temperature, steep power law component). The total bolometric
unobscured luminosity is then derived to be
$\sim 7\times 10^{-8}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$, equivalent to $ 0.07 L_{\rm Edd}$.
None of the data taken after this time show a significant high energy rollover,
and all have a hard component which can be described by comptonization of the
observed soft photons. We use this interval as the starting point (data taken
after May 30th 06:30), and plot the colour--colour diagram for all the data
up to June 5th (see Figure~\ref{fig:heavyabs}). We have
extracted spectra from a number of regions on the colour--colour diagram,
and modelled them to try and deconvolve the intrinsic
spectrum from the effects of absorption.
During $i-4$ and $i-5$ the source changes mainly in hard colour, making
a vertical track (track A) in the colour--colour diagram
(Figure~\ref{fig:heavyabs}). This track continues in $i-6$ and $i-7$, but
here the spectral variability becomes faster
and more chaotic, and includes changes in soft colour as well.
Good fits are obtained to spectra {\it i}--{\it h}--{\it g} along track A
with a model in which the
soft {\tt diskbb} component has little absorption, while the hard component
(Compton scattered power law tail) is more strongly absorbed. In addition, this
hard power law illuminates cool, neutral material, giving a reflected spectrum
which is even more strongly absorbed, and whose normalisation is strongly
enhanced with respect to the observed hard component. Motion from the bottom
of track 'A' to the top corresponds to increasing the enhancement of this
reflected component
from about a factor 7 at spectrum {\it i\/} to about a factor 100 at
spectrum {\it g\/}. The soft spectrum is consistent with remaining fairly
constant throughout this track (see Oosterbroek et al.\ 1997),
while the hard component shows the normal broad band variability
(see below).
\begin{figure*}
\epsfxsize = \textwidth
\epsfbox[18 144 592 718]{absspec.ps}
\caption{
The colour--colour diagram (cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:colcol}) and examples of
spectra influenced by heavy photo--absorption. Solid squares
are the source's positions on May 30th,
6:30--10:00 (i.e.\ only part of the May 30th data is represented here);
small open circles: June 3rd -- 5th.
The labelled circles mark approximate locations where the spectra
were extracted. The spectra are assumed to consist of a soft
component modelled as a disc blackbody, absorbed primary power law and
its corresponding (but independently absorbed)
reprocessed component, together with gaussian lines at 6.4 keV and 7.05 keV (Fe
fluorescence), as labelled.
Track 'A' is consistent with both the power law
and the reprocessed component being absorbed below $\sim 4$ keV. Movement
downwards along the track corresponds to gradual disappearance of the
reprocessed component. Horizontal movement corresponds to changes of the
normalization of the primary power law.
Track 'B' begins with unabsorbed, low state spectra (position: 1.5, 1.2)
and increasing soft colour corresponds to stronger absorption, influencing
the primary power law and its reprocessed component.
\label{fig:heavyabs}}
\end{figure*}
The total unobscured luminosity at the top of track A is then $\sim 0.5 L_{\rm Edd}$
so the inferred luminosity increases by a factor $\sim 10$ from the bottom to
top of track A. Yet it seems
rather unlikely that this change is actually intrinsic, since the soft
component shows very little change in temperature or normalization.
It is more likely that
the source remains fairly constant at $0.5L_{\rm Edd}$, but that some (variable)
amount of the source is completely obscured by optically thick material,
and that we see only the intrinsic source spectrum via scattering.
The scattering origin for the observed soft component would be in accord with
its small normalization, which is only
$\sim 1$ per cent of that expected, if the component indeed is a disc emission
from $6\,R_{\rm g}$ onwards. We note here the strong constraints on
the scattering scenario for the hard component coming from its observed broad
band variability. The high amplitude of the PSD of the hard component
($E>5\,$keV) during the $i-5$ interval (Figure~\ref{fig:may30_psd}) means
that the scatterer could not have been located farther than $\sim 0.1$
lsec $\sim 10^3\,R_{\rm g}$ (see also next Section).
One geometrical scenario in which to understand these results is that there
is a thick disc which blocks our direct view of the source, so that we see
only the scattered fraction of the intrinsic radiation. The obscuring wall is
axi--symmetric, so there is a strong reflected component of the intrinsic
(rather than scattered) emission from the opposite wall. As the disc subsides
then we see progressively more of the reflector, so the strength of the hard
component increases, giving the variability seen as track A.
Eventually the optically thick material goes below our line of
sight, allowing the intrinsic hard spectrum to be seen. Differing amounts
of fairly heavy absorption on this intrinsic hard spectrum then cause the
variability
in soft and hard colour defined by spectra {\it g}--{\it f}--{\it e}, but the
intrinsic spectrum is
consistent with remaining approximately the same in both shape and intensity.
Thus despite the dramatic spectral and intensity variability, the data on
May 30th
are compatible with very little intrinsic variability. At the start of the
observation the source was accreting at (super) Eddington luminosities, with
a spectrum unlike any of the known (sub Eddington) spectral states. It then
declined by only a factor of $\sim 2$, and made a state transition to the high
(or very high) state, and remained at this level for the rest of the
observation. All the rest of the variability seen is connected to the
absorption.
After the May 30th observation the next data were not taken until 48 hours
later, mid-morning of June 1st. These were taken with satellite pointing
position
which was offset by $\sim 0.8^\circ$ from the source, so cannot be used for
detailed spectral analysis. However, on the colour--colour plot they span the
region around spectrum {\it d}. The next good data are taken 12 hours later,
on the early morning of June 2nd, where the source spectrum again looks very
similar to that of spectrum {\it d}. At first sight this looks like a
continuation of the {\it g}--{\it f}--{\it e}
track, but fitting of the data shows distinct differences. Firstly the overall
intensity is rather lower, with the hard component being a factor 10 weaker
than in spectrum {\it e}. The soft emission is also at much lower
temperatures. These, together with the good data taken on June 3-5th form a
distinct track in Figure~\ref{fig:heavyabs} along spectra
{\it d}--{\it c}--{\it b}--{\it a} (track B)
which is {\it not\/} simply connected to track A. Again there must have been
some
intrinsic spectral change, since the unabsorbed spectra at the end of this
track show a classic low state spectral form (Paper I).
Track B can be reproduced by cold partial covering of the Jun 3rd unabsorbed
low state spectrum, fixing all the parameters to be the same as in the
unabsorbed data (see Paper I). In this model the overall normalization of
the June 3rd
spectrum (which gives a total bolometric flux of $\sim 4\times 10^{-8}$ ergs
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ or $0.04L_{\rm Edd}$)
changes by less than 25 per cent while the partial covering absorption
parameters change from $3 \rightarrow 7 \rightarrow 12 \times 10^{22}$
cm$^{-2}$ covering $\sim 92$ per cent of the source going from spectra
{\it a}$\rightarrow${\it b}$\rightarrow${\it c}.
This confirms the suggestion by Oosterbroek et al.\ (1997)
that the track corresponds roughly to increasing $N_{\rm H}$. We have however used
here a much more realistic intrinsic spectrum -- the
unabsorbed spectrum of the June 3rd data set (Paper I).
The turning point of track 'B' corresponds to the absorption column of $\approx
1.5\times 10^{23}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$. Further increasing $N_{\rm H}$ leads to a
decrease of the soft colour since it decreases the counts in the 3--5 keV band,
whilst the counts in the 1--3 keV band -- determined by the soft component --
are constant. Thus spectrum {\it d\/} can be fit into the above pattern, with
a column of $\sim 31\times 10^{22}$ covering 92 per cent of the source.
\section{Has the source ever made a transition to a soft state?}
\label{sec:soft}
As we point out in Section~\ref{sec:heavyabs} some of the spectra during
May 30th observation show a thermal component of temperature $\sim 0.8\,$keV
(for {\tt diskbb} model) and power law tails with $\Gamma \sim 2$,
typical for high/soft states of GBH.
To further characterize the source in those time periods we examined more
closely some of the energy spectra as well as the source variability.
\begin{figure*}
\epsfysize = 7 cm
\epsfbox[18 420 600 690]{psd_may30.ps}
\caption{Power spectra of X-ray emission obtained on two occasions:
panel ({\it a}\/) shows PSD on 30th May (time interval $i-5$, 07:26 to 07:48;
see Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc}), panel
({\it b}\/) shows PSD on 20th June when the source was in the usual
low/hard state (Paper I). Labels in panel {\it a\/ } show energy bands in keV.
The thin dotted line represents PSD from panel {\it b\/} for direct
comparison.
On 30th May the $1-3$ keV component did not vary on time-scales shorter than
$\sim 100$ sec, but the amplitude of variability increased with energy.
In all three spectra an enhanced variability on time-scales longer than
$\sim 100$ sec was observed. This can be attributed to variable photo-electric
absorption.
On 20th June (panel {\it b\/}) the variability was independent of energy.
\label{fig:may30_psd}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Timing and variability}
\label{sec:soft_timing}
Power spectra of {GS~2023+338}\ were already examined by
Oosterbroek et al.\ (1997). Their Fig.~8 (panel 1A) shows PSD on May 30
exhibiting strongly reduced power above $\sim 1$ sec, similarly to
what is usually observed in high state (van der Klis 1995).
In Figure~\ref{fig:may30_psd}a we plot PSD for data obtained between
07:26 and 07:48 ($i-5$; see Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc}),
separately for three energy bands: $1-3\,$keV, $3-5$ keV
and $5-30\,$keV. The $1-3$ keV band variability is consistent with pure
Poisson noise
on time-scales $\delta t \la 100$ sec whilst the harder X-rays are highly
variable with the amplitude of variability increasing with energy up to
$\approx 5$ keV.
For comparison Figure~\ref{fig:may30_psd}b shows PSD for data taken
on 20th June (cf.\ Miyamoto et al.\ 1992), when the source was in the usual
low/hard state (Paper I).
Here the amplitude of variability does not depend on energy.
This analysis confirms that the energy spectrum consists of two components,
a constant, soft component, and a strongly variable hard component, in
accord with spectral decomposition shown in Figure~\ref{fig:soft_spec}.
A characteristic feature of the PSD is the increase of power for
$\delta t>100$ sec. Since even the soft component varies on that time-scale,
the increase is most likely due to slowly variable absorption.
The PSD of the hard component (5 -- 20 keV) on May 30th is rather steeper
than that on 20 June for $\delta t \la 10$ sec (frequency $f \ga 0.1$ Hz).
The loss of power could be due to reflection/scattering
in an extended medium whose presence is suggested both by the energy spectra
analyzed in the next section and by the previously discussed increase
of PSD on long time-scales. Alternatively, it could be an intrinsic feature
of the primary emission. If so, however, then the steepening of PSD in
putative soft state would be opposite to what is shown by e.g.\ Cyg X-1
(van der Klis 1995 and Cui et al.\ 1997).
\subsection{Energy spectra}
\begin{figure*}
\epsfysize = 7 cm
\epsfbox[18 440 590 690]{int4_eufs.ps}
\caption{Examples of spectral modelling of the $i-4$ spectrum, when the source
was heavily absorbed. Model {\it a\/} is
purely phenomenological, comprising two power law spectra absorbed by two
(partial) absorbers and an overall absorption. Model {\it b\/} consists of
an unabsorbed disc blackbody with $k T\approx 1$ keV, and a
power law ($\Gamma\approx 2$) with two absorbers
($N_{\rm H,1}\approx 24$, $f_1=1$; $N_{\rm H,2}\approx 300$,
$f_2=0.86$). Model {\it c\/} has similar disc blackbody,
a power law with $\Gamma=2.3$ absorbed by $N_{\rm H}=27$ and $f=1$, and an
(enhanced) reprocessed component absorbed by $N_{\rm H}=180$ and $f=1$ (all values
of $N_{\rm H}$ are given in units of $10^{22}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$). Additional narrow
gaussian lines at 6.4 and 7.05 keV are included to account for fluorescence
in the absorbers. Values of $\chi^2$ are, respectively: $21.2/22\,$dof,
$20.6/23\,$dof and $17.4/22\,$dof. Only models
{\it b\/} and {\it c\/} are compatible with PSD shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:may30_psd}a, i.e.\ the variability increasing with energy
up to $\sim 5\,$keV. Parameters of those models are typical for high/soft
state of SXT.
\label{fig:soft_spec}}
\end{figure*}
We have extracted two spectra of {GS~2023+338}\ from time intervals: $i-4$ at
6:43:45 -- 6:47:20 and $i-5$ at 7:26:45 -- 7:49:00
(see light-curve in Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc}, and position on the
colour--colour diagram, Figure~\ref{fig:colcol}).
First, we tested the hypothesis that the spectra can be described
assuming (possibly non-uniform) absorption acting on a typical hard state
spectrum. To this end we assumed the June 3rd (see Table~2 in Paper I)
spectrum and allowed the three
components (disc blackbody, power law and reflection) to be absorbed. This
model fails in both cases even though we allowed the three absorbers to be
different. The best fits have $\chi^2=1998/22\,{\rm dof}$ and
$\chi^2=571/22\,{\rm dof}$.
Adding to the model two narrow gaussians at 6.4 and 7.05 keV (to account for
iron fluorescence from the absorber) improves the fits significantly but
they are still unacceptable: $\chi^2=1220/21\,{\rm dof}$ and
$\chi^2=56.3/21\,{\rm dof}$.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Model fitting of the soft state spectra.
\label{tab:soft_spec}}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccr}
data & $k T_{\rm soft}$ (keV) &
photon index & $N_{\rm H,1}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$ &
$\Omega_{\rm r}$ & $\xi$ &
$N_{\rm H,2}$ &
EW (eV) & $\chi^2/$dof \\
\hline
$i-4$ & $1.07^{+0.04 }_{-0.11}$ &
$2.24\pm 0.16$ & $(25^{+5}_{-8})\times 10^{22}$ &
$7.4^{+2.2}_{-1.1}$ & $100^{+400}_{-100}$ &
$(180^{+30}_{-20})\times 10^{22}$ &
$430^{+70}_{-110}$ & 17.4/21 \\
$i-5$ & $0.98^{+0.03 }_{-0.06}$ &
$1.90^{+0.13}_{-0.11} $ & $(24\pm 5)\times 10^{22}$ &
$6.3^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ & $25^{+40}_{-24.8}$ &
$(130^{+27}_{-20})\times 10^{22}$ &
$375^{+75}_{-60}$ & 15.8/21 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
Model: abs*( disc blackbody + abs1*(power law) + abs2*({\tt relrepr}\ ) +
gaussian + gaussian)
\end{table*}
The simplest phenomenological description of the two spectra consists of
two power law components with different absorbing columns, $N_{\rm H}$, and covering
fractions, $f$, with the two narrow gaussian lines
and an overall absorption.
One power law is rather soft, $\Gamma\sim 3$ and it is absorbed by a
column of $N_{\rm H}\sim (6-8)\times 10^{23}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$ and $f = 0.65-0.9$.
The other is harder, $\Gamma\sim 1.2$ while $N_{\rm H}\sim 2\times 10^{24}\,
{\rm cm^{-2}}$ and $f=1$.
In an attempt to construct a more realistic model we assumed an
unabsorbed disc blackbody as the soft component and an absorbed
power law, but such a model fails to describe the data. Better fits are
obtained when a second, partial absorption is applied to the power law:
$\chi^2=20.5/22\,$dof for $i-4$ and $\chi^2 = 27.8/22\,$dof for $i-5$,
with the second absorbing column $\sim 3\times 10^{24}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$.
The fit to $i-5$ data can be further improved if the second absorber acts
on a different power law component. One realistic candidate for the
second power law is the reprocessed component whose presence
is also in line with our previous results. Replacing the power law with
the (non-smeared) reprocessed component we obtain
good fits with $\chi^2=17.4/21\,{\rm dof}$ for $i-4$ and $\chi^2=15.8/21\,$dof
for $i-5$.
The model parameters are well constrained: the temperature of
the soft component is fairly high, $T_0 \sim 1\,$keV,
whilst the power law index is $\sim 2$.
Both values are indeed as expected in typical high/soft state spectra
of GBH.
The spectra are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:soft_spec} and fit results shown
in Table~\ref{tab:soft_spec}.
\subsection{Discussion}
Based solely on properties of the $i-4$ and $i-5$ spectra it is impossible
to determine whether the constancy of the soft component is its intrinsic
property or it results from the component (or a fraction of it) being
scattered off some extended scatterer towards the observer.
The lack of variability is intrinsic if the hard component is scattered
as well -- as the overall evolution seems to suggest -- since the scattering
preserved the variability characteristics of the hard component.
An intrinsically weak variability then supports the spectral identification
of the soft component as the thermal disc emission since this is known
to be weakly variable (van der Klis 1995).
The intrinsic luminosity of the soft component is $\approx 9\times 10^{38}
\,{\rm erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}} \approx 0.6\,L_{\rm Edd}$ ($d=3.5\,$kpc), assuming
that it indeed is a disc emission from $6\,R_{\rm g}$ onwards. Effective temperature
expected at the inner disc edge is then $\approx 1.1\,$keV (Frank, King \&
Raine 1992), in surprisingly good agreement with the best fit value
(fitting the {\tt diskspec} model with the colour temperature correction
1.5).
The energy spectrum of {GS~2023+338}\ during the $i-4 \rightarrow i-7$ time intervals
is thus compatible with typical high/soft state spectra of GBH. However,
the strong, broad band noise variability of the hard component is not.
Examining more closely the {\it Ginga\/} data of Nova Muscae 1991 (see
Section~\ref{sec:compar}) we find that in the typical high/soft state the hard
component
($E>5\,$keV) shows almost no variability, similarly to the soft component
(note that in the {\it Ginga\/} data, counts are dominated by channels
at 3--5 keV, so the usually plotted -- summed over all energies -- PSDs
are dominated by the soft component). Perhaps a weak intrinsic variability
is enhanced by absorption, as suggested by the fact that the
PSD amplitude of the soft component was larger later, in $i-7$ than in
$i-4$ and $i-5$.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\subsection{Intrinsic X--ray Spectral Evolution}
Much of the evolution of the X--ray spectrum is hidden beneath a veil of
complex, heavy absorption, and it is not generally possible to uniquely
recover the intrinsic
spectrum. Most of the dramatic spectral {\it and intensity\/} variability
seen on
May 30 is connected with the evolution of the complex absorption rather than
with the X--ray source itself. The apparent saturation of the X--ray luminosity
at $\sim 10^5$ counts sec$^{-1}$ (see e.g.\ Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc})
is {\it not\/} due to the source
dramatically flaring and then hitting the Eddington limit, but instead can be
explained by the source staying fairly constant while our direct line of sight
to it is covered (and uncovered) by very optically thick material.
The absorption variability is such that there are occasional glimpses of the
unobscured source. One such time is at the start of the observation on May
30. Here the observed luminosity is at least 0.6 of the Eddington limit
(integrating the
derived spectrum to get the bolometric luminosity gives the model dependent
number of $\ge 1.6\timesL_{\rm Edd}$), and the spectral shape is not at all like
that seen from other transient systems (at any luminosity!). At these high
accretion rates we might expect to see a strong soft component from the inner
accretion disc at around $\sim 1$ keV, yet the observed strong soft emission is
at temperatures around $0.2$ keV, much lower than expected. The hard X--ray
spectrum is not a power law. Instead it has a distinct roll-over, indicating
relatively low electron temperatures, $\sim 10$ keV, in the hard X--ray
emitting
plasma. The curvature of this spectrum is rather difficult to match unless the
seed photons for this comptonized spectrum are at temperatures of $\sim 1$ keV.
Thus it seems most likely that the missing accretion disc photons are hidden
under the optically thick comptonizing cloud which produces the hard X--ray
spectrum. Slim disc models (including the advection of trapped radiation) of
super-Eddington rates may point towards the formation of such a hot central
region (Beloborodov 1998). These extreme luminosities are probably accompanied
by
a strong wind driven from the disc, which is perhaps the origin of some of the
dramatic absorption variability.
The source then makes a transition to the
standard very high or high state spectrum, with the expected strong soft
component at $\sim 1$ keV. This transition probably takes place between the
$i-3$ and $i-4$ time intervals (see Figure~\ref{fig:may30_lc}),
perhaps connected to the
source luminosity decreasing from $\sim 1.5\times L_{\rm Edd} $
to slightly below $L_{\rm Edd}$. All the May 30th spectra are consistent
with an intrinsic bolometric luminosity close to $L_{\rm Edd}$, although this is
highly model dependent due to the obscuration of the source.
The source was not observed on May 31, and no good data exist for the
observation on June 1st. This is somewhat unfortunate, since on June 2nd
the data are consistent with the source having an intrinsic luminosity of
$\sim 0.04-0.05 \,L_{\rm Edd}$,
and show the standard low/hard spectrum. Somewhere in the two missing
days the intrinsic source luminosity decreased by a factor of 10--20!
The source then decreases by about a factor of 2 from June 2nd to July 6th,
consistent with a standard e--folding decay timescale of 30--40 days.
In summary, all of the oddities of {GS~2023+338}\ may perhaps be explained by the
source accreting at super-Eddington rates. This would give the unusual
spectrum seen at the start
of May 30th, and power a strong outflowing wind which caused dramatic
absorption
variability. As the source declined below Eddington luminosity it showed
the standard
high state spectrum. It may have further declined steadily (although rapidly)
through the high state spectrum to the low/hard state on May 31st--June 1st, or
there may have been a more dramatic event, perhaps linked to the observed
transient radio emission, in which there was complete disruption of the inner
disc. Perhaps this signaled a huge ejection of the accreting matter, so that
the accretion rate onto the central object was much reduced, and adding to the
complex absorption.
\subsection{Disc Evolution}
\label{sec:discuss}
The most promising explanation of SXT outbursts seems to be the
classical disc instability model, modified to include the effects of
X-ray irradiation (e.g.\ Cannizzo 1993, van Paradijs 1996, King \&
Ritter 1998). The quiescent disc builds up from matter accreted from
the companion star until the outburst is triggered. The disc switches
into the hot, ionized state, and has the familiar Shakura--Sunyaev
structure. The outer disc temperature eventually drops below the H
ionization temperature, and a cooling wave propagates inwards,
switching the disc back into quiescence. Without X--ray irradiation
the outburst lightcurves are the classic drawf nova lightcurves, with
a linear decline after outburst. However, if X--ray irradiation is
strong enough to keep the outer disc ionised then the cooling wave is
supressed. Most of the disc mass can then accreted before the cooling
wave can form, giving an exponential decay (King \& Ritter 1998, King
1998). The prevalence of exponential decays in SXT X--ray lightcurves
point to the importance of irradiation in these systems
(Shahbaz, Charles \& King 1998).
{GS~2023+338}\ shows a fast rise, followed by an exponential X--ray decay.
The fast rise suggests that the outburst is triggered towards the
outer edge of the disc (Smak 1984, Cannizzo 1998), so that all of the disc
takes part in the initial heating wave. The exponential decay means
that we might expect that irradiation (probably indirect via
scattering in a corona: Dubus et al.\ 1999) is important so that most of the
disc stays in the outburst state, and so is accreted. Integrating the
observed X-ray lightcurve gives an estimate of the accreted mass
$\Delta M_{\rm X} \sim 6\times
10^{25}\,$g, assuming a radiative efficiency of 10 per cent. This
matches very well with estimates of the mass transferred from the
companion star during the inter-outburst time interval $\Delta M_{\rm c} \approx
2\times 10^{26} $g, adopting $\Delta t \approx 32\,$years; (Chen et
al.\ 1997) and the mass transfer rate from the companion star $\dot
M_{\rm c}\approx 10^{17}\,{\rm g\,s^{-1}}$ (King, Kolb \& Burdieri
1996).
However, this disc mass is orders of magnitude smaller than the disc
mass that would be built up under the assumption that the outburst is
triggered by the surface density of the quiescent disc reaching its
critical value everywhere. The orbital period of {GS~2023+338}\ is 6.5 days, so
the disc can
extend out to radii of $R_{\rm out} \simeq 1.36R_{\rm circ} \approx 0.7 R_{\rm tidal}
\approx 1.2\times 10^{12}$ cm (Shahbaz et al.\ 1998). This
predicts a huge disc mass of $M_{\rm disc} \sim \rho R_{\rm out}^3 /3 \sim 2 \times
10^{28}$ g ($\rho\sim 3\times 10^{-8}\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$; King \&
Ritter 1998). Plainly this shows that the outburst is triggered long
before this maximum disc mass is built up.
A similar result is found for the other well studied large disc system,
GRO J1655-40 (Shahbaz et al.\ 1998).
This is in marked contrast the to short period
(small disc) SXT's, where the disc mass derived from the maximum
quiescenct disc calculations is (roughly) equal to the mass inferred
from the X--ray luminosity (Shahbaz et al.\ 1998), and to the integrated
mass transfer rate from the companion star (Menou et al.\ 1999).
Perhaps a clue to resolving the problem is that the region where the
disc solution is unstable in {GS~2023+338}\ is quite distant from $R_{\rm out}$.
Solving the vertical disc structure equations (using the code
recently described in R\'{o}\.{z}a\'{n}ska et al.\ 1999), we find that
the solution is unstable where $T_{\rm eff}=(5 - 7) \times 10^3\,$K
(see also e.g.\ Hameury et al.\ 1998). This gives
$R_{\rm unst} = (5 - 8) \times 10^{10}\,$cm,
i.e.\ the ring is centered at $\approx 0.05\,R_{\rm out}$. In Nova Muscae 1991
($P_{\rm orb}=10.5\,$h) $R_{\rm unst}$ is rather closer to $R_{\rm out}$:
$R_{\rm unst} = (2 - 3) \times 10^{10}\,{\rm cm} = (0.2 - 0.3) R_{\rm out}$.
Perhaps the disc beyond a few $R_{\rm unst}$ never builds up to
full quiescence, but instead stays on the steady state, cool branch.
Whatever the reason, it seems that there are serious deficiencies
in our understanding of the structure of large discs.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Andrei Beloborodov for helpful discussions on super-Eddington
accretion, and Bo\.{z}ena Czerny, James Murray and John Cannizzo on
accretion disc instabilities.
CD acknowledges support from a PPARC Advanced Fellowship.
Work of PTZ was partly supported by
grant no.\ 2P03D00410 of the Polish State Committee for
Scientific Research.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
It is none to say what group theory meant (and means) for theoretical physics during this
century, in particular the theory of continuous groups or Lie groups ( see e.g. \cite{lie1},
\cite{lie2} and references therein).
The properties of their Lie algebras, easier to hand than the groups themselves, define them
locally and in fact most part of the textbooks are dedicated to them \cite{lie3}.
However depending on the problem at hand, explicit parametrizations of the group manifold
become necessary.
Many of them are widely known, example of them the $SU(2)$ or more generally the Euler angles
of orthogonal groups. Of course that we can always write locally a group element as a product
of one-generator exponentials, or simply as the exponential of an arbitrary Lie algebra element.
But in most cases theses obvious parametrizations are of few usefulness because they obscure
the global properties of the group and generally lead to un-tractable computations.
An interesting parametrization is suggested by the Mackey theorem, the well-known coset
decomposition: let $G$ be a group and $H$ a subgroup of it.
Then for any $g\in G$,
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
g = k\; h , \;\; k\in G/H\; , \;\; h\in H \label{coset}
\ee
in a unique way.
This leads to the theory of homogeneous spaces (or (left or right) coset spaces) $G/H$,
good references on the subject being \cite{hel}, \cite{gil}.
Among others physical applications \eqn{coset} is fundamental in the treatment of
effective field theories with spontaneously broken symmetries \cite{wein}.
But let us assume instead that we have a field theory including maps from ``space-time'' on
a group manifold $G$ among its degrees of freedom, and gauge invariant under the adjoint action
of a subgroup $H$ of $G$
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
g\;\rightarrow\; {}^h g = h\; g\; h^{-1}\;\; ,\;\; h\in H \label{adja}
\ee
This means that effectively the theory depends on the invariants of the group under the adjoint
action of the subgroup.
That is, if we were able to write uniquely any element of $G$ as
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
g \equiv h^{-1}\; \bar g\; h \;\; , h\in H \label{adj}
\ee
then clearly making a gauge transformation \eqn{adja} identifying the $h$'s the theory will
depend only on $\bar g$ that encloses the invariants mentioned above.
We would like to remark that at difference of \eqn{coset} there no exists any general theorem
assuring the decomposition \eqn{adj}; in fact it is not difficult to find examples where it
is not possible to write it.
It is the aim of this paper to get the class of local parametrizations of the type \eqn{adj}
in a whole set of cases of physical interest.
Specific examples where they must be used (and were used in the lower dimensionality
cases where parametrizations were available) are the two dimensional gauged
Wess-Zumino-Witten-Novikov models \cite{gwzw}, \cite{gaw}.
It is worth to say however that the results, being explicit parametrizations of
classical groups, are valuable on their own right independently of the applications.
\section{The orthogonal groups}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We consider in this section the pseudo-orthogonal groups, $G
\equiv SO(p,q)$. Its maximal compact subgroup is $H\equiv
SO(p)\times SO(q)$. In order to get its decomposition \eqn{adj} we
need as a first step to get the
\subsection{Reduction of $SO(p+1)$ under $SO(p)$.}
We start by writing \cite{gil}
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
P_{p+1}(\vec u_p , P_p ) = K_p(\vec u_p )\; H(P_p, 1)\label{cosort}
\ee
where $\;\vec u_p\;$ is a $p$-dimensional real vector, $P_p\in SO(p)$ and
generically we will mean
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
H(P,Q) = \matriz{P}{0}{0}{Q}
\ee
In what follows the dimensionalities of matrices should be understood from the context
when not stated explicitly.
The right coset element in $SO(p+1)/SO(p)\sim S^p$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
K_{p+1}(\vec u_p ) &=& \left( \matrix{
1 - (1 + u_{p+1} )^{-1}\; \vec u_p \vec u_p{}^t &\vec u_p\cr
-\vec u_p{}^t &u_{p+1}\cr } \right)\cr
1 &=& \vec u_p{}^t \vec u_p + (u_{p+1})^2
\eea
Under an adjoint transformation
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{}^h P_{p+1} = H(h,1)\; P_{p+1}\; H(h^t ,1)\;\; ,\;\; h\in SO(p)
\ee
the parameters of $P_{p+1}$ get transformed as:
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
{}^h \vec u_p &=& h \; \vec u_p \cr
{}^h P_p &=& h\; P_p \; h^t
\label{adjtras1}
\eea
The procedure will be constructive.
Les us pick an arbitrary matrix $\;V_p\in SO(p)\;$ decomposed this time as a left
coset w.r.t. $SO(p-1)$
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
V_p = H(V_{p-1}, 1) \; K_p(\vec v_{p-1}) \label{parV}
\ee
and rewrite \eqn{cosort} for any such a $V_p$ with the help of \eqn{adjtras1} as
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
P_{p+1} &=& H(V_p{}^t ,1)\; {\bar P}_{p+1} \; H(V_p , 1)\cr
{\bar P}_{p+1} &=& K_{p+1}(V_p\vec u_p )\; H(V_p P_p V_p{}^t ,1)\label{adjort}
\eea
The general idea to apply here and in the subsequent cases is to fix the whole matrix $V_p$
($\equiv \vec v_{p-1}, V_{p-1}$ ) in terms of variables of $P_{p+1}$ ($\equiv \vec u_p , P_p$),
leaving aside only precisely the invariants together with the matrix $V_p$ as parameters of
$P_{p+1}$.
Evidently this procedure is equivalent to make a change of variables
from the non-invariant parameters in $P_{p+1}$ to $V_p$.
Equation \eqn{adjort} suggests to put $\;\vec u_p\;$ in some standard form by a specific
choice of (a part of) $V_p$.
In fact it is easy to show that the choice
\footnote{ As usual we will use the notation $({\check e}_i )_j = \delta_{ij},
(E_{ij})_{kl}=\delta_{ik} \delta_{jl}, A_{ij} \equiv E_{ij} - E_{ji}, S_{ij}
\equiv E_{ij} + E_{ji} $.}
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\vec v_{p-1} \\ - v_p \end{array}\right) = - \frac{\vec u_p}{|\vec u_p |}\label{cvuno}
\ee
defines the rotation
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
K_p ( \vec v_{p-1})\; \vec u_p = | \vec u_p | \; \; {\check e}_p
\ee
Note that we have changed the ($p-1$) parameters from $\vec u_p$ indicating its direction
in terms of the ($p-1$) parameters in $\vec v_{p-1}$.
With such a choice of $\vec v_{p-1}$ ($V_{p-1}$ not fixed yet) we can write
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{\bar P}_{p+1} = K_{p+1} (| \vec u_p | \; {\check e}_p )\;
H( H(V_{p-1},1)\; P_p\; H(V_{p-1},1)^t , 1)
\ee
where we have redefined
$\; P_p\rightarrow K_p (\vec v_{p-1})^t\; P_p \; K_p(\vec v_{p-1})$.
But according to \eqn{adjort} we can rewrite it as
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{\bar P}_{p+1} =
K_{p+1} (| \vec u_p | \; {\check e}_p )\; H({\bar P}_p , 1)
\ee
Inspection of this formula indicates an iterative process, the next step being to write the
analogous expression for ${\bar P}_p$ and so on; after $p$ steps we get
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{\bar P}_{p+1} = \prod_{l=1}^{\overleftarrow p}\; H\left( K_{l+1}
( |\vec u_l| {\check e}_l ), 1_{p-l} \right)
\ee
It is convenient to introduce the angular variables
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
|\vec u_l | = \sin \theta_l \;\; , \;\; 0 \leq\theta_l\leq \pi
\ee
and write the $SO(p+1)$ element in the final form
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} P_{p+1} &=& H( V_p , 1)^t\; {\bar P}_{p+1}\; H( V_p , 1)\cr
{\bar P}_{p+1} &=& \prod_{l=1}^{\overleftarrow p}\;
\exp\left( \theta_l\;A_{l,l+1}\right)\label{adjortfinal}
\eea
which displays explicitly the $p$ invariants $\{ \theta_l , l=1,\cdots,p \}$ under
the adjoint action of $SO(p)$.
Note that the number of parameters trivially matches:
${p\over 2} (p-1) + p = {p\over 2} (p+1)$, as should;
this is the first of our results, to be used in the following.
\subsection{Reduction of $SO(p,q)$ under $SO(p)\times SO(q)$.}
Our starting point is again the right coset parametrization \cite{gil}
\footnote{
An explicit derivation from the definition of pseudo unitary
groups is given in Appendix A of \cite{lu1}.
}
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
\Lambda_{p,q}(S,P_p,Q_q) = K_{p,q}(S)\; H(P_p,Q_q) \label{parortpq}
\ee
where $P_p (Q_q) \in (SO(p)( SO(q) )$ and the coset element is given by
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
K_{p,q}(S) &=& \exp\matriz{0}{N}{N^t}{0} =
\matriz{(1 + S S^{t})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{S}{S^{t}}{(1 + S^{t}S)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\cr
S &=& (N N^t )^{-{1\over2}} \sinh (N N^{t})^{1\over 2} N \;\; \in \Re^{p\times q}
\label{cospseu}
\eea
Under an adjoint transformation
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{}^h\Lambda_{p,q} = H(h_p,h_q )\;\Lambda_{p,q}\; H(h_p,h_q )^t
\ee
with $ h_p (h_q)\in SO(p)(SO(q))$, the parameters of $\Lambda_{p,q}$ transforms as
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
{}^h S &=& h_p \; S \; h_q{}^t \cr
{}^hP_p &=& h_p \; P_p \; h_p^t\cr
{}^hQ_q &=& h_q \; Q_q \; h_q^t
\eea
By following the strategy pursued in the past subsection we introduce two matrices $V_p, V_q$
belonging to $SO(p), SO(q)$ respectively and rewrite \eqn{parortpq}
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{p,q} &=& \; H(V_p ,V_q )^t\;{\bar\Lambda}_{p,q} \;H(V_p ,V_q) \cr
{\bar\Lambda}_{p,q} &=& exp\matriz{0}{V_p N V_q{}^t}{ (V_p N V_q{}^t
)^t}{0} \; H(V_p P_p V_p{}^t , V_q Q_q V_q{}^t )
\eea
As in \eqn{parV} we consider left coset parametrizations
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
V_p = H(V_{p-1}, 1) \;K_p(\vec v_{p-1})\cr
V_q = H(V_{q-1},1)\;K_q(\vec v_{q-1})
\eea
and try to totally fix $\;\vec v_{p-1}\;$ and $\;\vec v_{q-1}\;$ to put $N$ in a standard form.
It turns out that it is possible to choose these vectors in such a way that
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
V_p \; N\; V_q{}^t \equiv H(V_{p-1} , 1)K_p(\vec v_{p-1})\; N
K_q(\vec v_{q-1})^t\; H(V_{q-1}{}^t , 1) = \matriz{N_r}{0}{0}{n}\label{Nst}
\ee
where $\;N_r \in \Re^{(p-1)\times (q-1)}\;$ and $\;n\in \Re\;$.
In fact if we write
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
N = \matriz{N'_r}{\vec n_{p-1}}{\vec n_{q-1}{}^t} {n'}
\ee
then is straightforward to verify that the gauge fixing condition
$\vec n_{p-1}= \vec n_{q-1} = \vec 0$, i.e.
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
K_p(\vec v_{p-1})\;N K_q(\vec v_{q-1})^t = \matriz{N_r}{0}{0}{n}
\ee
holds if we choose
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\vec v_{p-1} &\equiv& (1+ |\vec t_{p-1}|^2 )^{-\frac{1}{2}}\; \vec t_{p-1}\cr
\vec v_{q-1} &\equiv& (1+ |\vec t_{q-1}|^2 )^{-\frac{1}{2}}\; \vec t_{q-1}
\eea
with $\;\vec t_{p-1} , \vec t_{q-1}\;$ satisfying
\footnote{
This set of equations can be reduced to a system of two (quadratic) equations
with two unknowns; the important thing for us is that solutions
exist and define the change of variables
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\vec n_{p-1} ,\vec n_{q-1})\rightarrow (\vec v_{p-1} ,\vec v_{q-1})
\end{eqnarray*}
}
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\vec t_{p-1} &=& ( \vec n_{q-1}{}^t\vec t_{q-1} -
n)^{-1}\;\left( \vec n_{p-1} - N'_r \vec t_{q-1}\right)\cr
\vec t_{q-1} &=& (\vec n_{p-1}{}^t\vec t_{p-1} - n)^{-1}\left( \vec n_{q-1} - N'_r{}^t\vec t_{p-1}\right)
\eea
A final redefinition $\;N_r\rightarrow V_{p-1}{}^t\; N_r\; V_{q-1}\;$ leads to \eqn{Nst}.
Finally (after reparametrizing
$\; P_p \rightarrow K_p(\vec v_{p-1})^t\; P_p\; K_p(\vec v_{p-1})\; ,
\; Q_q \rightarrow K_q(\vec v_{q-1})^t\; Q_q\; K_q(\vec v_{q-1})\;$) we use \eqn{adjortfinal}
to fix $V_{p-1}$ and $V_{q-1}$; the result can be recast in the form
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{p,q} &=& \; H(V_p ,V_q )^t\;{\bar\Lambda}_{p,q} \;H(V_p ,V_q) \cr
{\bar\Lambda}_{p,q} &=& \exp\left( \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\sum_{j=1}^{q-1} N_{ij} \; S_{i,p+j} + n
S_{p,p+q}\right)\; \prod_{k=1}^{\overleftarrow {p-1}}\; \exp(\theta_k A_{k,k+1})\;
\prod_{k=1}^{\overleftarrow{q-1}}\;\exp(\bar\theta_k A_{p+k,p+k+1})\cr & &\label{adjpseu}
\eea
Again we verify the matching in the number of parameters
$\; V_p, V_q, N_{ij}, n, \theta_k , \bar\theta_k\;$,
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{p\over 2} (p-1)+ {q\over 2} (q-1) + (p-1)(q-1) + 1 + (p-1) +
(q-1) = {1\over 2} (p+q) (p+q -1)
\ee
It is worth to say that the first term in \eqn{adjpseu} can be computed as in \eqn{cospseu}
with $N$ as in the r.h.s. of \eqn{Nst}; however this is a formal expression for which, to
our knowledge, only the ``minkowskian'' cases $p=1$ or $q=1$ admit an explicit form.
\section{The unitary groups}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The treatment of these groups parallels that made in the case of
the orthogonal ones, with some additional complications due to the
complex character of them. As before we start considering
\subsection{Reduction of $SU(p+1)$ under $U(p)$.}
An element of $SU(p+1)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
P_{p+1}(\vec u_p , U_p ) = K_{p+1}(\vec u_p )\; H(U_p, u_p^* ) =
K_{p+1}(\vec u_p )\; H(P_p,1)\; \exp\left( i\;\phi^p T_p\right)\label{cosun}
\ee
where
$\; u_p\equiv\det U_p=\exp(ip\phi_p )\;,\;\vec u_p\in\mbox{{\bf C}}^p\; ,\; U_p\in U(p),P_p\in SU(p)\;$,
and we have introduced a convenient basis
$\;\{ T_k = \sum_{l=1}^k ( E_{ll} - E_{k+1,k+1} ),\; k=1,\cdots,p\}\;$
in the Cartan subalgebra of $su(p+1)$.
The right coset element in \eqn{cosun} belonging to $SU(p+1)/U(p)\sim CP^p$
is given by \cite{gil}
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
K_{p+1}(\vec u_p ) &=& \matriz{1 - (1 + u_{2p+1} )^{-1}\; \vec u_p\vec u_p{}^\dagger}
{\vec u_p}{-\vec u_p{}^\dagger}{u_{2p+1}} \cr
1 &=& \vec u_p{}^\dagger \vec u_p + (u_{2p+1})^2
\eea
The adjoint action under $\; H_p \in U(p)\;$ is ($\;h_p \equiv \det H_p$)
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{}^H P_{p+1} = H( H_p, h_p^*)\; P_{p+1}\; H(H_p ,h_p^*)^\dagger \;\longleftrightarrow\;
\left\{ \begin{array}{l} {}^V\vec u_p = h_p\; H_p \; \vec u_p \\
{}^H P_p = H_p\; P_p \; H_p^\dagger \\\; {}^H \phi^p = \phi^p \end{array}\right.
\label{adjtrpsu}
\ee
As before we pick an arbitrary $V_p \in U(p)$ left coset parametrized
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
V_p = H( V_{p-1} , v_{p-1}^*)\; K_p (\vec v_{p-1})\; \exp( i\beta_p)\;\;\; ,\;\; V_{p-1}\in U(p-1)
\ee
and write \eqn{cosun} with the help of \eqn{adjtrpsu} as
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
P_{p+1} &=& H(V_p , v_p^*)^\dagger\; {\bar P}_{p+1} \; H(V_p,v_p{}^*)\cr
{\bar P}_{p+1} &=& K_{p+1}(v_p V_p\vec u_p )\; H(V_p P_p V_p{}^\dagger
,1)\; \exp(i\;\phi^p T_p ) \label{adjuni}
\eea
By choosing $\vec v_{p-1}$ and ${\beta_p}$ ($V_{p-1}$ free) as
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{c} \vec v_{p-1} \\ - v_{2p-1} \end{array}\right) &=&
- \frac{(\vec u_p^*)^p}{|(\vec u_p)^p |}\; \frac{\vec u_p}{|\vec u_p |} \cr
\exp (i\beta_p ) &=&
\left( \frac{(\vec u_p^* )^p}{|(\vec u_p{} )^p |}
\right)^\frac{1}{p+1}\label{cvdos}
\eea
we have
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
v_p \; V_p \; \vec u_p = |\vec u_p| \; {\check e}_p
\ee
and identifying $V_{p-1}$ as the $SU(p-1)$ matrix corresponding to the $P_p$ decomposition
in \eqn{adjuni} ( previous redefinition
$\; P_p\rightarrow K_p\; (\vec v_{p-1})^\dagger P_p \; K_p(\vec v_{p-1})\;$ ) we get
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{\bar P}_{p+1} = K_{p+1}(|\vec u_p | {\check e}_p )\; H({\bar P}_p ,1)\;\exp(i\;\phi^p T_p )
\ee
By repeating the analysis for ${\bar P}_p $ and after $p$ steps we arrive to the final result
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
P_{p+1} &=& H( V_p , v_p^*)^\dagger\; {\bar P}_{p+1}\; H( V_p ,v_p^* )\cr
{\bar P}_{p+1} &=& \prod_{l=1}^{\overleftarrow p}\; \exp\left( \theta_l\;
A_{l,l+1}\right)\; C_{p+1}(\Phi ) \label{adjunifinal}
\eea
It differs from \eqn{adjortfinal} from the unitary character of $V_p$ and the
comparison of the arbitrary Cartan element
$\;C_{p+1}(\Phi )=\exp(i \sum_{l=1}^p \;\phi^l T_l )\;$ at right in ${\bar P}_{p+1}$.
\subsection{Reduction of $SU(p,q)$ under $S(U(p)\times U(q))$.}
In order not to be repetitive we will skip some steps in what follows.
An arbitrary element in $SU(p,q)$ can be left coset decomposed under
$\;S(U(p)\times U(q))\;$ as
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{p,q}(S,U_p,U_q) &=& K_{p,q}(S)\; H(U_p,U_q)\;\;\; ,\;\; u_p = u_q{}^* \cr
K_{p,q}(S) &=& \matriz{(1 + S S^\dagger)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{S}{S^\dagger}{(1 + S^\dagger S)^{
\frac{1}{2}} } = \exp \matriz{0}{N}{N^\dagger}{0}\cr
S &=& (N N^\dagger )^{-{1\over2}} \sinh (N N^\dagger)^{1\over 2} N \;\;\; ,\;\;
S, N\in {\cal C}^{p\times q}\label{parunipq}
\eea
The adjoint action under $\; H(h_p,h_q ) \in S(U(p)\times U(q) )\;$ is
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{}^H \Lambda_{p,q} = H(h_p,h_q )\;\Lambda_{p,q} H(h_p ,h_q )^\dagger
\longleftrightarrow \left\{\begin{array}{l} \;{}^H S = h_p \; S \; h_q{}^\dagger \cr
{}^H U_p = h_p \; U_p \; h_p^\dagger\cr
{}^H U_q = h_q \; U_q \; h_q{}^\dagger \end{array}\right.
\ee
Two matrices $V_p, V_q$ belonging to $U(p), U(q)$ respectively
with $v_p v_q =1$ are introduced and following similar steps as in
Subsection $2.2$ we find that it is possible to fix $N$ in the way
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
N = \matriz{N_r}{0}{0}{n}
\ee
where now $N_r \in {\cal C}^{(p-1)\times(q-1)}$ and $n\in \Re $.
Then by using the results of the past subsection we get the final result for the
parametrization
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{p,q} &=& \; H(V_p, V_q)^\dagger \;{\bar \Lambda}_{p,q} \;H(V_p ,V_q) \cr
{\bar \Lambda}_{p,q} &=& \exp \matriz{0}{N}{N^\dagger}{0}\;
\overleftarrow{\prod_{l=1}^{p-1}}\;\exp\left(\theta_l\; A_{l,l+1}\right)\;
\overleftarrow{\prod_{l=1}^{q-1}}\;\exp\left({\bar\theta}_l\; A_{p+l,p+l+1}\right)\;C(\Phi)
\label{adjpsunifin}
\eea
where $\; H(V_p, V_q)\in S(U(p)\times U(q))\;$ and we denote by $\;C(\Phi)\;$ an arbitrary
element in the Cartan subalgebra of the Lie algebra of $S(U(p)\times U(q))$.
\subsection{Decomposition under the maximal torus}
Some times is useful to have the adjoint decomposition of unitary groups under the
Cartan subalgebra.
We will work out for definiteness the case of $SU(n+1)$; the non compact versions differ
as usual by signs in the coset elements and Wick rotations of some compact generators.
To this end we begin by searching for the coset decomposition of $SU(n+1)$ under
$C(SU(n+1))$; from \eqn{cosun}
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
P_{n+1}(\vec u_n , U_n ) &=& K_{n+1}(\vec u_n )\; H(U_n, u_n^* )\cr
K_{n+1}(\vec u_n ) &=& \exp\theta_n\matriz{0}{\check{r}_n}{-\check{r}_n{}^\dagger}{0}
= \matriz{1 - (1 + u_{2n+1} )^{-1}\;
\vec u_n\vec u_n{}^\dagger}{\vec u_n}{-\vec u_n{}^\dagger}{u_{2n+1}}\cr
|\vec u_n|^2 + (u_{2n+1})^2 &=& 1 \;\;\;, \;\;\vec u_n = \sin\theta_n \;{\check r}_n\;\;\; ,
\;\;{\check r}_n{}^\dagger {\check r}_n =1\;\;\; ,\;\; \theta_n \in [0,\pi]\label{ec}
\eea
By introducing
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
U_n &=& P_n\;\matriz{1_{n-1}}{0}{0}{u_n} \;\; , \;\; P_n \in SU(n)\cr
u_n &\equiv& \det U_n = \exp(i\varphi^n)
\eea
we can rewrite \eqn{ec} as
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
P_{n+1}(\vec u_n ,U_n ) = K_{n+1}(\vec u_n )\; H(P_n ,1)\;\exp(i\;\varphi^n H_n)
\ee
where this time is convenient to introduce the basis
$\;\{ H_k = E_{kk} - E_{k+1,k+1} ,k=1,\cdots, n\}\;$ in the Cartan subalgebra of
$su(n+1)$.
By repeating with $P_n$ and iterating we get
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
P_{n+1} = \overleftarrow{\prod_{l=1}^n} \;
\matriz{K_{l+1}(\vec u_l)}{0}{0}{1_{n-l}} \;\exp(i\;\vec\varphi \cdot {\vec H})
\ee
Now let us pick an element $C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha )\equiv \exp (\alpha^i H_i)\in
C(SU(n+1))$ and write as usual
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
P_{n+1} &=& C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha )^\dagger \;\overleftarrow{\prod_{l=1}^{n}}
\left( C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha )\;\matriz{K_{l+1}(\vec u_l)}{0}{0}{1_{n-l}}\;
C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha )^\dagger\right)\; C_{n+1}(\vec\varphi)\;C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha )\cr
& &
\label{unicarini}
\eea
We see that the $(\varphi^l )$ variables are invariant; we must choose
the ${\alpha^i}$'s to kill parameters in the productory.
It is easy to show that the versors $\check{r}_l$ get transformed
as
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{}^\alpha\check{r}_l = \exp (-i\tilde\alpha_{l+1} )\; \exp(
i\sum_{i=1}^{l}\tilde\alpha_i E_{ii})\;\check{r}_n\;\;\; ,\;\; l=1,\cdots,n
\ee
where
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
{\tilde\alpha}_k =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\alpha_1 & \;\; if\;\; k=1\cr
-\alpha_{k-1} + \alpha_k & \;\; if\;\; k=2,\ldots,n \cr
-\alpha_n & \;\; if\;\; k=n+1
\end{array} \right.
\ee
Then we can put the phases of the $({}^\alpha\check{r}_l )^l$ components, $l=1,\cdots,n$,
to zero by choosing the $\alpha's$ such that
\footnote{Equations \eqn{kcm} can be formally solved by $\;\; \alpha^i =
- {K^{-1}}^{i}{}_j \; phase(\check{r}_j )^j$ where $K$ is the
Killing-Cartan matrix of the $A_n$ algebra; it is probable that this fact
does not be an accident but occurs in other cases $G/C(G)$.
}
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
2 \alpha_1 -\alpha_2 &=& - phase(\check{r}_1 )^1\cr
- \alpha_1 + 2\alpha_2 -\alpha_3 &=& -phase(\check{r}_2)^2\cr
\vdots & &\vdots\cr
-\alpha_{n-1}+2\alpha_n &=& -phase(\check{r}_n )^n \label{kcm}
\eea
In other words, from \eqn{unicarini} we get the final result
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
P_{n+1} &=& C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha)^\dagger\; {\bar P}_{n+1}\; C_{n+1}(\vec\alpha)\cr
{\bar P}_{n+1} &=& \overleftarrow{\prod_{l=1}^{n}}
\matriz{K_{l+1}(\vec u_l)}{0}{0}{1_{n-l}}\;C_{n+1}(\vec\varphi )\label{unicarfin}
\eea
with the constraints implied by \eqn{kcm}: $\;(\check{r}_l)^l \in \Re \; ,\;
l=1,\ldots, n$.
\section{The decomposition of $Sl(n)$ under $SU(n)$.}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
This is one of the two irreducible riemannian cases
\footnote{
The other one is $SU^*(2n)/USp(2n)$ and will not be considered here.}
in the sense that the coset element is not of the form
$\exp\matriz{0}{N}{\pm N^\dagger}{0}\;$ for some matrix $N$ (off-diagonal cosets).
We start from the well-known coset decomposition under $SO(n)$ of
any unimodular real $n\times n$ matrix
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
g_n = S_n \; P_n\;\; ,\; S_n{}^t = S_n \;\;\; ,\;\; P_n \in SO(n)
\ee
Also $S_n$ is positive definite and $\det S_n = 1$.
But we know from elementary linear algebra that any such a matrix is
diagonalizable by an orthogonal one $Q_n$ completely determined
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
S_n &=& Q_n{}^t \; Diag(\lambda_1{}^2 , \ldots, \lambda_n{}^2 ) \; Q_n\cr
\prod_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_i &=& 1\;\;\; ,\;\;
\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq \dots \geq\lambda_n\geq 0
\eea
from where after a redefinition $P_n \rightarrow Q_n{}^t P_n Q_n$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
g_n &=& Q_n{}^t \;{\bar g}_n \; Q_n \;\;\; , Q_n\in SO(n)\cr
{\bar g}_n &=& Diag(\lambda_1{}^2 , \ldots, \lambda_n{}^2 )\;
P_n \label{slnort}
\eea
Analogous steps using well known results yield the complexification of \eqn{slnort},
namely the decomposition of $Sl(n, \cal C)$ under $SU(n,\cal C)\;$ that we
quote without proof
\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
g_n &=& V_n{}^\dagger \;{\bar g}_n \; V_n \;\;\; , \;\; V_n \in SU(n, \cal C )\cr
{\bar g}_n &=& C_{n}(\vec\alpha) \; \overleftarrow{\prod_{l=1}^{n-1}}
\matriz{K_{l+1}(\vec u_l )}{0}{0}{1_{n-1-l}}\; C_{n}(\vec\beta)\label{slnuni}
\eea
where $\; C_n \in C(SU(n,{\cal C} ))\;$ and the vectors $\vec u_l$ are constrained by
$\; (\check{r}_l)^l \in \Re\; $ as in Section 3.3.
\section{Conclusions}
We have obtained in this paper adjoint parametrizations defined by \eqn{adj} w.r.t.
maximally compact subgroups for a large set of non-compact groups, the classically
riemannian cosets.
The constructive procedure used allows to extend them straightforwardly to non riemannian
decompositions, for example $\;SO(p+n,q)\;$ under $\;SO(n,q)\;$.
Few words about symplectic groups: these groups can be treated in the same way as made here;
the fact that $\; USp(2p, 2q) \sim U(2p, 2q; {\cal C} )\bigcap Sp(2p+2q;{\cal C})\;$
seems to suggest that the corresponding decomposition under $\;USp(2p)\times USp(2q)\;$
could follow from replacing in \eqn{adjpsunifin} $E$ by $Z$ generators
\footnote{
See reference \cite{gil}, chapter 5 for definitions.
}
and respective Cartan subalgebras, but we have not checked this.
We remark the locality of the parametrizations obtained; the changes of variables needed
to carry out the job are singular in some points of the group manifold as can be seen by
direct inspection of \eqn{cvuno} , \eqn{cvdos} for example.
Possible applications in physical problems of these parametrizations are in the context of
GWZW models as models of strings moving on background fields.
Equation \eqn{adjpseu} can be used to treat systematically all the models in \cite{bs1}
where the lowest dimensional cases were considered.
Also the measure on the group can be computed straightforwardly through the Maurer-Cartan
forms without introducing Fadeed-Popov ghost due to constraints because they were solved
once for all.
For $p+q= 2$ ($A_1$ algebras) parametrization \eqn{adjpsunifin} is widely known; for
$p=2, q=1$ was introduced in \cite{lu1}; it allows to extend the study of coset models in the
search of physically relevant string backgrounds represented by exact conformal field
theories.
\section*{Acknowledgements} It is a pleasure to thank to Loriano Bonora for useful
correspondence.
|
\section{Introduction and statements of results}
The concept of Murasugi sum (for the definition, see Section 2)
of Seifert surfaces in the $3$-sphere $S^{3}$ was introduced by
K. Murasugi, and it has been playing important roles in
the studies of Seifert surfaces and links.
The Murasugi sum is known to be natural in many senses,
and in particular the following is known.
(We say that a Seifert surface $R$ is a {\it fiber surface} if
$\partial R$ is a fibered link and $R$ realizes the fiber.)
\begin{thm}[\mbox{\cite[Theorem 3.1]{G}}] \label{thm:fiber-sum}
Let $R$ be a
Murasugi sum of $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$.
Then $R$ is a fiber surface if and only if
both $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ are fiber surfaces.
\end{thm}
On the other hand, the concept of alternating link has also
been important in knot theory.
It has been known that there are some relationships between
alternating diagrams and the Seifert surfaces obtained by
applying Seifert's algorithm to them.
For example, if a link diagram
$D$ is alternating, then the Seifert surface
obtained from $D$ by the algorithm is of minimal genus,
\cite{C, Mu1958}.
In \cite{G}, D. Gabai gave a geometric proof to the following
theorem, which also follows
from \cite{Mu} and \cite{St}.
Note that if $L$ is fibered, then minimal genus Seifert surfaces
for $L$ are unique up to isotopy and the fiber is realized
by the minimal genus surface.
\begin{thm}[\mbox{\cite[Theorem 5.1]{G}}] \label{thm:fiber-hopf}
Let $L$ be an oriented link with an alternating diagram $D$.
$L$ is a fibered link if and only if the surface $R$ obtained
by applying Seifert's algorithm to $D$ is connected and
(obviously) desums into a union of Hopf bands.
\end{thm}
We say that a Seifert surface $R (\subset S^3)$
{\it desums} into $R_{1},\ldots , R_{n}$ if
$R$ is a Murasugi sum of them.
Especially, if $R$ is obtained by successively plumbing
(i.e., 4-Murasugi summing)
finite number of Hopf bands to a disk,
we call $R$ a {\it Hopf plumbing}.
Actually, the \lq only if' part of Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-hopf}
can be strengthened as in the following theorem,
which follows from Propositions \ref{prop:para-deplumb}
and \ref{prop:alt-para}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:alt-fiber}
Let $L$ be an oriented link with an alternating diagram $D$.
$L$ is a fibered link if and only if the surface $R$ obtained
by applying Seifert's algorithm to $D$ is a Hopf plumbing.
Moreover, $R$ is a fiber surface if and only if
$R$ is deformed into a disk by
successively
cutting one of a pair of \lq parallel bands'
(defined in Section 5).
\end{thm}
In \cite{A}, C. Adams et al. generalized the concept of alternating
links and introduced the concept of almost alternating links.
A diagram $D$ in $S^2$ is called
{\it almost alternating}
(resp. {\it $2$-almost alternating})
if $D$ becomes an alternating diagram after one crossing change
(resp. two crossing changes).
A link $L$ in $S^3$ is called {\it almost alternating} if
$L$ is not alternating but
admits an almost alternating diagram.
If $D$ is an almost alternating diagram, the
specific crossing to change is called the {\it dealternator} and
we call the other crossings the {\it alternators}.
In this paper, we extend
Theorems \ref{thm:fiber-hopf} and \ref{thm:alt-fiber}
to almost alternating links.
Note that almost alternating diagrams, however, do not always
yield a minimal genus Seifert surface via Seifert's algorithm.
Our first result is as follows:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main}
Let $D$ be an almost alternating diagram,
and $R$ a Seifert surface obtained by applying
Seifert's algorithm to $D$. Then,
$R$ is a fiber surface if and only if
$R$ is connected and desums into a union of Hopf bands.
\end{thm}
In section 5, we show a stronger version of Theorem \ref{thm:main}
as below,
by using Corollary \ref{cor:algorithm} obtained from the arguments
in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:hopf-plumbing}
Let $R$ be a Seifert surface obtained
by applying Seifert's algorithm
to an almost alternating diagram.
Then, $R$ is a fiber surface
if and only if $R$ is a Hopf plumbing.
\end{thm}
As a corollary of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main},
we obtain
a practical algorithm to determine whether
or not a given almost alternating diagram yields a fiber
surface via Seifert's algorithm.
We use this to prove Theorem 1.5.
We say that a diagram $D$ is {\it unnested}
if $D$ has no Seifert circle which contains
another circle in both of its complementary region.
Otherwise we say $D$ is {\it nested}.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:algorithm}
Let $D$ be an
almost alternating diagram and $R$ a Seifert surface
obtained from $D$ by Seifert's algorithm.
Then $R$ is a fiber surface if and only if $R$
is connected and desums into a union of
Hopf bands by repeating
of the following decompositions;\\
(1) a Murasugi decomposition along a nested Seifert circle,\\
(2) a prime decomposition, and\\
(3) Murasugi decompositions of type (A) and (B) in Figure 1.1,
where each decomposition yields
Seifert surfaces with first Betti numbers smaller than
that of $R$.
\end{cor}
\figbox{Figure 1.1}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
In the proof of Theorems \ref{thm:fiber-hopf} (see \cite[p.533]{G})
and \ref{thm:main}, we explicitly show
how we can desum such $R$ into surfaces of smaller first
Betti numbers.
All necessary decompositions are covered in
the above three.
\fpf
In \cite{Ha}, J. Harer proved that every fiber surface in $S^3$
results from a disk by a sequence of elementary changes
as follows:
(a) plumb on a Hopf band, \par
(b) deplumb a Hopf band, and\par
(c) perform a Dehn twist about a suitable unknotted
curve in the fiber.\par
Then he asked whether changes of either type (b) or (c)
can be omitted, and any fiber surface can be realized only
using changes of the remaining two types.
So it is worthy presenting the following partial
affirmative answer as a corollary,
which immediately follows from Theorem
\ref{thm:hopf-plumbing} and Propositions 5.1 and 5.2.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:only-plumb}
Let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be any fiber surface obtained by applying
Seifert's algorithm to an alternating or almost alternating
diagram.
Then $R_1$ and $R_2$ can be changed into each other by
plumbing and deplumbing Hopf bands.
\end{cor}
We say that a Hopf hand $B$ is {\it positive} (resp. {\it negative})
if the linking number of $\partial B$ is $1$ (resp. $-1$).
By the following fact together with an observation of the
way fiber surfaces deplumb in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}
(see Section 4) and Theorem \ref{thm:hopf-plumbing}
(see Section 5), we have the following Corollary:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:posi-hopf}
Let $D$ be an unnested almost alternating diagram such that the
sign of the dealternator is negative.
Suppose the surface $R$ obtained from $D$ by Seifert's algorithm
is a fiber surface.
Then $R$ is a plumbing of positive Hopf bands.
\end{cor}
\begin{fact}
Suppose a diagram $D$ is unnested.
Then $D$ is alternating
(resp. almost alternating)
if and only if all the crossings of $D$ have the same sign
(resp. the same sign except exactly one crossing).
\end{fact}
This paper is organized as follows;
Section 2 is for preliminaries.
In Section 3, we give an example for our theorem.
We also show that our theorem can not be extended
to $2$-almost alternating diagrams, i.e.,
(1) we recall Gabai's example (in \cite{G})
of a $2$-almost alternating diagram for
a link whose Seifert surface obtained by Seifert's algorithm is
a fiber surface that is not a nontrivial Murasugi sum, and
(2) we give examples of $2$-almost alternating diagrams for knots
whose Seifert surfaces obtained by Seifert's algorithm are fiber
surfaces that are not Hopf plumbing.
In Sections 4 and 5, we prove Theorems~\ref{thm:main} and
~\ref{thm:hopf-plumbing} respectively.
\section{Preliminaries}
For the definitions of standard terms of sutured manifolds,
see \cite[p.520]{G}.
We say that a sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ is a
{\it product sutured manifold} if
$(M,\gamma)$ is homeomorphic to $(R \times I, \partial R \times I)$
with $R_{+}(\gamma)=R \times \{ 1\}, R_{-}(\gamma)=R \times \{ 0\}$,
where $R$ is a compact oriented surface with no closed components
and $I$ is the unit interval $[0,1]$.
The {\it exterior} $E(L)$ of a link $L$ in $S^{3}$
is the closure of $S^{3}-N(L;S^{3})$.
If $R$ is a Seifert surface for $L$, we may assume
$R\cap E(L)$ is homeomorphic to $R$, and often abbreviate
$R\cap E(L)$ as $R$.
Let $R$ be a Seifert surface for $L$ in $S^3$.
The product sutured manifold
$(M,\gamma)=(R \times I, \partial R \times I)$
is called the sutured manifold {\it obtained} from $R$
and the sutured manifold
$(N,\delta)=(E(L) - {\rm Int}M, \partial E(L) - {\rm Int}\gamma)$
is the {\it complementary} sutured manifold for $R$
(or for $(M, \gamma)$).
Note that $R$ is a fiber surface if and only if the
complementary sutured manifold
for $R$ is a product sutured manifold.
A {\it product decomposition}
\cite{G}
is a sutured manifold decomposition
$$(M_1,\gamma_1)
\overset{B}{\longrightarrow}
(M_2,\gamma_2),$$
where $B$ is a disk properly embedded in $M_1$ such that
$B \cap s(\gamma_1)=$ ($2$ points),
$M_2 = M_1 - {\rm Int}N(B)$ and that $s(\gamma_2)$ is obtained
by extending $s(\gamma_1) - {\rm Int}N(B)$ in the natural way
(Figure 2.1 (a)).
The disk $B$ is called a {\it product disk}.
Dually, {\it $C$-product decomposition} is the operation
$$(M_1, \gamma_1)
\overset{E}{\longrightarrow}
(M_2, \gamma_2),$$
where $E$ is a disk properly embedded in $S^3 - {\rm Int}M_1$
such that
$E \cap s(\gamma_1)=$ ($2$ points),
$M_2$ is obtained from $M_1$ by attaching the 2-handle $N(E)$
and that $s(\gamma_2)$ is obtained
by extending $s(\gamma_1) - {\rm Int}N(E)$ in the natural way
(Figure 2.1 (b)).
The disk $E$ is called a {\it $C$-product disk}.
\figbox{Figure 2.1}
\noindent
{\bf Definition.}
Let $R$ be a Seifert surface for a link $L$.
We say that {\it $R$ has a product decomposition} if
there exists a sequence of $C$-product decompositions
$$(R \times I, \partial R \times I)=(M_0, \gamma_0)
\overset{E_1}{\longrightarrow}
(M_1, \gamma_1)
\overset{E_2}{\longrightarrow}
\cdots
\overset{E_p}{\longrightarrow}
(M_p, \gamma_p),$$
where the complementary sutured manifold for
$(M_p, \gamma_p)$ is a union of $3$-balls each with a
single suture.
As a criterion to detect a fiber surface, Gabai has shown the
following:
\begin{thm}[\mbox{\cite[Theorem 1.9]{G}}] \label{thm:fiber-pd}
Let $L$ be an oriented link in $S^{3}$, and
$R$ a Seifert surface for $L$. Then,
$L$ is a fibered link with fiber $R$ if and only if
$R$ has a product decomposition.
\end{thm}
We note that in Section 4,
the existence of a $C$-product decomposition
$(M_0, \gamma_0)
\overset{E_1}{\longrightarrow}
(M_1, \gamma_1)$ together with the $C$-product disk $E_1$
is important.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Definition.}
A surface $R\,(\subset S^{3}$) is a {\it $2n$-Murasugi sum}
of two surfaces $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ in $S^{3}$
if the following conditions are satisfied;
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$R=R_{1}\underset{\Delta}{\cup}R_{2},$ where $\Delta$ is a $2n$-gon, i.e.,
$\partial \Delta=\mu_{1}\cup\nu_{1}\cup\ldots\cup\mu_{n}\cup\nu_{n}$
(possibly $n=1$), where $\mu_{i} ($resp. $\nu_{i}$) is an arc
properly embedded in $R_{1} ($resp. $R_{2}$).
\item
There exist $3$-balls $B_{1}$ and $B_{2}$ in $S^{3}$ such that:\\
(i) $B_{1}\cup B_{2}=S^{3},\,B_{1}\cap B_{2}=\partial B_{1}=\partial
B_{2}=S^{2}$ : a $2$-sphere,\\
(ii)$R_{1}\subset B_{1}, R_{2}\subset B_{2}$ and
$R_{1}\cap S^{2}=R_{2}\cap S^{2}=\Delta.$
\end{enumerate}
The $2$-Murasugi sum is known
as the connected sum, and
the $4$-Murasugi sum is known
as the plumbing.
\figbox{Figure 2.2}
Concerning alternating and almost alternating tangles,
we can confirm the following facts.
\begin{fact}\label{fact:tangle-sum}
Suppose a link diagram $D$ is a tangle sum of
two tangle diagrams $D_1$ and $D_2$.
If $D$ is alternating, then both $D_1$ and $D_2$ are alternating.
And if $D$ is almost alternating, then one of them, say, $D_1$ is
alternating and $D_2$ is almost alternating.
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}\label{fact:tangle}
By connecting neighboring strands running out of an alternating
(resp. almost alternating ) tangle diagram, we obtain an
alternating (resp. almost alternating ) link diagram. See Figure 2.3.
\end{fact}
\figbox{Figure 2.3}
Then by these two facts, we can confirm the following propositions.
Let $R$ be a Seifert surface obtained by applying Seifert's algorithm
to a diagram $D$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:prime}
If an almost alternating diagram $D$ is a connected sum of
two diagrams, then one of them, say, $D_1$ is alternating and
the other, say, $D_2$ is almost alternating.
The Seifert surface $R$ is a $2$-Murasugi sum of
$R_1$ and $R_2$, where $R_i$ is obtained from $D_i$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:nest}
Suppose that an almost alternating diagram $D$
has a nested Seifert circle $C$.
Then, along the disk bounded by $C$, $R$ is
a Murasugi sum of $R_1$ and $R_2$, where $R_1$ (resp. $R_2$) is
obtained from an alternating (resp. almost alternating) diagram.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:induction}
Suppose that $R$ desums into two surfaces $R_1$ and $R_2$
as illustrated in Figure 1.1, where the left figures in (A) and (B)
are both almost alternating.
Then $R_i$ $(i=1,2)$
is obtained from an alternating or almost alternating diagram.
\end{prop}
\section{Examples}
In this section, we present some examples.
Example 3.1 is for Theorems \ref{thm:main} and \ref{thm:hopf-plumbing}.
Examples 3.2 and 3.3 show our Theorems \ref{thm:main}
and \ref{thm:hopf-plumbing} can not be extended to
$2$-almost alternating diagrams.
For the names of knots, refer to Rolfsen's book \cite{R}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Example 3.1.}
Figure 3.1 depicts an almost alternating diagram for the
knot $10_{151}$,
together with a fiber surface $R$
obtained by Seifert's algorithm.
We can observe that $R$ desums into a union of Hopf bands and
is a Hopf plumbing.
\figbox{Figure 3.1}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Example 3.2.}
Let $R$ be the Seifert surface obtained by applying
Seifert's algorithm to the oriented pretzel link diagram of
type $(2,-2,2p)$ as in Figure 3.2, where $p\neq 0$.
$R$ is a fiber surface but does not desum into a union of Hopf
bands.
\medskip
We note that this example has been known in \cite{G}
as a fiber surface for a link
which does not admit a non-trivial Murasugi sum.
\figbox{Figure 3.2}
\noindent
{\bf Example 3.3.}
Figure 3.3 depicts 2-almost alternating diagrams for the knots
$9_{42}$, $9_{44}$ and $9_{45}$.
By applying Seifert's algorithm to them, we obtain fiber surfaces,
which are not Hopf plumbings.
This can be shown by the following proposition and
direct calculations of genera and the Conway polynomials of
these knots.
\setcounter{thm}{3}
\begin{prop}[\mbox{\cite[Theorem 3]{MM}}]
If a fibered knot $K$ of genus $2$ can be constructed by plumbing
Hopf bands, then the Conway polynomial $\nabla_K(z)$ of $K$
satisfies the following;
$$
\nabla_K(z) \neq
\begin{cases}
1 + c_{1} z^2 + z^4 & for \ c_1 = 0 \ {\rm mod} \ 4,\cr
1 + c_{1} z^2 - z^4 & for \ c_1 = 2 \ {\rm mod} \ 4. \cr
\end{cases}
$$
\end{prop}
\figbox{Figure 3.3}
\section{Proof of Theorem 1.4}
Since the \lq if\rq \ part is shown by
Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-sum},
we show the \lq only if\rq \ part.
Let $D$ be an almost alternating diagram for a link $L\,(\subset S^3)$
on the {\it level $2$-sphere} $S^2$ and
let $R$ be a Seifert surface obtained
by applying Seifert's algorithm to $D$.
Note that if a diagram $D$ is unnested, then Seifert's algorithm uniquely
yields a Seifert surface. We say that a Seifert surface $R$
is {\it flat} if $R$ is obtained from an unnested diagram and thus lies
in $S^2$ except in the neighborhood of each crossing.
Suppose that $R$ is a fiber surface.
Since any fiber surface is connected,
we can assume $D$
is connected.
Suppose $D$ is nested.
Then, by Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-sum},
$R$ desums into fiber surfaces $R_1$ and $R_2$.
Moreover, by Proposition \ref{prop:nest},
one of them, say, $R_1$ is obtained from an alternating
diagram and $R_2$ from an almost alternating diagram.
By Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-hopf},
$R_1$ desums into a union of Hopf bands.
Therefore, we may assume that $D$ is unnested.
Similarly, by Proposition \ref{prop:prime},
we may assume that $D$ is prime, and in particular, reduced.
Now we prove the theorem by induction
on the first Betti number $\beta_{1}$ of $R$,
where $R$ is a fiber surface obtained by applying
Seifert's algorithm to a connected unnested prime almost
alternating diagram $D$.
If $\beta_{1}=1$, then $R$ is an unknotted annulus
and $D$ has $n$ crossings which are of the same sign
except exactly one crossing.
Note that $R$ is a fiber surface if and only if $n=4$,
in which case $R$ is a Hopf band.
Hence we have the conclusion.
Then we assume that the theorem holds when $\beta_1(R) < k$
and prove the theorem for $R$ with $1\le\beta_1(R) = k$.
The main method of
the proof is to examine the $C$-product disk for the
sutured manifold obtained from $R$ and grasp a local picture
where we can desum $R$ into
surfaces $R_1$ and $R_2$ obtained by the algorithm
with smaller first Betti numbers.
In each case,
it is easy to confirm that $D_{i}\,(i=1,2)$ is an alternating
or almost alternating diagram, that is, they satisfy
the assumption of the induction
(see Corollary \ref{cor:algorithm} and Proposition \ref{prop:induction}).
Let $(M, \gamma)$ be the sutured manifold obtained from $R$.
We identify $s(\gamma)$ as $L$.
Let $E$ be a $C$-product disk
for $(M, \gamma)$, i.e.,
$E$ is properly embedded in
$S^3 - {\rm Int}M$ so that $E \cap L =$ ($2$ points).
We may suppose that $E$ is non-boundary-parallel, and
assume that $|E\cap S^2|$ is minimal
among all such disks.
Further, we may assume by isotopy that $\partial E \cap L$
occurs only in small neighborhoods of the crossings of $D$.
Similarly, we can assume that $\partial E\cap S^{2}$ occurs only
in small neighborhoods of the crossings.
For convenience, we say that
{\it $\partial E\cap L$ and $\partial E\cap S^{2}$ occur at the crossings.}
{\bf Case A.}
$E\cap S^{2}=\emptyset.$
If $\partial E\cap L$ occurs at one crossing, then
$E$ is boundary parallel, a contradiction.
Thus, we suppose that $\partial E\cap L$ occurs at two crossings
(see Figure 4.1).
If both crossings are alternators,
we see that $R$ is a plumbing of flat surfaces,
one of which is obtained from an unnested almost
alternating diagram and has first Betti number
smaller than $k$.
If one crossing is the dealternator,
we also see that $R$ is a plumbing of surfaces,
one of which is compressible and hence not a fiber surface,
a contradiction to Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-sum}.
\figbox{Figure 4.1}
{\bf Case B.}
$E\cap S^{2}\neq\emptyset.$
Label the crossings with
$\fr0, \fr1, \ldots , \fr{w-1}$
so that the dealternator has $\fr0$.
By standard innermost circle argument, we may assume,
by the minimality of $|E \cap S^2|$, that
$E\cap S^{2}$ consists of arcs.
Let $\alpha$ be an arc of $E\cap S^{2}$.
By assumption, each endpoint of $\alpha$ lies in a neighborhood of a
crossing and hence is accordingly labeled.
Then the {\it label} of $\alpha$ is a pair $(\fr{i}, \fr{j})$
of the labels of $\partial \alpha$.
The two points of $\partial E \cap L$
are also labeled according to the crossings
at which $\partial E \cap L$ occurs.
\begin{lem}
For any arc $\alpha$ of $E \cap S^2$ with label
$(\fr{i}, \fr{j})$, we have $i\neq j$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
If both of the endpoints of $\alpha$ occur at
the same crossing $\fr{i}$,
we can observe that one of the two cases in Figure 4.2 occurs.
In Figure 4.2 (a), $D$ is non-prime.
In Figure 4.2 (b), there exists an arc $\alpha '$ of $E\cap S^2$ in
$S^2 - {\rm Int}M$ such that
the endpoints of $\alpha '$ occur at the same crossing $\fr{i}$, and that
$\alpha '$ cuts off a disk $H$ from $S^2-\text{Int}M$
with $\text{Int}H\cap(E\cap S^2)=\emptyset$.
We can surgery $E$ along $H$
so that we obtain two disks $E_1,\,E_2$
properly embedded in $S^3 - {\rm Int}M$.
Since both endpoints of $\alpha '$ are in $R_{+}(\gamma)$
(or $R_{-}(\gamma)$), one of them, say $E_1$, intersects $L$ twice.
Since $E$ is non-boundary-parallel, so is $E_1$ or $E_2$.
If $E_2$ is, then it yields
a compressing disk for $R$,
a contradiction.
Hence $E_1$ is a non-boundary-parallel $C$-product disk
with $|E_1\cap S^2|<|E\cap S^2|$, a contradiction.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.2}
We look at an outermost disk $F \subset E$
(i.e., $F$ is the closure of a component of $E - S^2$
such that $F \cap S^2$ is connected).
\begin{lem}
Let $\alpha$ be an outermost arc of $E\cap S^2$
with label $(\fr{i}, \fr{j})$,
cutting an outermost disk $F$ off $E$.
Then we may assume that $i\neq j$ and that
$i$ or $j=0$ if
$F\cap L= \emptyset$ or (a point).
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. } By Lemma 4.1, we have $i \neq j$.
Suppose $i \neq 0$ and $j \neq 0$.
If $|F\cap L|=0$, $R$ is non-prime, a contradiction
(Figure 4.3 (a)).
If $|F\cap L|=1$, then either $|E \cap S^2|$ is not minimal,
or $R$ is a plumbing (Figures 4.3 (b) and (c)).
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.3}
Concerning outermost disks,
we have two cases.
{\bf Case B-1.}
{\it There exists an outermost disk $F$ with $F \cap L =$ (a point).}\\
Let $\alpha$ be the arc $F \cap S^2\,(\subset E)$.
By Lemma 4.2, we assume the label of $\alpha$ is
$(\fr{0}, \fr{j})$, where $j \neq 0$.
Let $\fr{k}$ be the label of the point of $\partial E \cap L$ on $F$.
Then we have three cases;
{\bf Subcase 1}: $k = 0$,
{\bf Subcase 2}: $k = j$, and
{\bf Subcase 3}: $k \neq 0$ and $k \neq j$.
In Subcases 1 and 2, $D$ is non-prime (Figure 4.4 (a)).
In Subcase 3, $R$ is a plumbing or we can isotope $E$
so that the outermost disk of Case B-1 is replaced
by an outermost disk of Case B-2 (Figure 4.4 (b)).
\figbox{Figure 4.4}
\begin{lem}
We may assume there exists no outermost disk of Case B-1.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
If the latter situation of Subcase 3
above occurs,
we can view the above isotopy of $E$ as sliding a point of
$\partial E \cap L$ out of $F$. Hence by repeating the above
isotopies at most twice,
we may eliminate outermost disks of Case B-1.
\fpf
{\bf Case B-2.}
{\it There exists an outermost disk $F$ with
$F \cap L = \emptyset$.}\\
By Lemma 4.2,
we may assume $\alpha = F \cap S^2$
appears as in Figure 4.5.
We note that outermost disks of this kind are typically found in
the complementary sutured manifold for the fiber surface in Figure 3.2,
which is obtained from a $2$-almost alternating diagram.
The rest of the proof really depends on the
almost-alternatingness of $D$.
\figbox{Figure 4.5}
\begin{lem}
For any arc $\beta$ of $\partial E - (E \cap S^2)$,
if $\beta \cap L = \emptyset$, then
the endpoints of $\beta$ have different labels.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
Suppose the
two endpoints of $\beta$ have the same
label. Then $\beta$ appears as in Figure 4.6 and we can
isotope $E$ to a $C$-product disk $E'$ such that
$|E'\cap S^2|=|E\cap S^2|-1$, a contradiction.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.6}
\begin{lem}
Suppose $E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.7 (a),
i.e., $\fr{i},\ \fr{j}$ and $\fr{k}$ are the labels of
points of
$(\partial E\cap S^2) \cup (\partial E \cap L)$
sequential in $\partial E$
such that the former two
points are connected by an outermost arc of $E\cap S^2$
and the last is a point of $\partial E \cap S^2$.
Then $i, j, k$ are mutually different.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemma 4.2, we have $i\neq j$ and $i$ or $j=0$.
Suppose $i=k$. Then we can find a compressing
disk for $R$ in Figure 4.7 (b), a contradiction.
By Lemma 4.4, we have $j\neq k$.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.7}
\begin{lem}
We may assume that the following situation never occurs;
The disk $E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.8 (a), i.e.,
$\fr{i},\,\fr{j},\,\fr{k}$ and $\fr{l}$ are the
labels of points of $(\partial E\cap S^2) \cup (\partial E \cap L)$
sequential in $\partial E$
such that the former two points and the latter two
are respectively connected by outermost arcs
$\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ of $E\cap S^2$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemmas 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5, we may assume
that $i=l=0$ and $j\neq k$.
Then we obtain the conclusion, since in Figure 4.8 (b)
$\alpha_2$ can not coexist with the arc of $\partial E-S^2$
connecting $\fr{k}$ and $\fr{l}$.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.8}
\begin{lem}
Suppose $E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.9 (a), i.e.,
$\fr{i}, \fr{j}$ and $\fr{k}$ are the labels of points of
$(\partial E \cap S^2) \cup (\partial E \cap L)$
sequential in $\partial E$
such that the former two points are connected
by an outermost arc of $E \cap S^2$ and
the third point is of $\partial E \cap L$.
Then we may assume $i, j, k$ are mutually different.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemma 4.2, we have $i \neq j$, and $i$ or $j =0$.
If $k=i$, then $R$ is compressible, a contradiction
(see Figure 4.9 (b)).
If $k=j$, we can reduce $|E\cap S^2|$ by isotopy, a contradiction
(see Figure 4.9 (c)).
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.9}
\begin{lem}
Let $\fr{l}$ be the label of the point $x$ of
$\partial E\cap L$.
Suppose that the two points adjacent to $x$ in $\partial E$
are points of $\partial E\cap S^2$.
Then the two adjacent points
do not have the same label except for
the case where they are both $\fr{l}$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
Suppose the two points have the same label $\fr{i} (\neq \fr{l})$.
By Lemma 4.1, we may assume that they are not connected
by an arc of $E\cap S^2$.
Then we can find a $C$-product disk $E'$ in Figure 4.10
such that $|E'\cap S^2|=0$, a contradiction.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.10}
Similarly we have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
Suppose $E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.11(a),
i.e., $\fr{i}, \fr{j}, \fr{k}$ and $\fr{l}$ are the
labels of points of
$(\partial E \cap S^2) \cup (\partial E \cap L)$
sequential in $\partial E$ such that
the former two points are connected
by an outermost arc of $E \cap S^2$,
the third point is of $\partial E \cap L$ and that
the fourth is of $\partial E \cap S^2$.
If $k \neq l$, then $i, j, k$ and $l$ are mutually different.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemma 4.7,
we may assume $i, j, k$ are mutually different.
Then by Lemma 4.8, we have $l \neq j$.
Suppose $l \neq k$ and $l = i$.
Then by Lemma 4.2,
$\fr{i} = \fr{l} = \fr{0}$ (Figure 4.11 (b)) or $\fr{j}=\fr{0}$ (c).
In either case, we can find a $C$-product disk $E'$
such that $|E'\cap S^2|=0$, a contradiction.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.11}
\begin{lem}
We may assume the following situation never occurs;
The disk $E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.12 (a),
i.e., $\fr{i}, \fr{j}, \fr{k}, \fr{l}$ and $\fr{m}$
are the labels of points of
$(\partial E \cap S^2) \cup (\partial E \cap L)$
sequential in $\partial E$
such that
the first two points
and the last two points
are respectively connected
by an outermost arc of $E \cap S^2$,
and that the third point is of $\partial E \cap L$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemma 4.7, $k, l$ and $m$ are mutually different
and hence by Lemma 4.9, $i, j, k$ and $l$ are mutually different.
By Lemma 4.2, $i$ or $j=0$ and $l$ or $m=0$, and hence $m=0$,
and by symmetry, we have $i=0$.
Then $\fr{i}, \fr{j}, \fr{k}, \fr{l}$ and $\fr{m}$ appear as in
Figure 4.12 (b), where
we can find a $C$-product disk $E'$
such that $|E \cap S^2| > |E'\cap S^2|=1$, a contradiction.
We note that $E'\cap L$ occurs at
$\fr{k}$ and $\fr{l}$.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.12}
An arc $\varepsilon$ of $E \cap S^2$ is
said to be {\it of level $2$} if
it is not outermost and,
for one component $E_1$ of $E - \varepsilon$,
$E_1 \cap S^2$ is a union of outermost arcs in $E \cap S^2$.
Suppose there is no arc of level $2$.
Then by Lemmas 4.3, 4.6 and 4.10,
we see that $E \cap S^2$ consists of only one arc $\alpha$
such that one component of $E - \alpha$
contains the two points of $\partial E \cap L$.
Let $(\fr{0},\fr{j})$ be the label of $\alpha$,
and let $\fr{k}$ and $\fr{l}$ be the labels of the two points of
$\partial E\cap L$, where $\fr{0}, \fr{j}, \fr{k}$ and $\fr{l}$
appear in this order in $\partial E$.
If $l=k$, then we can isotope $E$ so that $E \cap L = \emptyset$
and we have a compressing disk for $R$, for
$E$ is not boundary parallel, a contradiction.
Hence by Lemma 4.7, we can assume
$j, k, l, 0$ are mutually different.
In this case, $R$ desums into three surfaces
$R_1, R_2$ and $R_3$
obtained by applying Seifert's algorithm to
the almost alternating diagrams $D_1, D_2$
and $D_3$ respectively (Figure 4.13).
\figbox{Figure 4.13}
Hence we assume there is an arc of level $2$.
Then by Lemmas 4.3, 4.6 and 4.10, we see that
there exists an arc $\varepsilon$ of level $2$ such that
one disk $E_{1}$ cut by $\varepsilon$ off $E$
contains one outermost arc of $E\cap S^2$ and
satisfies one of the following conditions;\\
(*) $E_1\cap L=\emptyset$, \\
(**) $E_1\cap L=$ a point.
If $E_{1}$ satisfies (*), by Lemmas 4.1 and 4.5,
all four labels of
points of $E_1\cap S^2$ are mutually different.
Then, we can see that $D$ is non-prime or $R$ is
a plumbing (Figure 4.14).
\figbox{Figure 4.14}
Thus we have:
\begin{lem}
We may assume that there is
no arc of level $2$ which cuts a disk $E_{1}$ off E
such that $E_{1}$ contains only one (outermost)
arc of $E\cap S^2$ and that
$E_{1}\cap L=\emptyset$.
\end{lem}
In what follows, we assume that there exists
an arc $\varepsilon$ of level $2$
which cuts off $E$ a disk $E_{1}$ containing
one outermost arc of $E\cap S^2$ and
satisfying (**).
By Lemma 4.3, we may suppose that
$E_1$ appears as in Figure 4.15 (a) with labels
$\fr{i},\,\fr{j},\,\fr{k},\,\fr{l}$ and $\fr{m}$.
\begin{lem}
All five labels in $E_{1}$ are mutually different.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemma 4.5, $i, j, k$ are mutually different.
By Lemma 4.7, $l \neq k$ and $l \neq j$.
We see $l \neq i$, for if not, $R$ appears as in
Figure 4.15 (b) or (c), and in either case, $R$ is compressible,
a contradiction.
Now we have seen that $i, j, k, l$ are mutually different.
Next suppose $m = l$. Then $R$ appears as in Figure 4.15 (d) or (e).
In Figure 4.15 (d), $R$ is a plumbing
or we can isotope $E$ to
reduce $|E \cap S^2|$. In Figure 4.15 (e),
$R$ is a Murasugi sum
or we can isotope $R$ so that $D$ becomes an alternating diagram
and the result follows from Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-hopf}.
Hence we can assume $m \neq l$ and by Lemma 4.9, we see that
$j, k, l, m$ are mutually different and by Lemma 4.1, $m \neq i$.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.15}
\begin{lem} We may assume
$\fr{j}=\fr{0}$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
If not, $\fr{k}=\fr{0}$ by Lemma 4.2.
Then $R$ is a 6-Murasugi sum as in Figure 4.16.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.16}
\begin{lem}
Let $\varepsilon$ and $E_1$ be as above.
Then there is no arc $\varepsilon '$ of $E \cap S^2$ as in Figure 4.17
which cuts a disk $E_2$ off $E$ with the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$E_{1}\subset E_{2}$,
\item
$({\rm Int }E_{2}-E_{1})\cap(E\cap S^2)=\emptyset$,
\item
$E_{2}\cap L=E_{1}\cap L= (1\,{\rm point})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\figbox{Figure 4.17}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By Lemmas 4.12 and 4.13,
we may assume that $E_1$ appears as in Figure 4.18.
Recall that $R$ is flat.
Suppose that we have a disk $E_2$ as in Figure 4.17.
Then the arc $\varepsilon'$ lies in some
region of $S^2 - N(R)$. Hence, considering the orientation
of $R$, we see that one of the following occurs;\\
(1) The point \textcircled{\small 1} is bounded by the same
Seifert circle as one of the points
\textcircled{\small 3} and \textcircled{\small 5}, \\
(2) The point \textcircled{\small 6} is bounded by the same
Seifert circle as one of the points
\textcircled{\small 2} and \textcircled{\small 4}.\\
In each case, we can find a $C$-product disk $E'$
such that $|E\cap S^2| > |E'\cap S^2| = 0 \ {\rm or\ } 1$, a contradiction.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.18}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:last}
Let $E_1$ be as above.
Then the following situation never occurs;
The disk $E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.19,
i.e., there is an outermost disk $F$ such that
$\partial E - (E_1 \cup F)$
has a component $\beta$ which contains no point of
$(\partial E\cap S^2) \cup (\partial E\cap L)$.
\end{lem}
\figbox{Figure 4.19}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
Suppose there exists such a disk $F$.
Let $\alpha$ be an arc in $E\cap S^2$ which cuts $F$ off $E$,
and $(\fr{s},\fr{t})$ the label of $\alpha$
where $\fr{s}$ is the label of an endpoint of $\beta$.
First we examine
the case where $E$ appears as in Figure 4.19 (a).
If $s=i$ or $0$, we
can find a $C$-product disk $E'$ such that $|E'\cap S^2|=1$,
a contradiction (Figure 4.20 (a)).
By Lemma 4.2, we have $s=0$ or $t=0$, and hence $t=0$.
If $s = k$ or $l$, we can find a
$C$-product disk $E'$ such that $|E' \cap S^2| = 0$, a contradiction
(see Figure 4.20 (b)).
By Lemma 4.4, we have $s \neq m$.
Then we see that $R$ locally appears
as in Figure 4.20 (c).
It is impossible that $\partial E$ runs
toward the dealternator
$\fr{0}(=\fr{t})$ after passing through $\fr{s}$
because of the orientation of $R$.
Second, we examine the case where
$E$ locally appears as in Figure 4.19 (b).
We can do this by the similar way to
in the previous case.
By Lemma 4.4, $s \neq i$.
If $s = 0$ or $k$, we can find a $C$-product disk $E'$
such that $|E'\cap S^2|=0$, a contradiction.
By Lemma 4.2, we have $s=0$ or $t=0$, and hence $t=0$.
If $s = l$ or $m$, we can find a $C$-product disk $E'$
such that $|E'\cap S^2|=1$, a contradiction.
Then we see that it is impossible that $\partial E$
runs toward the dealternator $\fr{0}(=\fr{t})$ before
passing through $\fr{s}$.
See Figure 4.21.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 4.20}
\figbox{Figure 4.21}
Let $E_1' = E - E_1$.
Then $E_1' \cap L$ is exactly one point, say, $x$.
By Lemma 4.3,
$E_1' \cap (E \cap S^2) \neq \emptyset$.
By Lemmas 4.6 and 4.11,
any arc of $E_1' \cap (E \cap S^2)$ which does not separate
$\varepsilon$ and $x$ is outermost in $E_1'$.
By Lemma 4.15,
at least one of $E_1' \cap (E \cap S^2)$
separates $\varepsilon$ and $x$.
Among such separating arcs, let $\alpha$ be the one
closest to $\varepsilon$.
Then by Lemma 4.15 again,
the subdisk of $E$ between $\varepsilon$ and $\alpha$
contains no arc of $E_1' \cap (E \cap S^2)$.
However, this contradicts Lemma 4.14.
This completes the proof.
\epf{\ref{thm:main}}
\section{Proof of Theorem 1.5}
In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:hopf-plumbing}.
Recall that a Seifert surface $R$ obtained by Seifert's algorithm
is a union of {\it Seifert disks} and {\it Seifert bands}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Definition.}
Let $R$ be a Seifert surface obtained by Seifert's algorithm.
We say that two Seifert bands $B_1$ and $B_2$ of $R$ are {\it parallel}
if they connect the same two Seifert disks.
\medskip
The following is a case where we can deplumb a Hopf
band from a fiber surface:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:para-deplumb}
Let $R$ be a fiber surface obtained by Seifert's algorithm.
Suppose $R$ has a pair of parallel bands $B_1$ and $B_2$.
Then, we can deplumb a Hopf band from $R$.
Moreover, we have the following;\\
(1) the parallel bands are of the same sign, and\\
(2) for each $i = 1, 2$,
we can cut the band $B_i$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$,
i.e., $R$ is a plumbing of $R-B_{i}$ and a Hopf band.
\end{prop}
\noindent
\noindent {\it Proof. }
We denote by $L$ the link $\partial R$.
We may assume that
the Seifert circles, say, $C_1$ and $C_2$
connected by $B_1$ and $B_2$ bound
mutually disjoint Seifert disks
on the level 2-sphere $S^2$.
First, suppose the pair of parallel bands
are of the same sign.
We may assume they appear as in Figure 5.1 (a).
We explicitly show that $R$ is a plumbing of a Hopf band
and the surface $R-B_{i}$.
Move $L$ by isotopy as in Figure 5.1 (a)
and let $R'$ be the surface as depicted.
Apparently the Euler characteristic $\chi(R)$ is equal to
$\chi(R')$.
Hence by the uniqueness of fiber surfaces,
we see that $R$ is isotopic to $R'$.
Now we can deplumb a Hopf band from $R'$
as in Figure 5.1 (b).
Then by retracing the above isotopy, we obtain the conclusion.
Next suppose that the pair of parallel bands are of the
opposite signs, i.e., that the twisting of $B_1$ is opposite.
Then by the isotopy as implied by Figure 5.1 (a),
we can find a compressing disk for $R'$, which contradicts
the fact that fiber surfaces are of minimal genus and hence
incompressible.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 5.1}
The following proposition assures that
if a diagram $D$ has a Seifert circle $C$ which contains an alternating
tangle diagram, then any Seifert surface obtained by applying Seifert's
algorithm to $D$ has parallel bands.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:alt-para}
Suppose a Seifert surface $R$ obtained from an alternating
diagram $D$ is a fiber surface.
Then $R$ has parallel bands.
Moreover, if $D$ is reduced, then for any band $B$ of $R$,
there is a band $B'$ of $R$ which is parallel to $B$.
\end{prop}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
By untwisting $R$ by isotopy if necessary,
we may assume that
$D$ is reduced.
Moreover, we may assume that $D$ is unnested, because
(1) by desumming along nested Seifert circles, we can
decompose $R$ into fiber surfaces obtained from
unnested alternating diagrams, and
(2) if one of the decomposed surfaces has parallel bands,
then so does $R$.
Suppose a fiber surface $R$ for a link $L$
is obtained from a reduced unnested alternating diagram $D$.
Then by \cite{Mu1960}
(or \cite[Proposition 13.25]{BZ}), $L$ is a connected sum of
$(2, n)$-torus knots or links.
Moreover the arguments in \cite{Mu1960} shows that $D$ is
the \lq standard' alternating diagram of a connected sum of
$(2, n)$-torus knots or links.
Hence we obtain the conclusion.
\fpf
\medskip
\noindent
{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hopf-plumbing}.}
The \lq if' part follows from Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-sum}.
We show the \lq only if' part, using
Corollary \ref{cor:algorithm},
by induction on the first Betti
number $\beta_1$ of $R$.
If $\beta_1(R) = 1$, $R$ is a Hopf band, and hence
the theorem holds.
Assume the theorem holds for such surfaces
with $\beta_1 < k$, and let
$R$ be a Seifert surface with $\beta_1(R) = k$
obtained from an almost alternating diagram $D$.
By untwisting $R$ if necessary, we may assume that
$D$ is reduced.
By Corollary \ref{cor:algorithm}, we know how $R$
decomposes into Hopf bands.
Hence by the following four lemmas,
we will see that we can deplumb a Hopf band from $R$,
in such a way that by deplumbing a Hopf band,
we cut a band of $R$ corresponding to an alternator.
Therefore the deplumbed surface satisfies the
assumption of induction so that
we see that
$R$ is a Hopf plumbing.
\epf{\ref{thm:hopf-plumbing}}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:claim1}
If $R$ desums along a nested Seifert circle, then
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
Suppose $D$ is nested, i.e., there exists a Seifert circle $C$
which contains another Seifert circle in both of its
complementary regions in $S^2$.
Then $R$ desums along $C$ into two surfaces,
say, $R_1$ and $R_2$ such that
$R_1$ is obtained from an alternating diagram
and $R_2$ from an almost alternating diagram
(cf. Proposition \ref{prop:nest}).
Note that by Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-sum},
both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are fibers.
By Proposition \ref{prop:alt-para}, we see that $R_1$ has
parallel bands and hence so does $R$.
Then by Proposition \ref{prop:para-deplumb}, we can cut
a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\fpf
\begin{lem}\label{lem:claim2}
If $R$ is a connected sum, then
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
Let $R$ be a connected sum of $R_1$ and $R_2$, where
$R_1$ is obtained from an alternating diagram and $R_2$
from an almost alternating diagram by Proposition \ref{prop:prime}.
Then by Theorem \ref{thm:fiber-sum} and
Proposition \ref{prop:alt-para},
$R_1$ has parallel bands,
which are also parallel in $R$, and hence,
by Proposition \ref{prop:para-deplumb},
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\fpf
\begin{lem}\label{lem:claim3}
If $R$ admits a decomposition of type (A), then
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
Suppose $R$ admits a decomposition of type (A).
Then we can deform $R$ to $R'$ by isotopy
as depicted in Figure 5.2 (a),
from which we can desum a fiber surface $R_1$ in Figure 5.2 (b).
We can confirm that $R_1$
is obtained from an alternating diagram using Fact \ref{fact:tangle}.
By Proposition \ref{prop:alt-para}, $R_1$ has parallel bands.
Though $R'$ itself is not a surface obtained by Seifert's algorithm,
we can apply the argument in the proof of
Proposition \ref{prop:para-deplumb}, by regarding the inside of
the dotted circle in Figure 5.2 (a) as a black box.
Hence we can cut a band of $R'$
(which is a band in the image of $R_1$ in $R'$)
by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R'$.
This corresponds to cutting a band of $R$
by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
Note that we can confirm that the surface obtained
from $R$ by this cutting the band satisfies the
assumption of induction.
\fpf
\figbox{Figure 5.2}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:claim4}
If $R$ admits a decomposition of type (B), then
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\it Proof. }
According to whether the crossing visible in Figure 1.1 is
an alternator or the dealternator, we have two cases.
Let us call the former a decomposition of type (B1)
and the latter of type (B2).
Suppose that $R$ admits a decomposition of type (B1).
Then by the same way as in the proof of
Lemma \ref{lem:claim2},
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
Now assume $R$ does not admit a decomposition of type (B1).
Then $R$ deplumbs into $R_1$ and $R_2$, which
are both obtained from almost alternating diagrams
(see Proposition \ref{prop:induction}).
If $R_1$ or $R_2$ admits a decomposition
of type (A), then we see,
by the uniqueness of fiber surfaces,
that $R$ also admits a decomposition of type (A), and
the claim follows from Lemma \ref{lem:claim3}.
Hence we assume that neither $R_1$ nor $R_2$ admits a
decomposition of type (A).
Inductively, if we can do a decomposition of type (A) or (B1)
in the process of desumming $R$ into a union of Hopf bands, then
we see that $R$ also admits a decomposition of type (A) or (B1).
So we assume that
$R$ desums into a union of Hopf bands using decompositions
of type (B2) alone. Then by another inductive argument, we see that
$R$ is a pretzel surface of type
$(1, -3, \ldots, -3)$ or $(-1, 3, \ldots, 3)$.
In this case, obviously
we can cut a band of $R$ by deplumbing a Hopf band from $R$.
\fpf
{\bf Acknowledgment.}
The authors would like to thank Professor Taizo Kanenobu,
Professor Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, Professor Yasutaka Nakanishi
and Professor Makoto Sakuma for their comments.
Part of this work was carried out while the first
author was visiting at University of California, Davis.
He would like to express thanks to Professor
Abigail Thompson and the department for their hospitality.
\footnotesize{
|
\section{Introduction}
Alcock \& Paczy\'nski (1979) suggested the possibility of using the
clustering statistics of galaxies in redshift space to constrain the
global geometry in the universe. The basic idea is that, since clusters
of galaxies should not be preferentially aligned along any direction
relative to a fixed observer, their average shape ought to be
spherically symmetric. Therefore, if galaxies were following the
Hubble expansion of the universe, without any peculiar velocities,
the average extent of clusters in radial velocity $v_r$
(measured from redshifts) and their angular size $\psi$
are related to the physical size of the cluster $L$ by $v_r = H(z)\, L$,
and $\psi = L/D(z)$, respectively. Here, $H(z)$ and $D(z)$ are the
Hubble constant and the angular diameter distance at the redshift $z$
where the clusters are observed. The condition that clusters are spherical
on average can then yield the value of $H(z)\cdot D(z)$. Of course, the effect of
peculiar velocities must be included in
order to apply this method, since any clustering induced by gravity
will generally introduce peculiar velocities (Kaiser 1987) that will
cause a distortion of similar or greater magnitude than the differences
between cosmological models.
Recently, the rate at which galaxies at high redshift are being
identified has dramatically increased thanks to the Lyman limit
technique, using the fact that the reddest objects among faint galaxies
will often be galaxies at the redshift where the
Lyman limit wavelength is between the two bands used to measure the
color (Guhathakurta et al.\ 1990; Steidel \& Hamilton 1993; Steidel et al.\ 1996).
For example, very red objects in $U-B$ are likely to be
galaxies at redshift $z\simeq 3$.
The galaxy correlation function, $\xi({\bf r})$, which measures the probability in excess
of a random distribution of finding a galaxy at a real space separation vector ${\bf r}$ from
another galaxy,
has been measured for the first time for the population of Lyman-break galaxies (Giavalisco et al.\ 1998). The correlation length,
defined to be the separation at which the excess probability is equal to that of a
random distribution, has been estimated to be $\sim 2.1 h^{-1}$ Mpc
(for an $\Omega_{0}=1$ universe; the symbol $\Omega$ is used here for the ratio
of the density of matter in the universe to the critical density, the subscript $0$ indicates
redshift zero), about half of the
correlation length of galaxies at $z=0$.
The bias, defined as the ratio of the correlation function of galaxies to that of matter
at a fixed separation, is estimated to be large, $\sim 4$ for an $\Omega_{0}=1$ universe and
smaller for universes with smaller dark matter content (Giavalisco et al.\ 1998).
Count-in-cells analysis of the Lyman-break sample used in conjunction with a Press-Schechter
mass function for the halos also indicate that these galaxies are
likely to reside in rare, massive halos that existed at the time (Adelberger et al.\ 1998; Steidel et al.\ 1998; see also Coles et al.\ 1998 and Wechsler et al.\ 1998 for models of clustering of Lyman-break galaxies). These rare halos are
expected to be much more clustered than the underlying matter distribution as originally
suggested by Kaiser (1984) (see also Mo \& white 1996, for analytic models of bias as a
function of the mass of halos).
Both these analysis indicate that
the population of Lyman-break galaxies is likely to be highly biased with respect to the
underlying matter distribution.
In this paper we investigate the
feasibility of using the distortion of the redshift space correlation function
of this population of galaxies to measure cosmological parameters.
This possibility has been suggested before by Matsubara and
Suto (1996) who proposed using the ratio of the value of the correlation
function
parallel to the line of sight to its value perpendicular to the line
of sight at a fixed separation as a measure of the distortion.
In this paper we express the angular
dependence of the cosmological redshift space distortion of the correlation function
as a multipole expansion.
We are also specifically interested in applying this method
to the highly biased,
high redshift population of Lyman-break galaxies. Ballinger
et al.\ (1996) have investigated the use of the full
functional
form of the redshift space power spectrum to separately measure the
peculiar velocity effects and cosmological geometry effects.
In essence this reduces to using both
the quadrupolar as well as the octapolar distortion of the redshift space
power spectrum to simultaneously constrain
the cosmological constant as well as the parameter
$\beta=\Omega^{0.6}/b$, where b is the linear theory bias.
In this paper we fix the bias of the galaxy distribution by using the
constraints on the matter power spectrum at redshift zero derived from
observations of cluster abundances. On large scales the power spectrum of
matter at any redshift is related to the power spectrum at redshift zero
through the linear growth factor.
We can then use the lowest order quadrupolar distortion of the power
spectrum
alone to constrain other cosmological parameters such as the cosmological
constant.
Ballinger et al.\ (1996) also estimated the errors involved in such a survey although in
Fourier space. We estimate the errors
in estimating cosmological parameters directly from the correlation function.
On sufficiently large scales, where density fluctuations are in the
linear regime, the angular form of the redshift space correlation
function depends only on two parameters: the cosmological term
$H(z)\cdot D(z)$, and the bias of the galaxy population.
This paper presents a general method of estimating these two
parameters from the basic data of a galaxy redshift survey, and
evaluates the size of the survey that is necessary to determine the
two parameters (or a combination of them, given other constraints from
the galaxy distribution at the present time) with a given accuracy.
We shall analyze the sensitivity of the method to a variety of
cosmological models, placing special emphasis on models that
contain a cosmological constant or a new component of the energy
density of the universe with negative pressure christened Quintessence
(e.g. Kodama \& Sasaki 1984; Peebles \& Ratra 1988; Caldwell et al.\ 1998),
given the recent evidence from the luminosity distances to Type Ia
supernovae (Garnavich et al.\ 1998; Perlmutter et al.\ 1997; Reiss et al.\
1998) suggesting an accelerating universe. As pointed out by
Alcock \& Paczy\'nski, the quantity $H(z)\cdot D(z)$ is more
sensitive to this type of component than to space curvature.
The paper is arranged as follows. In \S 2 we describe the effect
of geometric distortion. In \S 3 we introduce the method for
measuring the effects of cosmological geometry and peculiar velocity
effects on the redshift space correlation function.
In \S 4 we present predictions for a variety of cosmological
models, and in \S 5 we estimate the errors in the observational
determination of the redshift space correlation function contributed
by shot noise and by the finite size of the observed volume. Our
discussion is given in \S 6.
\section{Method}
A redshift survey consists of measuring the radial velocity and
angular position of every galaxy included in the sample. We denote by
${\bf n}$ the unit vector along the line of sight, which, if the survey
does not extend over a very large area, can be considered constant for
all galaxies. Given a
pair of galaxies, let $v$ be the difference between their radial
velocities, and $\psi$ their angular separation. We define their
vector separation in redshift space ${\bf w}$ as (see Figure 1)
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf w} \cdot {\bf n} & = & v ~ , \nonumber \\
| {\bf w} - ({\bf w} \cdot {\bf n}) {\bf n} | &
= & H(z)D(z) \, \psi ~ , \nonumber \\
w^2 & = & v^2 +
\left[ H(z)D(z)\, \psi \right]^2 ~ .
\end{eqnarray}
where $H(z)$ and $D(z)$ are the Hubble constant and the angular diameter
distance at the mean redshift of the survey, $z$.
We also define $\mu$, for future use, as the cosine of the angle between
the vector separation between two galaxies and the line of sight:
\begin{equation}
\mu=\frac{v}{w}
\end{equation}
The quantity
$H(z)D(z)$ contains the dependence on the cosmological model. If we
could measure the correlation function of galaxies directly in real
space (measuring distances to galaxies instead of radial velocities),
then the simple requirement that the correlation function should be
isotropic would yield the value of $H(z)D(z)$. However, peculiar
velocities should obviously introduce an anisotropy in the correlation
function, and their effect needs to be included.
\subsection{Model Dependence of $ H(z) D(z)$}
Figures 2 and 3 show the ratio $ H(z) D(z) / H_{s}(z) D_{s}(z)$ for various models, where
$ H_{s}(z) D_{s}(z)$ is the value of $ H(z) D(z)$ for a ``fiducial'' model, here adopted
to be the Einstein-de Sitter model, with $\Omega_0=1$ in the form of
pressureless matter. The symbol $\Omega_0$ is used here for the present ratio
of the density of matter in the universe to the critical density.
Two of the models
shown in Figures 2 and 3 are the open model (with space curvature but no
negative pressure components) and the cosmological constant (or $\Lambda$)
model (with no space curvature and a component with pressure
$p=-\rho c^2$). The third of the models shown is a Quintessence or Q model with no
spatial curvature and a
component with equation of state $p=-\rho c^2/3$.
The quantity $ H(z) D(z)$ is much more sensitive to
$\Lambda$ than to space curvature, and is also
sensitive to the Q model, with a different redshift dependence.
In general, a component of the energy density
in the universe with negative pressure can have any equation of state,
but the case $p=-\rho c^2/3$ implies an expansion mimicking exactly
that of an open universe. Therefore, $H(z)$ in our Q model is exactly
the same as in the open model. However, whereas in the open model the
negative space curvature increases the angular diameter distance compared
to the Einstein-de Sitter model, cancelling almost exactly the decrease
in $H(z)$, the flat geometry of the Q model results in smaller angular
diameter distances, so $ H(z) D(z)$ is smaller than in the Einstein-de Sitter
model due to the decrease of $H(z)$.
It is useful to note at this point that in order to obtain useful
constraints on cosmological models, $ H(z) D(z)$ must be measured to an accuracy
better than $\sim 10 \%$. In order to distinguish, between
a cosmological constant and a Q model, $ H(z) D(z)$ must of course
be measured at several redshifts with even higher accuracy. In practice,
we can expect that any constraints obtained from measuring $ H(z) D(z)$ should
be combined with other knowledge obtained, for example, from the
luminosity distances to Type Ia supernovae.
\section{Effect of peculiar velocities on the redshift space correlation function }
For a given value of $ H(z) D(z)$ the effect of
peculiar velocities on the shape of the redshift space correlation
function is well described in the literature (e.g. McGill 1990; Hamilton 1992;Fisher 1995)
and
the redshift space correlation function, $\tilde{\xi}({\bf w})$,
is given by :
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\xi}({\bf w})&=&\sum_{l=0,2,4} D_{l} (\beta,w,z) \cdot P_{l}(\mu) \, ,
\label{eqnxi}
\end{eqnarray}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta \simeq~\frac{\Omega(z)^{0.6}}{b(z)}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $b(z)$ is the bias parameter for the class of objects
under survey and $\Omega(z)$ is the ratio of the density of matter to the critical density
at redshift $z$. The coefficients of the expansion in Legendre polynomials,
$D_{l}$, can be expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{l} (\beta,w,z) &=& (-1)^{l} \cdot A_{l} (\beta) \cdot \xi_{l}(w,z) ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{0}&=&\left({1+ \frac{2}{3} \beta + \frac{1}{5} \beta^{2}} \right)~, \nonumber \\
A_{2}&=&\left( {\frac{4}{3} \beta - \frac{4}{7} \beta^{2} } \right)~, \nonumber \\
A_{4}&=& \left( {\frac{8}{35} \beta^{2}} \right)~, \nonumber
\label{eqnAl}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{l}(w,z)&=& \frac{b(z)^{2}}{2 \pi^2} \int dk~k^{2}~P(k,z)~j_{l}(kw)~,
\end{eqnarray}
and $j_{l}$ is the lth order spherical Bessel function. The function $P(k,z)$
is the linear matter power spectrum at redshift z in terms of the k vector
in velocity space.
Note that $\xi_{0}(w,z)$ is proportional to the real space matter correlation
function at redshift z. Hence, $D_{0}$ is equal to the real space two point
correlation function for this class of objects except for the factor of
$A_{0}[\beta(z)]$. We also mention here that the $D_{2}$ coefficient is
negative implying a squashing of the contours of the correlation
function along the line of sight as is expected due to the peculiar
velocities from infall on large scales.
Throughout this paper we use the simple model of linear, local, constant biasing of galaxies,
i.e. the overdensity in the number of galaxies,
$\delta_{g}(\vec{w})$, is given by $b \times
\delta_{m}(\vec{w})$, where $\delta_{m}(\vec{w})$ is the overdensity in matter and b the bias.
For general deterministic local bias models, this is valid in linear theory where
$\delta_{g} < 1$ ( for $b>1$ and
$\delta_{m} \sim -1, \, \delta_{g} < -1$ is unphysical) (Gazta\~naga \& Baugh 1998).
Hence, our results are likely to be valid
on large scales where the correlation function is smaller than one.
In reality, biasing is not easily modeled since it depends on the complex process of
galaxy formation, which is poorly understood.
Several alternative
models of galaxy biasing have been suggested, including non-local biasing mechanisms
(Babul \& White 1991; Bower et al.\ 1993) and stochastic biasing
(Dekel \& Lahav 1998; Tegmark \& Peebles 1998). However, for stochastic (local) models,
on large scales, the bias (the ratio of the correlation function of galaxies to that of
matter) will be independent of scale (Scherrer and Weinberg 1998) as in
the case of a linear, local, constant biasing scheme, although the variance in the measured
correlation function will be larger for such models.
On the other hand, non-local models of galaxy biasing in which the efficiency of galaxy
formation is modulated coherently over large scales, result in scale dependent bias.
In the absence of a well motivated model for bias, we have assumed the simplest
scale independent model for the bias. It is valid only on
large scales and is not generally valid for non-local biasing
models.
We also mention that we have only taken the linear infall velocities into account in
calculating the redshift space correlation function (see Equation \ref{eqnxi}). On
small scales non-linear velocity effects (`Fingers of God') will also be important
(e.g. see Fisher et al.\ 1994 for the redshift space correlation function of IRAS galaxies).
\subsection{Effect of geometric distortion}
In order to test the magnitude of the geometric distortion, we calculate the
anisotropy introduced in the correlation function by varying
$ H(z) D(z)$ about its fiducial value, $ H_{s}(z) D_{s}(z)$. Let the product $ H(z) D(z)$ for
any other model be given by
\begin{equation}
H(z) D(z) = H_{s}(z) D_{s}(z) \cdot \sqrt{1+\alpha(z)}~,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(z)$ is defined as the geometric distortion parameter.
Then, using equations (1) and (2) we have,
\begin{eqnarray}
w^{2} &=& w_{s}^{2} ~\eta ^{2} (\alpha,\mu_{s}) ~, \nonumber \\
\mu^{2} &=&\frac{\mu_{s}^{2}}{\eta ^{2}(\alpha,\mu_{s})} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\eta^{2} (\alpha,\mu_{s}) = 1 + \alpha (1 - \mu_{s}^{2}) ~.
\end{equation}
We can now express equation (\ref{eqnxi}) in terms of the variables
$w_{s}, \mu_{s}$ in the fiducial model:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\xi}({\bf w}) = \sum_{l=0,2,4} D_{l}(\beta,w_{s} \cdot \eta,z) \cdot P_{l}(\frac{\mu_{s}}{\eta})~.
\end{equation}
Rewriting this as a series in $P_{l}(\mu_{s})$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\xi}({\bf w}) =\sum_{l} C_{l} (\beta,w_{s},z) \cdot P_{l}(\mu_{s})~,
\end{equation}
one can immediately see from the angular dependence in $\eta$ that the
expansion is an infinite series in $P_{l}(\mu_{s})$,
with the new coefficients of the Legendre polynomials, $C_{l}$, being given
by,
\begin{equation}
C_{n}(\beta,w_{s},z)=\left( {\frac{2n+1}{2}} \right) \sum_{l=0,2,4} \int D_{l} (\beta,w_{s} \cdot \eta,z) \cdot P_{l}(\frac{\mu_{s}}{\eta}) \cdot P_{n}(\mu_s)~d\mu_{s}~.
\end{equation}
Thus, expressing the coefficients $D_{l}$ of a given model in terms of
fiducial coordinates introduces angular distortion in the redshift space
correlation function.
\section{Results for the geometric distortion}
In this section we present our results for the sensitivity of the anisotropy
of the correlation function to the geometric distortion parameter, $\alpha$.
We consider here a galaxy survey with a mean redshift of $3$,
the typical redshift of the current Lyman limit galaxy surveys. Our
fiducial model is $\Omega_{0}=1.0$,
with the standard cold dark matter (SCDM) power spectrum. On large scales the
power spectrum at redshift $3$ is related to the power spectrum at redshift zero
by the linear growth factor. We adopt the cluster normalization
for the power spectrum at redshift zero, obtained by requiring that the
observed density of galaxy clusters with a given X-ray temperature
matches the theoretical prediction.
The constraint obtained in this way can be expressed in terms of the
fluctuation in a sphere of radius $8h^{-1}$ Mpc, $\sigma_{8}$,
given by (Eke et al.\ 1996):
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{8}&=&0.52~\Omega_{0}^{-0.46 \Omega_{0}}\,,\,{\rm for}\, \Lambda_{0}=0 ~,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{8}&=&0.52~\Omega_{0}^{-0.52 \Omega_{0}}\,,\,{\rm for}~\Omega_{0}+\Lambda_{0}=1 .
\end{eqnarray}
In Figure 4 we plot the $C_{l}(\beta,w_{s})$ coefficients for $l=0,2$ and
$4$,
for our fiducial model (lighter lines) and the $\Lambda$ model with
$\Omega_{0}=0.3$, $\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ (bold lines).
The
horizontal axis has been labeled both in units of velocity ($w_{s}$) and
comoving space separation $s$, calculated for the fiducial
model.
The observed correlation function is given by the monopole term in the
Legendre polynomial expansion, $C_{0}(\beta,w_{s})$. In order to match the
value of the $C_{0}$ coefficient to unity at the observed correlation length of
$2.1 h^{-1} \, {\rm Mpc}$ (comoving) for $\Omega_{0}=1$ (Giavalisco et al.\ 1998),
which corresponds to a correlation
velocity of $450 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, the bias required is $b=4$.
For the
$\Omega_{0}=0.3$, $\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ model, the bias required to match the
computed $C_{0}$ coefficient to $1$ at the observed correlation velocity of
$450 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$ is $2.3$. On account of the large bias in these two models, we
can rely on the linear theory that we have used for peculiar velocity
distortions of the correlation function we have shown in \S
3 for $C_{0}
\lesssim 1$, or $w_{s} \gtrsim 400 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$.
Our goal is to measure the multipoles $C_{l}(\beta,w_{s})$ of the
correlation function and use it to constrain the geometric distortion
parameter, $\alpha$. From Figure 4 we see that on scales of
approximately $10^{3} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, the $C_{2}$ coefficient
is a $10 \%$ perturbation on the monopole term, whereas the octapolar
term $C_{4}$ is a smaller contribution at $\sim 3 \%$ for the
$\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ model.
Once we fix the bias, the $C_{0}$
coefficients for the two models shown are similar to each other, except on
very large scales.
The quadrupolar coefficients for the two models on the other hand are
very different. The $C_{2}$ coefficient for the $\Lambda$ model, affected
by geometric distortion, is larger
by a factor of 2 compared to the $\Omega_{0}=1$ model and comes to within a
factor of 2 of the monopole term on scales $\sim 10^{4} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$. As we mentioned
in \S 2, the $C_{2}$ coefficient is less than zero which implies a
squashing of the
contours of constant $ \tilde{\xi}({\bf w}) $ along the line of sight.
Thus we see that for our choice of the fiducial model, the primary effect
of geometric distortion caused by a model with a positive cosmological
constant is to cause a further squashing of the contours of $ \tilde{\xi}({\bf w}) $.
We mention here that the $C_{4}$ coefficient is even more sensitive to
geometric distortion than the $C_{2}$ coefficient. Its value is
approximately $10$ times larger for the $\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ model as compared
to the fiducial $\Lambda=0$ model. A measurement of the $C_{4}$ coefficient
will give us additional information with which to test the bias model that
we have used. It will be interesting to compare the value of the
linear bias parameter parameter derived from a simultaneous measurement
of the cosmological constant and the $\beta$ parameter using both the $C_{4}$
and $C_{2}$ coefficients, to the value obtained by comparison of the
galaxy distribution to the matter power spectrum at redshift zero.
We now show that the difference in angular distortion of the correlation
function in the two models is
primarily due to the change in the distortion parameter and is not
strongly dependent on the choice of the power spectrum.
In Figure 5, we plot the coefficients $C_{l}$, for the fixed cosmological
model $\Omega_{0}=0.3,\Lambda_{0}=0.7$, but two different correlation functions.
The bold lines correspond to the power spectrum of the $\Lambda$ model with
these same parameters.
The lighter lines are for the same cosmological model, but with the
power spectrum of an $\Omega_{0}=1$
CDM model as a function of $k/H(z)$.
We see from this figure that
at velocity separations $ \gtrsim 10^4 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, the differences in the
power spectra dominate the differences in the $C_{l}$ coefficients. But on
smaller scales the geometric distortion effect is the
most important effect. In particular the $C_{2}$ and $C_{4}$ coefficients
are similar once the monopoles for both models are normalized to unity at
the observed correlation length.
Thus the ratios of the coefficients
$C_{2}/C_{0}$ and $C_{4}/C_{0}$ are only weakly dependent on the shape
of the power spectrum. This shows that it should be possible to measure
the
geometric distortion parameter even if the power spectrum is not known
accurately from independent methods.
\section{Error estimates}
In this section we compute the accuracy in the measurement of the
multipoles of the redshift space correlation function from a typical
survey volume and test the feasibility of the method described above.
Currently, the typical observed fields have a size $\sim 12 \arcmin$ on
each side.
The redshift range of each field extends from $z=2.6$ to $z=3.4$ with a
surface density of approximately $1.25$ Lyman-break objects per square
arc minute within this redshift range (Adelberger et al.\ 1998).
In our fiducial
model ($\Omega_{0}=1$), this corresponds to a width of $ 2 \times 10^{3} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$ and a depth of $ 6 \times 10^{4} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$.
We consider for the purpose of
error estimation, a wide field of view of $\sim 3^{\circ}$. We shall later
discuss the scaling of the errors with the angular size of the field of view.
Any detailed calculation of the
errors in a survey will depend upon the precise geometry of the survey
volume and the selection effects involved in the survey. Here, we consider
two of the sources of error, shot noise and cosmic variance.
Shot noise is caused by the discrete nature of the
galaxies from which we
measure the correlation function. Cosmic variance arises due to the finite volume
we use to estimate a statistical quantity.
We calculate these errors for
a single cylindrical survey
volume with a radius of $ 1.5^{\circ}$ ($75 h^{-1} \, {\rm Mpc}$ for $\Omega_{0}=1$
model), and depth extending from $z=2.6$ to $z=3.4$ ($300 h^{-1} \, {\rm Mpc}$ for
$\Omega_{0}=1$ model).
At the current estimate of surface density of Lyman-break galaxies of $1.25$ per
square arcmin (Adelberger et al.\ 1998), approximately $30000$ galaxies would be
included in our survey volume.
\subsection{Shot noise}
In order to estimate the redshift space correlation function, we bin pairs of
galaxies with respect to their separation velocity $w_{s}$ (computed in the
fiducial model) in widths of $\Delta w_{s}$. The redshift correlation
function is then estimated (denoted by subscript E) as,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\xi}_{E}({\bf w}_{s})=\frac{N_{p}(w_{s},\mu_{s})}{\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s},\mu_{s})}-1,
\label{eqnrxi}
\end{equation}
where $N_{p}(w_{s},\mu_{s})$ are the number of pairs with
separations between $w_{s}$ and $\Delta w_{s}$ with the separation vector
making an angle ${\rm cos}^{-1}(\mu_{s})$ with the line-of-sight and
$\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s})$ is the ensemble average of a random distribution of
the same quantity. There are various different estimators for the correlation
function discussed in the literature that minimize the error of the
estimator due to the unknown true average density of the galaxies at the
redshift of the survey (for a discussion see Hamilton 1993).
Our shot noise will be dominated by the small number of pairs of galaxies we
have in each of our bins.
Since we are currently only interested in an estimate of this error,
we have adopted the simpler estimator for the correlation function. To analyze
the data from a survey one should use a more sophisticated estimator to minimize
its variance.
Using equation (\ref{eqnrxi}) we obtain the estimate of the $C_{l}$ coefficients as given below for $l \neq 0$
\begin{equation}
C_{l,E}(w_{s})=\frac{2l+1}{2} \frac{1}{\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s})} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{N_{p}} P_{l}(\mu_{si}) \,,
\label{eqnClp}
\end{equation}
where $N_{p}$ is the number of pairs with separations between $w_{s}- \Delta w_{s}$
and $w_{s}+ \Delta w_{s}$, and $\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s},\mu_{s})$ is the average
number of pairs for a random distribution of galaxies in the same bin .
The summation is performed over the pairs of galaxies (denoted by subscript i)
in the bin centered at $w_{s}$.
In order to calculate the statistical average of the estimator, we have to
perform two integrals. First, for a given number of pairs separated by
$w_{s}$, we average over their possible orientations. The probability that a given
pair of galaxies with separation $w_{s}$ is oriented along $\mu_{s}$ is given by
$\psi(w_{s},\mu_{s})$, where
\begin{equation}
\psi(w_{s},\mu_{s}) d\mu_{s}=\frac{1+ \tilde{\xi}(w_{s},\mu_{s})}{1+C_{0}(w_{s})} d\mu_{s}.
\end{equation}
The $1+C_{0}(w_{s})$ factor in the denominator comes from normalizing
$1+ \tilde{ \xi}(w_{s},\mu_{s})$ over $\mu_{s}$. Here we have assumed that a
given
pair of galaxies can have any orientation with respect to the line of sight.
This is
clearly not true, for example for a pair of galaxies close to the edge of the
survey
volume. In order the circumvent this difficulty we consider a smaller volume
within
the total survey volume which we call the ``reduced volume'', hereafter
denoted as
$V_{R}$ such that the edges of $V_{R}$ are a distance $w_{s}$ away from
the
edges of the total survey volume. We only consider pairs of galaxies such
that at
least one
of the galaxies is within $V_{R}$ . For a random distribution of galaxies, a
pair chosen in this way is not biased to be aligned along a particular
direction. We can
see that the largest separation at which we can measure the coefficients $C_{l}$
is the radius of the survey for which $V_{R}$ goes to zero.
Secondly, we have to average over the distribution
of the number of pairs of galaxies in each bin.
Calculating the averages (denoted by brackets) yields
\begin{equation}
<C_{l,E}(w_{s})>= \frac{2l+1}{2} \frac{<N_{p}(w_{s})>}{\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s})} \int \psi(w_{s},\mu_{s}) P_{l}(\mu_{s}) d \mu_{s} \,.
\end{equation}
This gives us that $<C_{l,E}(w_{s})> = C_{l}(w_{s})$. This result can also
be shown to hold for the monopole term.
In a similar way to the calculation of the statistical average of the $C_{l}$
coefficients, we can calculate the mean square variation of $C_{l}$
coefficients. Using equation (\ref{eqnClp}) we have,
\begin{equation}
C_{l,E}^{2}(w_{s})=\left( \frac{2l+1}{2} \right)^{2}\left( \frac{1}{\overline{N}_{p}} \right)^{2} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N_{p}} P_{l}(\mu_{si})^{2} + 2 \sum_{i<j}^{N_{p}} P_{l}(\mu_{si})P_{l}(\mu_{sj}) \right).
\label{Clsqpoiss}
\end{equation}
The statistical average of the above equation gives the mean square variance
of the $C_{l}$ coefficients, $<C_{l,E}^{2} - <C_{l,E}^{2}>>$, denoted by $\sigma_{l}^{2}$,
as,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{l}^{2}(w_{s})=\left( \frac{2l+1}{2} \right) \frac{(1+C_{0}(w_{s})) }{\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s})}.
\end{equation}
We mention here that in deriving the above equation we have assumed a Poisson
distribution for the number of pairs in each bin. This assumption is not strictly
valid since every pair separation is not independent. Hence, one may expect
some underestimation in the Poisson errors we have calculated but this should
be small since the second term in equation (\ref{Clsqpoiss}) is proportional
to $C_{l}^{2}$.
Figure 6 shows the expected $1 \sigma$ error for the $C_{l}$ coefficients
due to shot noise. Each successive bin is centered at $w_{s}$ with value $1.5$ times
that of the previous bin and hence, each bin has width $2/5 w_{s}$. The average
number of pairs $\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s})$ in the bin centered at
$w_{s}$ and width $2 \times \Delta w_{s}$
for a random distribution of galaxies within the survey volume is given by
\begin{equation}
\overline{N}_{p}(w_{s})=\frac{\overline{n}_{g}^{2}}{2} \times {\rm V_{R}} \times 4 \pi w_{s}^{2} 2 \Delta w_{s} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\overline{n}_{g}$ is the average density of galaxies within the survey
volume. This is an underestimate of the number of pairs in the bin since it counts
only half of the pairs of galaxies of which one of the galaxies is outside
$V_{R}$.
At larger separations this underestimation is maximum since, in this case,
a larger fraction of all the pairs in the bin have one of the galaxies outside of
$V_{R}$. Thus our shot noise is an overestimate by a factor $\leq
\sqrt{2}$.
We can see from Figure $6$ that with shot noise alone, the $C_{l}$ coefficients
are
best measured in the velocity range $10^{2} \lesssim w_{s} \lesssim10^{4} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$
for a survey of the size and geometry that we have assumed. The
errors on the multipoles scale as $(2l+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and so they are
smaller for
the $C_{0}$ coefficient and higher for the $C_{4}$ coefficient as compared to the
quadrupole. For scales close to the radius of the survey the shot noise
error increases
rapidly since $V_{R}$ is now very small.
For scales
$\sim 10^{3} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, with shot noise alone, we can measure the $C_{2}$ coefficient
to a few percent accuracy, both for the fiducial model as well as the $\Lambda$
model and hence distinguish a large cosmological
constant as in our model with $\Lambda_{0} = 0.7$ to high statistical significance.
The shot noise error on the $C_{4}$ coefficient is small for the
$\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ model we have shown but larger for models with smaller
cosmological constants. Considering shot noise alone, on scales of $\sim\, 10^{3} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, the $C_{4}$ coefficient can be measured if it is present at the
level of a few percent of the monopole, which in turn would indicate a
large energy density in the form of a cosmological constant or some form
of quintessence.
We also note here that the number of pairs of galaxies at a fixed separation is
proportional to $V_{R}$. Hence for separations small compared to the
radius of the survey, the shot noise error scales as the inverse of the angular
size of the survey.
\subsection{Cosmic variance}
The cosmic variance of a survey volume results from the sparse sampling
of the universe made by the small survey volume. It occurs even if the
overdensity at each point within the survey volume is accurately known,
and is independent of the number of observed galaxies. We estimate the
cosmic variance in this section using linear theory.
A finite volume estimate (denoted by subscript E) of the correlation function is given
by,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\xi}_{E}(\vec{w_{s}},\hat{n}) = \frac{1}{{\rm V_{R}}} \int_{{\rm V_{R}}} d^{3}x \, \delta (\vec{x},\hat{n}) \delta (\vec{x} + \vec{w_{s}},\hat{n}) \, .
\label{eqnxiE}
\end{equation}
In the above equation, $\vec{x}$ is constrained to be within $V_{R}$ such that its
boundary are a distance $w_{s}$ away from that of the full survey volume and
$\vec{x} + \vec{w_{s}}$ is within the full survey volume.
For every point $\vec{x}$ within
$V_{R}$, the overdensities at $\vec{x}$
and $\vec{x}+\vec{w_{s}}$ are
accurately known. The ensemble average of the estimator gives,
\begin{eqnarray}
< \tilde{\xi}_{E}(\vec{s})> = \frac{1}{{\rm V_{R}}} \int_{{\rm V_{R}}} d^{3}x \, \tilde{\xi}(\vec{s}) \, , \nonumber \\
=\tilde{\xi}(\vec{s}) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where as previously, quantities without the subscript $E$ stand for their
true values.
Similarly,
\begin{equation}
<C_{l,E}(w_{s})>=C_{l}(w_{s}).
\end{equation}
The variance in $C_{l,E}(w_{s})$ can be computed using,
\begin{equation}
<C_{l,E}^{2}(w_{s})>=\left( \frac{2l+1}{2} \right)^{2} \int d\mu_{s1} \int d\mu_{s2} < \tilde{\xi}_{E}(s,\mu_{s1}) \tilde{\xi}_{E}(s,\mu_{s2}) > P_{l}(\mu_{s1}) P_{l}(\mu_{s2}) \, ,
\label{eqnCl}
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation}
< \tilde{\xi}_{E}(w_{s},\mu_{s1}) \tilde{\xi}_{E}(w_{s},\mu_{s2}) > =\frac{1}{{(\rm V_{R}})^{2}} \int d^{3}x_{1} \int d^{3}x_{2} < \delta (\vec{x_{1}}) \delta (\vec{x_{1}}+\vec{w_{s1}}) \delta (\vec{x_{2}}) \delta (\vec{x_{2}}+\vec{w_{s2}})> \,,
\end{equation}
where $|\vec{w}_{s1}|=|\vec{w}_{s2}|$ and $\hat{w}_{s1} \cdot \hat{n}= \mu_{s1}$, $\hat{w}_{s2} \cdot \hat{n}= \mu_{s2}$.
In order to simplify the above expression, we approximate the overdensities
to be in the linear regime. The linear overdensities are
Gaussian distributed and the four point expression in the above equation can be
expressed in terms of two point correlation functions :
\begin{eqnarray}
<\delta (\vec{x_{1}}) \delta (\vec{x}_{1}+\vec{w}_{w1}) \delta (\vec{x}_{2}) \delta (\vec{x}_{2}+ \vec{w}_{s2}) > =
\tilde{\xi} ( \vec{w}_{s1}) \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{w}_{s2}) \nonumber \\
+ \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}) \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}+ \vec{w}_{s1}- \vec{w}_{s2}) \nonumber \\
+ \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}+ \vec{w}_{s1}) \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}- \vec{w}_{s2}).
\label{eqn4pt}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the last two terms in equation (\ref{eqn4pt}) contribute to the root mean
square variance in $C_{l,E}(w_{s})$. Since $\tilde{\xi}_{E}(w_{s},\mu_{s})$ is
independent of the azimuthal angle in equation (\ref{eqnCl}), we can also
integrate over this angle. Therefore we can express the root mean square
variance as,
\begin{eqnarray}
<\sigma_{C_{l,E}}^{2}(w_{s})>=\left(\frac{2l+1}{2 {\rm V_{R}}} \right)^{2} \int d^{3}x_{1} \int d^{3}x_{2} \frac{d \Omega_{1}}{2 \pi} \frac{ d \Omega_{2}}{2 \pi} P_{l}(\mu_{s1}) P_{l}(\mu_{s2}) \nonumber \\
\left\{ \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}+ \vec{w}_{s1}) \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}- \vec{w}_{s2}) +
\tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x_{1}}- \vec{x_{2}}) \tilde{\xi} ( \vec{x}_{1}- \vec{x}_{2}+ \vec{w}_{s1}- \vec{w}_{s2}) \right\}.
\label{eqnsigma}
\end{eqnarray}
The method we employed in the calculation of the above integrals is detailed in
the Appendix.
Figure 7 displays the expected cosmic variance errors for our survey
volume for the multipole coefficients. For all three coefficients, the
cosmic variance dominates the error on large scales, while the shot noise
contribution is larger on smaller scales.
The error is smallest in the region
$w_{s} \sim 3000 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, so this is the best scale at which to measure the
quadrupole and octapole coefficients and hence estimate the geometric
distortion factor.
As mentioned before, the cosmic variance error that we have calculated assumes
linear theory and hence we have underestimated the contribution to the errors from
fluctuations
and non-linear velocity effects on small scales.
As mentioned in \S 3 if we adopt
a local but stochastic model for the distribution of
galaxy number density as a function of the underlying mass density, then the bias
will still be scale independent on large scales, but there will be a larger variance in
the measured
correlation function. In the absence of a well motivated stochastic biasing model, we have not
estimated the variance in the $C_{l}$ coefficients arising from such a model of the bias.
Depending on the true nature of bias, we may be underestimating the variance of the
measured correlation function.
A more precise estimate of the error can only be given by the direct analysis of
numerical simulations, a project we plan to return to in a later paper.
We note here that we have not assumed that the mean overdensity within the
survey volume is zero. The fluctuation in the mean overdensity is the
primary source of the cosmic variance error for the monopole component of the
correlation
function. This fluctuation of course does not affect the higher multipoles of
the
correlation function and hence on small scales the error on the higher
multipoles
is smaller than on the monopole coefficient.
With the combined shot noise and cosmic variance errors the $C_{2}$
coefficient can be measured to a few percent accuracy both for the
fiducial $\Omega_{0}=1$ model as well as the $\Lambda$ models which have
a larger quadrupole coefficient compared to the fiducial model.
Thus, with our estimate of
the errors, we can distinguish a geometric distortion factor of about $15 \%$
corresponding to a $\Lambda$ model with $\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ to high statistical
significance.
From Figures 6 and 7 we also see that for our
survey volume, the $C_{4}$ coefficient can be measured to $\sim 20 \%$
accuracy for the $\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ Model. The errors are larger for models
with smaller cosmological constants. Therefore, a measurement of
the
octapolar coefficient is possible if it is present at the level of a
few percent of the monopole on scales of $\sim 3\times 10^{3} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$
as in case of a large cosmological constant. Since the error on $C_{4}$ is
large, a simultaneous measurement of both the $\beta$ parameter as well as
the cosmological constant from the anisotropy of the redshift space
correlation function alone is difficult. This has been indicated earlier by
Ballinger et al.\ (1996). If the the octapolar coefficient
can be measured, and the bias parameter constrained, it will be interesting
to compare its value to the one obtained by comparison of galaxy clustering
to the assumed underlying matter distribution.
But we emphasize that when we assume that the amplitude of the
matter power spectrum is known, and only
one parameter needs to be measured from the redshift space correlation
function, then the quadrupolar geometric distortion effect of the
cosmological constant can be measured to high accuracy.
For scales much smaller than the
radius of the survey, the cosmic variance error scales as the inverse square root of the
volume of the survey and hence as the inverse of the
angular size of the survey. Thus both shot noise and cosmic variance have similar
dependence on the angular size of the survey on small length scales. A large
cosmological constant may be distinguished with high statistical significance for
smaller angular size surveys depending upon other sources of error. Considering
only the shot noise and the cosmic variance that we have estimated,
for a survey of angular size $1^{\circ}$,
with a factor of three
increase in the errors, we can still measure the quadrupolar coefficient
affected by a geometric distortion parameter of $15 \%$ with an accuracy
of approximately $10 \%$ on a scale of $3 \times 10^{3}\, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$. The error is
larger for smaller distortion factors. Since a variation of the
cosmological constant from zero to $0.7$ changes the quadrupolar
coefficient by a factor of 2, we can use a linear relation between the two
to make an approximate estimate of the accuracy with which the value
of the cosmological constant can be measured. This gives us that
a large cosmological constant, for which the error in the difference of the
$C_{2}$ coefficient with respect to its value in the fiducial model is small,
can be constrained with an error bar of
approximately $20 \%$ with a $1^{\circ}$ field of view. Since in
fact this linear relation is incorrect and the
geometric distortion parameter is more sensitive to a variation in the
cosmological constant when it is large (Ballinger et al.\ 1996), the error
we have quoted will be somewhat smaller for large $\Lambda_{0}$
($\gtrsim 0.5$).
For a field of view of this size,
the $C_{4}$ coefficient can also be measured, although with a large error
of $\sim 60 \%$, if it is present at the level of a few percent of the
monopole as in the case of geometric distortion with respect to the
fiducial $\Omega_{0}=1$ model by a cosmological constant
$\Lambda_{0}=0.7$.
For a smaller field of view, the monopole coefficients have to be measured
on scales smaller than $3000 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$ where shot noise is the dominant source
of error. For example for a field size of $1/2^{\circ}$, the quadrupole
coefficient corresponding to a $15 \% $ geometric distortion parameter
can still be measured to an accuracy of approximately $50 \% $ on a scale of
$10^{3} \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$. Hence it can be distinguished from the
fiducial $\Omega_{0}=1$ model at the $2 \sigma$ level. For smaller scales
the error is larger while to measure the distortion parameter at larger
scales a larger field size is required. Thus a field at least
$1/2^{\circ}$ in diameter, corresponding to an area approximately
four times the currently used field size, is required to distinguish a
$\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ model from our fiducial $\Omega_{0}=1$ model.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
In this paper we have investigated the feasibility of using the high redshift
population of Lyman-break galaxies to measure the geometric distortion effect
and hence constrain cosmological parameters. The method is particularly sensitive
to components of energy density with negative pressure and in particular
to the cosmological constant.
The principal advantage of using this population of
galaxies
is their high bias with respect to the underlying matter distribution. This
tends to suppress the peculiar velocity effects and makes it easier to measure the
geometric distortion effect. As pointed out by Ballinger et al.\ (1996), a
simultaneous
measurement of the bias and the cosmological constant using the
redshift space distortion alone is difficult except in case of a large cosmological
constant.
In this paper we assumed that the matter power spectrum at redshift
$3$ is related by the linear growth factor to the matter power spectrum at
redshift zero which is constrained by observations of cluster abundances.
We fixed the bias of the Lyman-break galaxies by comparing their clustering
to the assumed matter power spectrum at redshift $3$. Then we only need to
measure one parameter, the geometric distortion parameter, from the
anisotropy of the
correlation function.
This permits us to use the lowest order quadrupolar
distortion of the redshift space power spectrum to constrain the geometric
distortion parameter to high accuracy. In cases of a large energy density in
a cosmological constant or quintessence, the octapolar
coefficient may also be measured. An interesting test would then be to
compare the
value of the bias parameter derived from the additional information provided
by the octapolar term to that determined by comparing the galaxy clustering
to the matter power spectrum.
We estimated that in order to distinguish a flat
model with
$\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ from the Einstein-de Sitter case, at least a $1/2^{\circ}$
sized circular field of view
is required. Currently
the observation fields have sizes of approximately $10^{'}$, which are too small
for measurements of geometric distortion, both due to shot noise and
cosmic variance. It is preferable to measure the distortion effect on
large
scales where the effects of peculiar velocities can be analytically computed
using linear theory.
For this reason, it is better to use a single large
field of view than to combine data from several small fields of view which
provide data only on smaller scales.
For a more accurate measurement of the distortion parameter larger field
sizes are required.
We estimated that for a field size of $3^{\circ}$, the best scale at which to
measure the ratio of the quadrupole
coefficient to the monopole is approximately $3000 \, {\rm km\, s}^{-1}$, or $15 h^{-1} \, {\rm Mpc}$
in the $\Omega_{0}=1$ model and somewhat smaller for a smaller field.
Since the difference in the quadrupolar coefficients for the
flat $\Lambda_{0}=0$ and $\Lambda_{0}=0.7$ models can be measured to
$\sim 20 \%$ accuracy with a circular field of diameter $1^{\circ}$, we made a
rough estimate that a large cosmological constant $\gtrsim 0.5$ can be measured
with this precision.
Our cosmic variance was estimated using the linear
correlation function and we have underestimated the error due to fluctuations and non linear
velocity effects on small scales.
We have also used a very simple local non-stochastic scale
independent model for the bias. Stochastic bias will lead to variance in the measured
correlation function which we have not accounted for. A full calculation
of the errors including non linear effects will require analysis of numerical
simulations, which we will discuss
in a future paper.
\acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge Jordi Miralda-Escud\'e, my thesis advisor, who gave me
the original motivation
for this work and for the numerous insightful comments and
discussions I have had with him. I also wish to thank Patrick MacDonald, Brian
Mason and David Moroz for their comments on the paper. I would also like to acknowledge
the anonymous referee for his comments and suggestions that have improved the content and
presentation of the paper.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
For a variety of systems the interplay between nonlinearity and disorder
results in novel and fascinating phenomena \cite{j:1,j:2}. Particularly, the
study of soliton dynamics in inhomogeneous and disordered media has received
a great deal of attention in recent years \cite
{j:3,j:4,j:5,j:6,j:7,j:8,j:9,j:10,j:11,j:12,j:13,j:14} since it concerns
real condensed matter systems and phenomena.
It is well known that transport properties in inhomogeneous and disordered
media can change dramatically when the nonlinearity allows the creation of
solitons. As a first step in the study of soliton dynamics in disordered
media many authors explored the interaction between a soliton and an
isolated impurity. This soliton-impurity interaction has been modeled by a
point-like impurity and a structureless soliton. In real situations we can
have several inhomogeneities of different kinds. When the distance between
impurities is considerable higher than the width of solitons and impurities
the traditional approach gives a correct result. When this is not so, we
witness a series of surprising phenomena.
The dimensionless Klein-Gordon-like equations model a wide variety of
soliton bearing systems\cite
{j:1,j:2,j:11,hanggi,jj:1,jj:2,jj:3,jj:4,jj:5,jj:6,jj:7,jj:8,jj:9,jj:10,jj:15,jj:16,jj:20,j:40,j:41,j:50}%
, including charge density waves, Josephson junctions, structural phase
transitions, crystal growth, polymers, proton conductivity, macromolecules
and hydrogen-bond chains:
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\frac{dU}{d\phi }={\cal F}(\phi ,\phi _t,x,t);
\label{equ_1}
\end{equation}
here $U=U(\phi )$ is a potential that possesses at least two minima\cite
{j:61}, meanwhile ${\cal F}(\phi ,\phi _t,x,t)$ represent additional forces
(external forcing, dissipation, presence of impurities, inhomogeneous
external fields, coupling to other degrees of freedom).
The soliton solution of Eq. (\ref{equ_1}) is usually treated as a
structureless point-like particle. A richer dynamics is unveiled when the
extended character of the soliton is taken into account. For instance, in a
previous work \cite{j:6}, Gonz\'alez and Ho\l yst studied the $\phi ^4$
equation ($U=\frac 18(\phi ^2-1)^2$):
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\gamma \phi _t+\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi ^3\right)
=-F(x)-G(x,t). \label{e:1}
\end{equation}
Particularly, they showed that the zeroes of $F(x)$ (for $G\equiv 0$) play
the roll of equilibrium positions for the soliton. In the case that only one
zero, $x_0$ exists, the condition for stability for the kink/antikink is:
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{dF}{dx}\right] _{x=x_0}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
>0 & \mbox{for the kink.} \\
<0 & \mbox{for the antikink.}
\end{array}
\right. \label{con:1}
\end{equation}
For the stable case, the inhomogeneity can trap the soliton, but in the case
that $F(x)$ possesses more than one zero, the stability condition may become
too complex. Here the extended character of the soliton arises, and
interesting phenomena appear such as the interaction between the structure
of the soliton (which is not a point-like particle) and the inhomogeneities,
and between the shape modes of the soliton themselves. The external force $%
F(x)$ can change the spectrum of small oscillations about the soliton and
additional bounded states can exist.
For the soliton of the $\phi ^4$ equation without perturbation, there are
only two bounded states (besides the continuous spectrum): the translational
mode and the shape mode. For specific values of the parameters that define
the force $F(x)$ used in Ref. \cite{j:6}, not only an increase of the number
of shape modes can exist, but in certain cases these can be unstable.
Moreover the continuous spectrum can lose stability and the soliton becomes
unstable against interaction with phonons.
The above mentioned authors also considered the problem with the time
dependent force $G(x,t)$ and found that if $G(x,t)$ has a spatial shape such
that it coincides with one of the eigenfunctions of the stability operator
of the soliton, then it is possible to get resonance if the frequency of the
force also coincides with the resonant frequency of the considered mode.
This means, for example, that energy can be given to the translational mode
(or any of the shape modes) using a $G(x,t)$ coupled to the translational
mode (or any of the shape modes).
When $F(x)$ has three zeroes, this is equivalent to a double well potential
(like the one found in the Duffing equation\cite{j:6,j:15}) chaotic motion
of the soliton is possible applying an additional periodic force $G(x,t)$
for a determined set of values of the parameters.
In this paper we take into account the extended character of both the
soliton and the impurity. We show that these considerations lead to the
existence of a finite number of soliton internal modes that underlies a rich
spatiotemporal dynamics.
We introduce impurities of the $N(x)\phi $ type, where $N(x)$ is a function
with a bell shape. An impurity of this kind but using delta functions has
been presented in Ref. \cite{j:14}. In our paper we consider a finite width
impurity and a finite width kink and show the striking differences between
this approach and the traditional one (structureless solitons and
delta-function-like impurities).
We present a model for which the exact stationary soliton solution in the
presence of inhomogeneities can be obtained and the stability problem can be
solved exactly. To achieve this purpose we solve an inverse problem in order
to have external perturbations which are generic and topologically
equivalent to well-known bifurcation model systems\cite{j:51}.
We choose the ``exact'' solution such that the differential operator that
appears in the stability problem is a Posch-Teller potential that can be
solved exactly. Besides, the ``generated'' external force and the impurities
have important physical properties. In particular, the inhomogeneous force $%
F(x)$ is equivalent to the pitchfork bifurcation canonical form\cite{j:15}
and the $N(x)\phi $ impurity is topologically equivalent to the $\delta
(x)\phi $ type impurity that is very frequently used.
Furthermore, we demonstrate the sensibility of the soliton internal dynamics
to the inhomogeneity width even for the isolated impurity case.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present a description of
our model and we give specific physical interpretations of the equations
under consideration. In Sec. III we study the equilibrium positions of the
soliton and its stability. We analyze the interaction of the soliton with
the inhomogeneity created by the interplay between a finite-width and $\phi $%
-dependent impurity and the already studied inhomogeneities independent of $%
\phi $ \cite{j:6}. We also consider the action of time dependent forces
fitted to the shape of the translational mode of the soliton. In Sec. IV we
describe the numerical simulations that confirm the theoretical results. We
use the Karhunen-Lo\`eve decomposition to relate the excitation of the shape
modes spectrum of the soliton with the bifurcations. In Sec. V we present
the interaction of the soliton with radiation modes. Finally, in Sec. VI we
summarize and discuss our results and also present some concluding remarks.
In the Appendices we outline the numerical method and present the
Karhunen-Lo\`eve decomposition.
\section{The model}
The topological solitons studied in the present paper possess important
applications in condensed matter physics. For instance, in solid state
physics, they describe domain walls in ferromagnets or ferroelectric
materials, dislocations in crystals, charge-density waves, interphase
boundaries in metal alloys, fluxons in long Josephson junctions and
Josephson transmission lines, etc.\cite{j:11,jj:7}
Although some of the above mentioned systems are described by the $\phi ^4$%
-model and others by the sine-Gordon equation (and these equations, in their
unperturbed versions, present differences like the fact that the sine-Gordon
equation is completely integrable whereas the $\phi ^4$-model is not) the
properties of the solitons supported by sine-Gordon and $\phi ^4$ equations
are very similar. In fact, these equations are {\it topologically equivalent}
and very often the result obtained for one of them can be applied to the
other\cite{jj:7}.
Here we consider the $\phi ^4$ equation in the presence of inhomogeneities
and damping:
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\gamma \phi _t+\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi ^3\right)
=-N(x)\phi -F(x), \label{a:1}
\end{equation}
where $F(x)$ is a function with (at least) one zero and $N(x)$ is a
bell-shaped function that rapidly decays to zero for $x\rightarrow \pm
\infty $.
In ferroelectric materials $\phi $ is the displacement of the ions from
their equilibrium position in the lattice, $\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi
^3\right) $ is the force due to the anharmonic crystalline potential, $F(x)$
is an applied electric field, and $N(x)$ describes an impurity in one of the
anharmonic oscillators of the lattice\cite{s:3}. In Josephson junctions, $%
\phi $ is the phase difference of the superconducting electrons across the
junction, $F(x)$ is the external current, and $N(x)$ can describe a
microshort or a microresistor\cite{j:5}. In a Josephson transmission line it
is possible to apply nonuniformly distributed current sources ($F(x)$) and
to create inhomogeneities of type $N(x)$ using different electronic circuits
in some specific elements of the chain\cite{j:11,s:5}.
In the present paper the functions $F(x)$ and $N(x)$ will be defined as,
\begin{equation}
F(x)=\frac 12A(A^2-1)\tanh (Bx), \label{a:10}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\ N(x)=\frac 12\frac{(4B^2-A^2)}{\cosh {}^2(Bx)}. \label{a:11}
\end{equation}
The case $F=const.$ has been studied in many papers (see e.g. \cite{jj:7}).
Here Eq.~(\ref{a:10}) represents an external field (or a source current in a
Josephson junction) that is almost constant in most part of the chain but
changes its sign in $x=0$ (this is very important in order to have soliton
pinning\cite{j:6}). Microshorts, microresistors and/or impurities in atomic
chains\cite{j:5} are usually described by Dirac's delta functions ($\delta
(x)$) where the width of the impurity is neglected. The function $N(x)$ is
topologically equivalent to a $\delta (x)$ but it allows us to consider the
influence of the width of the impurity.
\section{Stability Analysis}
\label{sec2}
Let us consider the Eq. (\ref{a:1}) and assume the existence of a static
kink solution $\phi _k(x)$ that corresponds to a soliton placed in a stable
equilibrium state created by the inhomogeneities $F(x)$ and $N(x)$.
Analyzing the small amplitude oscillations around the kink solution $\phi
_k(x)$,
\begin{equation} \label{a:2}
\phi (x,t)=\phi _k(x)+\psi (x,t),
\end{equation}
we get, for the function $\psi (x,t)$, the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\psi _{xx}-\psi _{tt}-\gamma \psi _t+\frac 12(1-3\phi _k^2+2N(x))\psi =0.
\label{a:3}
\end{equation}
Studying of the stability of the equilibrium solution $\phi _k(x)$ leads to
the following eigenvalue problem (we have introduced $\psi (x,t)=f(x)\exp
(\lambda t)$ into Eq.~(\ref{a:3})):
\begin{equation}
-f_{xx}+\frac 12(3\phi _k^2-1-2N(x))f=\Gamma f, \label{a:4}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma \equiv -\lambda ^2-\gamma \lambda $.
Let us now study some particular cases: If $F(x)\equiv 0$, and the function $%
N(x)$ is described by the expression (\ref{a:11}), then it can be shown that
the exact solution for the kink in equilibrium at the position $x=0$ is,
\begin{equation} \label{a:6}
\phi _k(x)=\tanh (Bx),
\end{equation}
and that the discrete eigenvalue spectrum is described by the following
formula,
\begin{equation} \label{a:7}
\Gamma _n=B^2(\Lambda +2\Lambda n-n^2-2);
\end{equation}
where the parameter $\Lambda $ is defined as,
\begin{equation} \label{a:8}
\Lambda (\Lambda +1)=\frac 1{B^2}+2.
\end{equation}
The integer part of $\Lambda $ ($\left[ \Lambda \right] $) defines the
number of modes of the discrete spectrum.
From Eq.~(\ref{a:7}) the stability condition for the translational mode ($%
n=0 $) can be obtained:
\begin{equation} \label{a:9}
4B^2<1.
\end{equation}
It is worth noticing that if the coefficient of $N(x)$ is negative, the
equilibrium position created by the impurity of the $N(x)\phi $ type is
stable for the soliton, and that the stability condition is independent of
the polarity of the soliton. The opposite occurs when a inhomogeneity like $%
F(x)$ is considered.
Furthermore, it is necessary to point out the differences between the case
in which the soliton equilibrium position is due to a zero of $F(x)$, and
the case in which the kink is trapped in the effective well created by the
impurity $N(x)\phi$. In the former the characteristic width and the number
of internal modes that can be excited are smaller than those for the free
kink, and even smaller than those for the kink in equilibrium in an unstable
position. While, in the latter the characteristic width and the number of
internal modes that can be excited are greater than those for the free kink
and for the kink in unstable equilibrium in a repulsive impurity. This is
due to the inverse proportionality between the width of the impurity and $B$
(just like the width of the kink). The impurity is more stable as $B$
diminishes.
Finally, let us consider the case in which both types of inhomogeneities ($%
F(x)$ and $N(x)\phi $) are present in Eq.~(\ref{a:1}). These functions are
defined as in equations (\ref{a:10}) and (\ref{a:11}).
For these functions the exact solution describing the static soliton can be
written:
\begin{equation} \label{a:12}
\phi _k(x)=A\tanh (Bx).
\end{equation}
The spectral problem (Eq.~(\ref{a:4})) brings the following eigenvalues for
the discrete spectrum:
\begin{equation} \label{a:13}
\Gamma _n=\frac 12A^2-\frac 12+B^2(\Lambda +2\Lambda n-n^2-2);
\end{equation}
here $\Lambda $ is defined as,
\begin{equation} \label{a:14}
\Lambda (\Lambda +1)=\frac{A^2}{B^2}+2.
\end{equation}
The stability condition for the translational mode is,
\begin{equation}
16B^4+2B^2(5-7A^2)+(1-A^2)^2<0. \label{a:15}
\end{equation}
When this condition is not fulfilled (the equilibrium position $x=0$ is
unstable) and $A^2>1$, then there will exist three equilibrium points for
the soliton: two stable (at points $x=x_1>0$ and $x=x_2<0$) and one unstable
at point $x=0$. This happens because for large values of $\left| x\right| $
the leading inhomogeneity is $F(x)$, which is non-local and not zero at
infinity. This inhomogeneity acts as a restoring force that pushes the
soliton towards the point $x=0$. As a result of the competition between the
local instability induced by $N(x)\phi$ at $x=0$ and the non-local
inhomogeneity $F(x)$, an effective double-well potential is created. This is
equivalent to a pitchfork bifurcation.
Also note that when $A=0$ then $\Lambda =1$, i.e., there is an unstable mode
created by the impurity $N(x)\phi $ even for a flat initial condition. This
contrasts with the $\Lambda =0$ result expected for a delta-like impurity
and with the result of Gonz\'alez and Ho\l yst\cite{j:6} for the other kind
of inhomogeneity ($F(x)$).
\section{Quasiperiodic and chaotic solitons}
In this section we present numerical results for Eq. (\ref{equ_1}) perturbed
with inhomogeneous external forces, impurities and time-periodic forces.
First, we show, for inhomogeneities of the $F(x)$ type, the bifurcations
leading to the chaotic regime. Later, we study quasiperiodic regimes as the
soliton internal modes are excited by an impurity of the type $N(x)\phi $.
Finally, we present bifurcations as the internal modes are excited for the
case in which the two types of inhomogeneities ($F(x)$ and $N(x)\phi $) are
present.
\subsection{Scenario of inhomogeneous external forces}
We simulate the following equation,
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\gamma \phi _t+\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi ^3\right)
=-F(x)-G(x,t), \label{b:1}
\end{equation}
where static and time-dependent forces are inhomogeneous and given by the
following expressions:
\begin{equation}
F(x)=\frac 12A(A^2-1)\tanh (Bx)+\frac 12A(4B^2-A^2)\sinh (Bx)\cosh
{}^{-3}(Bx) \label{b:2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
G(x,t)=\nu \cos (\omega t)\left( \frac 1{\cosh {}^2(E(x-x_1))}+\frac 1{\cosh
{}^2(E(x+x_1))}\right). \label{b:3}
\end{equation}
The force $F(x)$, firstly introduced in Ref. \cite{j:6}, can be obtained as
a result of an inverse problem for which an effective potential equivalent
to the canonical form of the pitchfork bifurcation is desired. For $A^2>1$
and $B^2\left( \sqrt{1+\frac{6A^2}{B^2}}-1\right) <1$, we are in presence of
a double-well potential {\it for the soliton}, (i.e., the model is a
Duffing-like\cite{j:15} soliton oscillator). Note that a force with three
zeroes does not imply necessarily the existence of a double-well potential
for the soliton{\it .}
We will attend to the dynamics of the center of mass as defined by Eq. (\ref
{aa:3}). Figure~\ref{Fig.1} presents the bifurcation diagram ($A=\sqrt{\frac
32}$, $B=\sqrt{\frac 1{10}}$, $\Lambda =2$, $\omega =1.22$, $E=0.1$, $%
x_1=2.5 $ and $\gamma =0.450$) as the amplitude $\nu $ of the time-dependent
driving force is increased. The period doubling cascade for low values of
the control parameter corresponds to oscillations of the soliton in one
well. At $\nu =0.312$ an unusual discontinuous transition interrupts the
cascade: the system switches from a period-eight solution to a period-two
solution but in the other well as can be appreciated in the time series
presented in figures \ref{Fig.2}(a)-(b). At $\nu =0.318$ the period-eight
solution is recovered and a two-band regime with n-periodic (Fig. \ref{Fig.3}%
(a)), quasiperiodic (as the two-torus attractor presented in Fig. \ref{Fig.3}%
(b)) and chaotic attractors. The quasiperiodic attractor is a spatiotemporal
effect: it is generated by the activation of a shape mode of the soliton
which provides a frequency that is incommensurate to the driving frequency.
Figures \ref{Fig.1} and \ref{Fig.2}(c) reveals for $\nu =0.332$ the onset of
jumps of the soliton between the two wells. This regime corresponds to
Duffing-like chaos for the soliton. Figure \ref{Fig.3}(b) also presents the
Poincar\'e map which reveals the high-dimensional chaotic motion of the
soliton which can be ascribed to an increased activation of shape modes
(which is not possible for a Duffing-like chaotic particle). The intense
activity around $x_{c.m.}=0 $ (Fig. \ref{Fig.1}) is also due to the extended
character of the soliton. We have verified that at $\nu =0.356$ the soliton
prefers its deformation instead of its destruction and its dynamics returns
to a periodic solution (figures \ref{Fig.1} and \ref{Fig.2}(d)).
Figures \ref{Fig.4}(a)-(b) present time series for the center of mass of
chaotic solitons. In the first case ($\nu =0.3$ and $\gamma =0.505$, the
rest parameters are preserved) the soliton jumps between two wells. When the
damping is increased (Fig. \ref{Fig.4}(b), $\gamma =0.550$), the soliton is
constrained to move mainly in one well. Corresponding Poincar\'e maps (Fig.
\ref{Fig.5}(a)-(b)) show the contrast of dimensionality (and consequently,
of the number of modes and/or of the effective number of degrees of freedom)
of these chaotic motions. Figures \ref{Fig.5}(c)-(d) present the
spatiotemporal evolution for these chaotic solitons. Figure \ref{Fig.5}(c)
evidences the jumps of the domain wall between the two wells, whereas Fig.
\ref{Fig.5}(d) shows such a domain wall oscillating in one of the wells.
Notwithstanding, note also in Fig. \ref{Fig.5}(d) the appearance and
disappearance of deformations (depicted by yellow zones) in the other well
due to tunnelling of mass/energy.
\subsection{Scenario of finite-width impurity}
We simulate the following model,
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\gamma \phi _t+\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi ^3\right)
=-N(x)\phi -G(x,t), \label{b:4}
\end{equation}
where external forces are time-dependent and inhomogeneous. Right-hand
functions are given by,
\begin{equation}
N(x)=\frac{\frac 12\left( 4B^2-1\right) }{\cosh {}^2(Bx)} \label{b:5}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
G(x,t)=\frac{\nu \cos (\omega t)}{\cosh {}^\Lambda (Bx)}. \label{b:6}
\end{equation}
One may think that soliton dynamics in presence of an attractive impurity
must be simple. Notwithstanding, that is not the case: as has been discussed
in Section~\ref{sec2} when the width of the impurity is finite, a large
number of internal modes can be excited. It can exist energy exchange
between these modes and the translational mode bringing a complex dynamics.
Figure \ref{Fig.6}(a) shows the phase space for a period-three solution ($%
A=1.0$, $B=0.25$, $\Lambda =3.772$, $\omega =1.0$, $\nu =0.16$ and $\gamma
=0.1$). As the amplitude $\nu $ of the time-dependent driving force is
increased, the excitation of an internal mode can provide a frequency
incommensurate to the driving frequency, generating a two-torus
quasiperiodic attractor (Fig. \ref{Fig.6}(b) for $\nu =0.195$, the rest
parameters are the same as the previous case). On the other hand, decreasing
of the damping parameter $\gamma $ can provide even more incommensurate
frequencies to the driving frequency as reveals the three-torus
quasiperiodic motion presented in figures \ref{Fig.6}(c)-(d) for $\gamma
=0.01$ and $\upsilon =0.12$.
\subsection{Scenario of finite-width impurity and inhomogeneous forces}
We will consider the following model:
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\gamma \phi _t+\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi ^3\right)
=-N(x)\phi -F(x)-G(x,t), \label{b:7}
\end{equation}
where $N(x)$ and $F(x)$ are given by Eq.~(\ref{a:10}) and Eq.~(\ref{a:11}),
and $G(x,t)$ is given by the following expressions,
\begin{equation}
G(x,t)=\nu \cos (\omega t)\left( \frac 1{\cosh {}^\Lambda (B(x-x_1))}+\frac 1%
{\cosh {}^\Lambda (B(x+x_1))}\right). \label{b:9}
\end{equation}
We will study the sequence of bifurcations as the driving amplitude $\nu $
is increased and other parameters remain fixed ($A=1.22$, $B=0.32$, $\Lambda
=2$, $\omega =1.22$, $x_1=2.5$ and $\gamma =0.3)$. Figure \ref{Fig.7}
presents the time-averaged spatial profile for different values of the
amplitude $\nu $ of the time-dependent driving force: $\nu =0.20$ (period
one), $\nu =0.28...0.45$ (quasiperiodicity), $\nu =0.55$ (chaos) and $\nu
=0.60$ (period one).
Figures \ref{Fig.8}(a)-(d) present a sequence of ``quasiperiodic
bifurcations'': torus entangles as the amplitude of the time-dependent
driving force increases and shape modes are activated.
Figures \ref{Fig.9}(a)-(b) present an chaotic soliton for $\nu =0.55$. The
Poincar\'e map (Fig. \ref{Fig.9}(a)) reveals the high-dimensional chaotic
motion due to the activation of many internal modes whereas Fig. \ref{Fig.9}%
(a) presents the temporal evolution of the soliton and shows that the kink
profile is still sustained. For these parameters the soliton is at the edge
of its destruction due to the activation of the shape modes. We can consider
this regime as fully developed shape chaos for the soliton.
Along this paper we had emphasized the importance of the internal modes (or
shape modes) of the soliton that can be excited as the soliton interacts
with inhomogeneities. Therefore we perform a Karhunen-Lo\`eve decomposition
for the sequence of dynamic attractors already presented for the scenario of
finite impurity and homogeneous force.
Figure \ref{Fig.10}(a) reveals the increasing excitation of the discrete
internal modes as the system evolves into a chaotic regime as well as the
sudden change of the spectra for the final state that correspond to solution
in which periodic motion is regained ($\nu =0.60$). The periodic solution
for $\nu =0.60$ corresponds to the highest deformity of the kink profile
(Fig. \ref{Fig.7}). This agrees with the higher contribution to the dynamics
of the first two modes whereas all the rest of the modes decreased their
contribution. Furthermore, the first shape mode replaces the translational
mode as the leading mode of the dynamics. Figure \ref{Fig.10}(b) presents
the leading Karhunen-Lo\`eve eigenmodes for the period-one solutions that
initiates and ends the sequence of bifurcations considered in this section.
The eigenmode for $\nu =0.20$ appears to be the superposition of a pair of
translational modes centered at the equilibrium points for the soliton.
Similar situation occurs for $\nu =0.60$ but the eigenvalue appears to be
the superposition of a pair of shape modes. Figures \ref{Fig.11}(a)-(b) the
striking difference of the temporal evolution of the period-one solitons for
$\nu =0.20$ and $\nu =0.60$.
\section{Interaction of the Soliton with Radiative Modes}
Any process that involves inelastic interactions or accelerations of the
soliton leads to the emission of quasi-linear waves (radiation). This
phenomenon occurs by means of the modes of the continuous spectrum
(radiation modes\cite{j:40}) that for the case of the unperturbed $\phi ^4$%
-equation are given by
\begin{equation}
f_k(x)=e^{ikx}\left[ 3\tanh ^2\left( \frac x2\right) -6ik\tanh \left( \frac x%
2\right) -\left( 1+4k^2\right) \right] . \label{cc:1}
\end{equation}
The interaction of a soliton with an inhomogeneity results in an emission of
radiation that can be calculated using the method of McLaughlin and Scott%
\cite{j:40} that relies on the construction of a Green's function that
consists of a bilinear combination of eigenfunctions (i.e., in our case, of
the eigenfunctions that we have already presented). The radiation problem
also has been addressed using other perturbative methods\cite{j:5}.
In this paper we have focused our attention on the stability of the
translational mode. Note that when the soliton is in an equilibrium position
created by the impurities that is stable for the translational mode, the
soliton as a whole is stable against the emission or absortion of radiation
(these modes are usually called phonon modes). Moreover, in this case the
kink is oscillating in an effective potential well for which radiative
effects are exponentially small\cite{j:5}.
Notwithstanding, we remark that when the equilibrium position is unstable
the shape modes can also become unstable (under certain conditions) and this
can destroy the soliton. Moreover, under a certain condition the modes of
the continuous spectrum can also be unstable. This is very surprising as it
leads the soliton to be unstable against the emission and the absortion of
radiation modes. This interesting effect is shown in Figure \ref{Fig.12}
where we present the interaction of a radiation mode with the soliton under
instability conditions for the continuous spectrum. The usual methods for
calculating the radiation can not give this result. For instance, the
phenomenon shown in Figure \ref{Fig.12} is produced by the evolution of the
system
\begin{equation}
\phi _{xx}-\phi _{tt}-\gamma \phi _t+\frac 12\left( \phi -\phi ^3\right)
=-F(x), \label{cc:2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
F(x)=B(4B^2-1)\tanh (Bx) \label{cc:3}
\end{equation}
under initial conditions that represent the supperposition of a radiation
mode and a soliton,
\begin{equation}
\phi (x,0)=2B\tanh (Bx)+C\left\{ 3\sin (Bx)\tanh (Bx)-6\cos (Bx)\tanh
(Bx)-5\sin (Bx)\right\} , \label{cc:4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\phi _t(x,0)=0 \label{cc:5}
\end{equation}
For $4B^2-1<0$ the translational mode is unstable. For $10B^2-1<0$ the first
shape mode also becomes unstable. Moreover, for $12B^2-1<0$ the soliton
becomes unstable against the interaction with radiation modes (Fig. \ref
{Fig.12}).
In Figure \ref{Fig.13} we present the case $4B^2>1$. Here the amplitude of
radiation mode is greater than the case presented in Fig. \ref{Fig.12}.
Notwithstanding, the original shape of the kink is recovered.
The continuous spectrum (which concerns with radiation) was considered in
our calculations and numerical experiments. In the numerical experiments
there are emission of radiation that is absorbed by the resistance
(dissipative terms).
When the soliton is trapped the translational mode has a relevant role in
contrast with the case for which the free soliton enters in interaction with
an impurity. For the last case the shape modes indeed play a determinant
mode.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
In this paper we have presented the importance of considering the soliton as
an extended particle as it interacts with real inhomogeneous media.
We have shown that a finite-width impurity can activate a large number of
soliton internal modes. In fact, for an impurity of the $N(x)\phi $ type
with a stable point the number of mode increases (as the width of the
impurity increases) in comparison with the free soliton case. Surprisingly,
this contrasts with the inhomogeneous external force $F(x)$ with a stable
point case, where the opposite occurs. An interesting finite-size effect
occurs when both inhomogeneities, $F(x)$ and $N(x)\phi $, exhibiting only
one equilibrium point when considered individually, generate a double-well
effective potencial for the soliton as they interact between each other and
with the soliton.
In addition, we have predicted surprising effects when more than one
impurity is considered. For instance, the stability condition depends on a
variety of parameters that we can control (i.e., the width and the height of
the impurity as well as the width of the soliton) and which we present as
very relevant to the whole dynamics.
We have shown the importance of the internal modes of the soliton as they
can generate shape chaos for the soliton as well as cases in which the first
shape mode leads the dynamics.
Our approach has been also applied to the stochastic resonance\cite{g:51} of
solitons that can oscillate in a double-well potential\cite{g:5}. Our
approach provides the possibility to encounter resonances linked to the
different internal modes of the soliton as well as to tune the
time-dependent driving force to a selected mode.
The results presented in this paper are very relevant for the concrete
physical systems presented in Sec. II. as they concern the pinning problem
(i.e., the stability problem of the soliton in an equilibrium point created
by the inhomogeneities). As we have seen, it is not trivial to determine
whether the equilibrium position is stable or not for the soliton when we
are in the presence of external fields and inhomogeneities having finite
widths and, also the extended character of soliton is considered. Real
experiments\cite{g:6,g:7} where this kind of phenomena has been observed
show that, in certain cases, the description of the impurities using delta
functions can lead to erroneous conclusions.
Soliton oscillators in Josephson junctions have been studied intensively in
the last years due to their application as sources of radiation\cite{g:8}.\
In this context the study presented in this paper of the sustained
oscillations of a soliton in an effective potential well has great
importance. Gr\o nbech-Jensen and Blackburn\cite{g:9} have studied a system
of coupled Josephson junctions as a super-radiant power source. Their point
is that the oscillator ceases to be a point-like oscillator and exhibits an
spatial degree of freedom. This leads to a radiation power greater than the
expected from the point-like oscillators theory. In this paper we have shown
that under the effects of the inhomogeneities the soliton exhibit an
internal spatial degree of freedom. Furthermore, there is an increased
number of activated internal modes. Particularly, we have shown that for
impurities of the type $N(x)\phi $ with a stable equilibrium position, the
hyperradiant effect could be achieved varying the impurity width. In this
case the width of soliton will be greater than the width of the unperturbed
soliton. This is also valid for impurities of the type $N(x)\sin \phi $
which can describe a microshort in a sine-Gordon-like systems. The chaotic
oscillations and the soliton explosion phenomanon (due to soliton
instability against the interaction with radiation modes) can be also
important for the design of soliton based devices.
\acknowledgments
This work has been partially supported by Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Cient\'ificas y Tecnol\'ogicas (CONICIT) under Project
S1-2708.
|
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}
Observations in J and Ks bands have been carried out at the
ESO 3.5 m New Technology Telescope (NTT) with the new infrared
imager/spectrometer SOFI (Moorwood et al. 1998).
It is equipped with a 1024$\times$1024 pixel Rockwell Hawaii array
(0.292 arcsec/pix).
The observed field, centered at $\alpha=12^h:05^m:26.02^s$,
$\delta=-07^o:43':26.43''$ (J2000) include the NTT Deep Field
(Arnouts et al. 1999).
The observations have been performed
with seeing conditions ranging from 0.6-0.9 arcsec
(median FWHM = 0.75 arcsec).
A total exposure time of 624 min in Ks and 256 min in J
was achieved as a result of the jittered frame co-addition.
Raw data have been corrected for dark-current pattern
by subtracting for each night a median dark and for pixel-to-pixel
gain variations using a differential dome flat field.
After flat fielding and standard sky subtraction, each basic set of frames
has been registered and finally co-added to produce the final image
The whole procedure has been accomplished relying on the
original {\it Jitter} package by Devillard (1998; http://www.eso.org/eclipse).
\begin{table*}
\caption{ Summary of observations and image quality.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
\hline
Filter & Number of & t$_{exp}$& $<FWHM>$& $\mu$&m$_{lim}$\\
& frames & (s) &(arcsec)&mag/arcsec$^2$& (3$\sigma$)\\
\hline
Ks & 624 & 37440 & 0.75& 23.95&22.76\\
J & 128 & 15240 & 0.75& 25.75&24.57\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The limiting surface brightness as well as the 3$\sigma$ magnitude within a
2$\times$ FWHM (1.5 arcsec) circular aperture estimated on the final images
are reported in Tab. 1.
\section{Object Detection and Magnitudes}
The extraction and the magnitude estimate of sources have been
performed with the SExtractor image analysis package (Bertin \& Arnouts, 1996).
The object detection has been performed in the central deepest portion
(4.45$\times$4.45 arcmin) of the images by first convolving them with a
gaussian function having a FWHM=2.5 pixels ($\sim0.73$ arcsec).
A 1$\sigma_{bkg}$ detection threshold and a minimum detection area
equal to the seeing disk have been used.
This rather low detection threshold provides a raw catalog from which
we have extracted different samples by varying the S/N
limit in order to optimize completeness and number of spurious detections
for a given magnitude limit.
For example, at a $S/N=5$ detection limit, compact objects as faint
as $Ks = 23.0$ and $J = 24.8$ were singled out in our images,
compared with $Ks = 23.9-24.5$ and $J=24.9-25.2$ in the deepest
Keck observations (Bershady et al. 1998; Djorgovski et al. 1995).
We are therefore confident that our sample is not biased against
the detection of small compact sources, being fully comparable
with the deepest data previously
obtained by other authors on smaller areas on the sky
(Gardner et al. 1993; Cowie et al. 1994; Soifer et al. 1994;
McLeod et al. 1995; Djorgovski et al. 1995; Moustakas et al. 1997;
Minezaki et al. 1998).
We have measured the reliability of the detections by evaluating
the number of spurious sources and their magnitude distribution using
a small set of noise images obtained
by combining the corresponding set of frames with ``wrong'' shifts.
The images thus obtained do not contain sources and are
characterized by the same mean background noise of the original data.
We have deduced that a S/N$\ge$5 cutoff seems to ensure the
optimum threshold for confident object detection both in J and Ks
within a 0.3 mag accuracy.
On the basis of the above selection criterium our subsequent
analysis will rely on the {\it bona fide} Ks and J samples
containing 1025 sources down to Ks$\le22.5$ and
1569 sources down to J$\le$24.0, respectively.
Magnitudes have been estimated within a diameter aperture of 2.5 arcsec
($\sim3\times$FWHM) and corrected to ``total'' using an aperture correction
of 0.25 mag obtained using a sample of bright objects.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Differential Galaxy Counts}
In order to derive differential galaxy counts, we have first ``cleaned''
the two samples of stars.
We have defined as
stars those sources brighter than Ks$=19$ (in the Ks-band selected sample)
and J$=20$ (in the J-band selected sample), having a
value of SExtractor ``stellarity'' index larger than 0.9 both in the J sample
and in the Ks one.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=kcounts_bn.ps,height=70mm}}
\caption{The figure compares the Ks-band counts obtained in this
work with those in the literature:
Djorgovski et al. (1995, Djo95), Bershady et al. (1998, Ber98)
(obtained at the Keck telescope), Gardner et al. (1993, HMWS, HMDS, HDS),
Glazebrook et al. (1994, Gla94), Soifer et al. (1994, Soi94),
McLeod et al. (1995, McL95), Moustakas et al. (1997, Mou97),
Saracco et al. (1997, ESOKS1, 2) and Minezaki et al. (1998, Min98)
NICMOS/HST H-band counts of Yan et al. (1998, Yan98) are also shown.}
\end{figure*}
Then we have evaluated the completeness
correction to apply to the raw data to account for the number of
sources undetected at a given magnitude.
This correction is obviously stronger at faint magnitudes and
it mainly depends on the source spatial structure.
Thus, we have generated a set of frames by dimming the final J and Ks frames
themselves by various factors while keeping constant the background noise.
This way we have used the whole real sample of sources reproducing
the whole range of size and shape.
SExtractor was then run with the same detection parameters to search for
sources in each dimmed frame.
Fig. 1 shows the Ks-band galaxy counts here derived superimposed to those in
the literature.
Our counts follow a d$logN/dK$ relation with a slope of 0.38 in the
magnitude range $17<K<22.5$ and do not show any evidence of a turnover or
of a flattening down to the limits of the survey.
In Fig. 2 our J-band galaxy counts are compared with those of Bershady et al.
(1998), the only J-band data available in the literature.
We obtain a slope of J-band counts $\sim$0.36 in the magnitude
interval $18<J<24$.
Also the J-band counts do not show any hint of a decrease down to the
limits of the data.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=jcounts_bn.ps,height=70mm}}
\caption{The J-band galaxy counts obtained in this work are
compared with those previously obtained by Bershady et al. (1998, Ber98):
the counts continue to rise with a power law slope of $\sim$0.36.}
\end{figure}
The total numbers of galaxies represented in Fig.1 and 2 are 874 for
the Ks-band and 1285 for the J-band and represent the largest samples
at these depths.
\subsection{Color and Size of Galaxies}
The 2.5 arcsec aperture J-K color of galaxies in our sample was obtained
by running SExtractor in the so-called {\em double-image mode}:
J magnitudes for the Ks selected sample have been derived
using the Ks frame as reference image for detection and the J image
for measurements only, {\it vice versa} for the J selected sample.
In Fig. 3 and 4 the J-Ks color of each galaxy
is shown as a function of the apparent magnitude for the two samples.
The median J-Ks color in each magnitude bin is also over-plotted as
filled circles.
The error bars are the standard deviation from the mean of the values
within each bin.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=kcolor_can.ps,height=70mm}}
\caption{J-Ks color of K-band selected galaxies as a function of
Ks magnitude. The filled symbols represent the median J-Ks color
of galaxies in each magnitude bin.
Vertical error bars are the standard deviation from the mean of the values
within each bin.
The width of the bins are represented by the
horizontal error bars
The small crossed symbols, distributed along the right hand line,
represent the sources undetected in the J frame, i.e. the J-Ks lower
limits.
}
\end{figure}
Both the samples show first a reddening
trend of the median J-Ks color down to Ks$\sim19$ and J$\sim20$ respectively.
Fainter than these magnitudes the J-K color of galaxies follows
an unexpected behavior describing a bluing trend with increasing
apparent magnitudes.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=jcolor_can.ps,height=70mm}}
\caption{J-Ks color of J-band selected galaxies as a function of
J magnitude. Symbols are as in Fig. 3.
}
\end{figure}
In order to measure the size of galaxies of our samples, we have made
use of the metric size function $\eta(\theta)$ introduced first
by Petrosian (1976)
\begin{equation}
\eta(\theta)={{1~d~ln~l(\theta)}\over{2~d~ln(\theta)}}
\end{equation}
(Kron 1993), where $l(\theta)$ is the growth curve.
This function has the property
$\eta(\theta)={{I(\theta)}/{\langle I\rangle}_\theta}$
where $I(\theta)$ is the surface brightness at radius
$\theta$ and ${\langle I\rangle}_\theta$ is the mean surface brightness
within $\theta$.
The function $\eta(\theta)$ has been obtained for each galaxy
by constructing its own intensity profile.
Following Bershady et al. (1998) we have defined the angular size
of galaxies the value $\theta_{\eta}$ such that $\eta(\theta_{\eta})=0.5$.
The median $\theta_{0.5}$ values are 0.73 arcsec and 0.79 arcsec
for the J-band and Ks-band selected sample respectively.
We have then measured the compactness of galaxies by defining the
luminosity concentration index $C_\eta$
\begin{equation}
C_\eta={{F(<\theta_{0.5})}\over{F(<1.5\theta_{0.5})}}
\end{equation}
that is the ratio between the flux within the radius $\theta_{0.5}$
and the flux interior to the radius $1.5\theta_{0.5}$.
In Fig. 5 the concentration index $C_\eta$ and the apparent radius
$\theta_{0.5}$ of galaxies belonging to the Ks sample are shown
as a function of the apparent magnitude Ks in the upper and lower panel
respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=kdimen_bn.ps,height=70mm}}
\caption{Light concentration index $C_\eta$ (upper panel)
and apparent size $\theta_{0.5}$ (lower panel) of galaxies as a function
of their Ks magnitude.
The filled circles are the median values in 0.5 magnitude width bin.
Vertical error bars are the standard deviation from the mean of the values
within each bin while horizontal bars represent the width
of the bins.
The solid line in the lower panel shows the magnitude enclosed in
an aperture of radius $\theta$ and a uniform surface brightness
Ks=22.76 mag/arcsec$^2$.
}
\end{figure}
The light concentration index seems to remain constant down to
Ks$\sim19$ and J$\sim20$ while it is evident that
galaxies become systematically more compact to fainter magnitudes.
This trend is clearly present in both the samples as shown by the
decrease of the median values $C_\eta$ with increasing apparent magnitudes.
It is worth noting that the increasing compactness of galaxies
occurs in the same magnitude ranges where galaxies get bluer.
Moreover this trend seems to be matched also by a decrease of the
apparent size of galaxies.
\section{Conclusions}
The main results obtained by this preliminary analysis of the data
are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item number counts follow a $d~log(N)/dm$ relation with a slope
of 0.38 in Ks and of 0.36 in J showing no sign of flattening or
turnover down to the faintest magnitudes.
Such slopes and behavior fully agree with most of the ground-based
data and with the deepest NICMOS/HST data (Yan et al. 1998);
\item fainter than Ks$\sim19$ and J$\sim20$, the median J-K color
of galaxies shows a break in its reddening trend turning toward bluer colors;
\item faint bluer galaxies also display a larger compactness index,
and a smaller apparent size.
\end{itemize}
The absence of a turnover in the counts down to the faintest magnitudes
is indicative of an increasing contribution of sub-L$^*$ and hence
local ($z \ll 1$) galaxies leading to a substantial
steepening in the faint-end tail of the galaxy IR LF.
Such a claim is also supported by the observed color trend which
seems to rule out any major contribution of high-$z$ galaxies as
primary contributors to faint counts.
The existence of a steep ($\alpha\ll-1$) faint-end tail ($L<0.1-0.01L^*$)
in the IR LF would naturally account both for the J-K color trend and
the compactness trend shown by
galaxies.
|
\section{Introduction}
X-ray photoemission spectroscopy PES is a useful tool for studying the
electronic structure of solids. The theoretical description of PES is
however very complicated\cite{Hedinbook,Schaich} and almost all work has
been based on the so-called sudden approximation.\cite{sudden,Lars98}
The photoemission spectrum is then described by the electron spectral
function convoluted by a loss function, describing the transport of the
emitted electron to the surface. The sudden approximation becomes exact
in the limit when the kinetic energy of the emitted electron becomes
infinite.\cite {sudden,Lars98} In this limit we can distinguish between
intrinsic satellites, appearing in the electron spectral function, and
extrinsic satellites, appearing in the loss function. For lower kinetic
energy, this distinction is blurred due to interference effects, and
the satellite weights are expected to be quite different as we approach
the opposite limit, the adiabatic limit, of low kinetic
energy.\cite{sudden} It is then interesting to ask at what kinetic
energy the sudden approximation becomes accurate. This issue has been
studied extensively for the case when the emitted electron couples to
plasmons, and it has been found that the sudden approximation becomes
valid only for very large ($\sim $ keV) kinetic
energies.\cite{Lars98,plasmon,plasmonexp}
A semi-classical approach has been found to work exceedingly well for
the study of plasmon satellites.\cite{Lars98,plasmon} In such a picture,
one may take the emitted electron to move as a classical particle away
from the region where the hole was created. The system then sees the
potential from both the created electron and hole. Initially the
electron potential cancels the hole potential, but as the electron
moves away, the hole potential is gradually switched on. The
switching-on of the hole potential may lead to the creation of
excitations. If the kinetic energy of the electron is sufficiently
large, we can consider the hole potential as being switched on
instantly, and the creation of excitations around the hole then reaches
a limiting value, the sudden limit. In the semi-classical picture, the
perturbation is turned on during a time $\tau =R_{0}/v$, where $v$ is
the photoelectron velocity and $R_{0}$ is the range of the interaction
(scattering) potential between the emitted electron and the excitations.
In this picture we also need to determine the relevant time scale
$\tau _{{\rm max}}$ so that the sudden limit is reached if $\tau \ll
\tau _{{\rm max}}$ or $v\gg R_{0}/\tau _{{\rm max}}$. Our analysis
within the semi-classical framework shows that $1/\tau _{{\rm max}}$
is related to the energy $\delta E $ of the relevant excitation of
the system and to the strength $\tilde{V}$ of the scattering potential.
We find a different characteristic energy scale $\tilde E_s= 1/(2
\tilde R_s^2)$, where $\tilde R_s$ is a characteristic length scale
of the scattering potential. On dimensional grounds one may argue that
the adiabatic-sudden approximation takes place when the kinetic energy
of the emitted electron is comparable to $\tilde E_s$. This would
differ dramatically from the semi-classical approach, where the
transition takes place for energy of the order $1/(\tilde E_s
\tau_{{\rm max}}^2)$, i.e. e.g., $(\delta E)^2/\tilde E_s$ or
$\tilde V^2/\tilde E_s$. Alternatively, and again on dimensional
grounds, one may argue that the sudden approximation becomes valid
when the kinetic energy of the emitted electron is much larger than
the energy $\delta E$ of the relevant excitations of the
system,\cite{Krause1974} in strong contrast to the two criteria above.
This latter criterion is however not true in general.\cite{Shirley1987}
For many systems with strong correlations, the core level spectrum can
be understood in a charge transfer scenario.\cite{Kotani} This is
illustrated in Fig. 1 for a Cu compound, e.g., a Cu halide. In the
ground-state, Cu has
essentially the configuration d$^{9}$ and all the ligand orbitals are
filled. In the presence of a Cu core hole, it becomes energetically
favorable to transfer an electron from a ligand to the d-shell,
obtaining a $%
d^{10}$ configuration on the Cu atom with the core hole. Due to the
hybridization between the d$^{9}$ and $d^{10}$ configurations, the
states
are actually mixtures of the two configurations, as indicated in Fig.
\ref
{fig:schematic}. In the photoemission process there is a nonzero
probability
that the outer electron will not stay on the ligand, but is transferred
to
the lower energy $d$-like state. This ``shake-down'' process
corresponds to
the leading peak in the spectrum, while the process where the outer
electron
stays on the ligand corresponds to the satellite. This kind of model has
been applied to rare earth compounds,\cite{Kotani,Gunnar83}
chemisorption
systems,\cite{Schonhammer,Fuggle} transition metal compounds,\cite
{Larsson,Wallbank,Laan,Boer,Fujimori} and High $T_{c}$ compounds.\cite
{Veenendaal}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{4cm}
\special{psfile=FIG1.ps}
\caption{Schematic view of the Cu $3s$ charge transfer photoemission.
Here $a
$ is the Cu $3d$ level and $b$ is a ligand (L) valence state
for the symmetric case.
}
\label{fig:schematic}
\end{figure}
Our simple model allows an accurate numerical calculation of the
photocurrent either by integrating the time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger
equation
or by directly inverting a resolvent operator (QM). We also derive
analytic
results with a separable potential. These results are compared with the
semi-classical theory (SC), and with first order perturbation theory
(PT).
In both these cases we have analytic results, which is very useful for
understanding the physics of the problem.
The impurity model discussed here differs in certain important aspects
from a real solid. To start with, for a solid we never reach the
limit of a pure intrinsic spectrum since when the cross section for
extrinsic scattering goes to zero, the range from which the
photoelectrons come goes to infinity. In our impurity model, on the
other hand, the extrinsic scattering approaches zero at high kinetic
energies. Secondly, for a solid, we discuss excitations in
the continuum and not as here discrete energy levels.
For the coupling to plasmons, the adiabatic-sudden transition takes
place at large kinetic energies where the SC approximation is very
accurate.\cite{Lars98,plasmon} The relevant length scale is given
by the plasmon wave length $\lambda =2\pi /q$ and the relevant
time by the inverse plasmon frequency $\omega _{q}$. Large
interference effects are then connected with a large phase velocity
$\omega _{q}/q$, as discussed e.g. by Inglesfield.\cite{Inglesfield}
Since long wave-length plasmons play an important role these
large interference effects for small $q$ delay the approach to the
sudden limit, which only is reached at very high kinetic energies
($\sim $ keV).
For the localized excitations studied here the relevant length scale is
much
shorter. The SC theory then predicts that the transition takes place at
correspondingly smaller kinetic energies. This is indeed what we find
from
the exact solution of our model. This has two consequences. Firstly, the
SC
treatment itself is not valid at such small energies, and we have to
rely on
QM treatments. Actually, although the SC treatment correctly predicts a
small transition energy, we find it predicts qualitatively wrong
dependencies on the relevant parameters. Secondly, the smaller energy
scale
means that the energy variation of the dipole matrix elements becomes
very
important. The dipole matrix element grows rapidly on an energy scale $%
\tilde E_d$, which can become very important for the adiabatic-sudden
transition.
We study the ratio $r(\omega )$ between the weights of the satellite
and the main peak as a function of the photon energy $\omega $ for
the emission from a $3s$ level. First we consider the case when the
scattering potential between the electron and the target is neglected.
We find that the corresponding ratio $r_{0}(\omega )$ strongly depends
on the ratio between the excitation energy $\delta E$ and $\tilde{E}_{d}$.
If $\delta E/\tilde{E}_{d}\ll 1$, $r_{0}(\omega )$ approaches its
limiting value from below, while it has an overshoot if
$\delta E/\tilde{E}_{d}\gg 1$. In both case the limit value is reached
for photoelectron energies of the order of a few times $\delta E$.
We then study the effects of the scattering potential by focusing on $%
r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$. For small energies there is typically an
overshoot due to {\it constructive} interference in the ''shake-down''
case, contrary to the shake-up case where, like for plasmons, $r(\omega
)/r_{0}(\omega )$ is reduced by interaction effects. This happens on the
energy scale $\tilde{E}_{s}$. If the scattering potential is very
strong, this overshoot may extend to several times $\tilde{E}_{s}$.
Depending on the parameters there may be an undershoot for higher
energies, which can extend up to quite high energies. The undershoot
is, however, rather small for the parameters we consider here,
and should therefore not be very important unless we want to calculate
the spectrum with a high accuracy. For Cu compounds and emission
from the $3s$ core level, we find that $\tilde E_d$ and $\tilde E_s$ are
comparable, and the relevant energy for $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$
is then given by $\tilde E\sim \tilde E_s\sim \tilde E_d$.
We present our model in Sec. II and calculate various matrix elements in
Sec. III. The sudden approximation is described in Sec. IV and exact
numerical methods are given in Sec. V. The perturbational and the
semi-classical treatments are presented in Sec. VI. In Sec. VII we study
the
condition for the adiabatic-sudden transition qualitatively, using
simple
analytic matrix elements and within the framework of the semi-classical
theory. The results are discussed in Sec. VIII.
\section{Model}
We consider a Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{0}$ describing a model with a core
level $c$ and two valence levels $a$ and $b$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:1}
{\cal H}_{0} &=&\epsilon _{a}n_{a}+\epsilon _{b}n_{b}+\epsilon
_{c}n_{c}+U_{a}n_{c}n_{a}+U_{b}n_{c}n_{b} \nonumber \\
&+&t(c_{a}^{\dagger }c_{b}+c_{b}^{\dagger }c_{a}).
\end{eqnarray}
The first two terms give the bare energies of the levels $a$ and $b$,
and
the last term the hybridization between them. The remaining terms
involve
the occupation number $n_{c}$ of the core level $c$. In photoemission
the
core level is filled in the initial state, and empty in the final, and
$n_{c}
$ only enters as a constant. It is trivial to diagonalize ${\cal
H}_{0}$,
and one obtains two dressed energies $E_{a}(n_{c})$ and $E_{b}(n_{c})$
for
the levels $a$ and $b.$ In a Cu compound, for instance, $c$ may
represent
the Cu $3s$ core level, $a$ the Cu $3d$ valence level and $b$ a ligand
state. This is schematically illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}. In
our
calculations we almost always treat the case when $E_{a}(1)>E_{b}(1)$,
and $%
E_{b}(0)>E_{a}(0)$. The meaning of the levels $a$ and $b$ for different
types of systems with localized excitations is indicated in Table \ref
{general-CT}. The full Hamiltonian also has a one-electron part for
continuum states,
\begin{equation}
T=\sum_{{\bf k}}\epsilon _{{\bf k}}n_{{\bf k}}, \label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
with the energies $\epsilon _{{\bf k}}=k^{2}/2$, and wavefunctions
$\psi
_{{\bf k}}$ obtained from a one-electron potential corresponding to
$n_{c}=0$%
. The $n_{{\bf k}}$ are occupation numbers $n_{{\bf k}}=c_{{\bf
k}}^{\dagger
}c_{{\bf k}}$. We use atomic units with $e=m=\hbar =1,$ and thus, e.g.
energies are in hartrees ($27.2$ eV). The perturbation causing
photoemission is
\begin{equation}
\Delta =\sum_{{\bf k}c}(M_{{\bf k}}c_{{\bf k}}^{\dagger }c_{c}+h.c.),
\label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
where $M_{{\bf k}}$ is an optical transition matrix element. We take the
photoelectron interaction as
\begin{equation}
V=\sum_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}}[n_{a}V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime
}}}^{(a)}+n_{b}V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}}^{(b)}-V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}%
^{^{\prime }}}^{(c)}]c_{{\bf k}}^{\dagger }c_{{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}}.
\label{eq:5}
\end{equation}
Here $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}}^{(\nu )}$ is a matrix element of
the
Coulomb potential $V^{(\nu )}({\bf r})$ from the charge density $\rho
_{\nu
}({\bf r})$ of the orbital $\nu $,
\[
V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}}^{(\nu )}=\int \psi _{{\bf k}}^{\ast
}\left(
{\bf r}\right) V^{(\nu )}({\bf r})\psi _{{\bf k}^{\prime }}\left( {\bf
r}%
\right) d{\bf r,\;}V^{(\nu )}({\bf r})=\int {\frac{\rho _{\nu }({\bf r}%
^{\prime })}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime }|}}d{\bf r}^{\prime }.
\]
It is the potential $V$ which determines the transition from the
adiabatic to the sudden limit, with $V=0$ we are in the sudden limit.
The total Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}={\cal H}_{0}+T+V+\Delta . \label{eq:6}
\end{equation}
This Hamiltonian has two conserved quantities,
\begin{equation}
n_{c}+\sum_{{\bf k}}n_{{\bf k}}=1\ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ n_{a}+n_{b}=1.
\label{eq:7}
\end{equation}
For simplicity we take the core electron and the $d$ electron potentials
as equal, $V^{c}=V^{a}$, and use the relation $n_{a}+n_{b}=1$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
V=n_{b}\sum_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}}V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{^{\prime
}}}c_{ {\bf k}}^{\dagger }c_{{\bf k}^{^{\prime }}} \label{eq:8}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
V_{{\bf kk}^{^{\prime }}} &\equiv &\int \psi _{{\bf k}}^{\ast }\left(
{\bf r} \right) V_{sc}({\bf r})\psi _{{\bf k}^{\prime }}
\left( {\bf r}\right) d{\bf r,\;} \\
V_{sc}({\bf r}) &\equiv &V^{(b)}({\bf r})-V^{(a)}({\bf r})=\int d{\bf
r} ^{\prime }{\frac{1}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime }|}}[\rho _{b}({\bf
r}^{\prime })-\rho _{a}({\bf r}^{\prime })].
\end{eqnarray*}
The (scattering) potential $V_{sc}({\bf r})$ describes the change in the
potential acting on the emitted electron when the electron in the target
hops from level $a$ to $b$.
Dropping a constant we can write ${\cal H}_{0}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:9}
{\cal H}_{0} &=&\epsilon _{c}n_{c}+(\epsilon _{a}+Un_{c})n_{a}+\epsilon
_{b}n_{b} \nonumber \\
&+&t(c_{a}^{\dagger }c_{b}+c_{b}^{\dagger }c_{a}).
\end{eqnarray}
where the Coulomb integral $U$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:m1}
U &\equiv &U_{a}-U_{b} \nonumber \\
&=&\int d{\bf r}d{\bf r}^{\prime }\rho _{c}({\bf r}){\frac{1}{|{\bf
r}-{\bf r%
}^{\prime }|}}[\rho _{a}({\bf r}^{\prime })-\rho _{b}({\bf r}^{\prime
})].
\end{eqnarray}
Since the core level is very localized in space this leads to
\begin{equation}
U=-V_{sc}(0). \label{eq:m3}
\end{equation}
For the different types of systems in Table \ref{general-CT}, $a$ refers
to
a localized level and $b$ refers to a more extended level. For instance,
for
a copper dihalide compound, $a$ refers to a Cu $3d$ orbital and $b$ to a
combination of orbitals on the ligand sites. For simplicity, we
approximate
the six ligand orbitals by a spherical shell with the radius
$R_{0}$,\cite
{Kaupp} where $R_{0}$ is the average Cu-ligand separation. The potential
from the Cu $3d$ orbital $V_{3d}(r)$ can be considered as purely
Coulombic
at $r=R_{0}$. The charge from the spherical shell gives a constant
potential
inside the radius $R_{0}$, and we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:m4}
V_{sc}(r)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(-V_{3d}(r)+\frac{1}{R_{0}})/\varepsilon & r<R_{0}; \\
0 & r>R_{0}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here $\varepsilon $ is a constant chosen to make $U=-V_{sc}(0)$, which
may be thought of as being due to screening by the surrounding. Since
$V_{3d}(0)\gg 1/R_{0}$, $\varepsilon $ varies only weakly with $R_{0}$
and is approximately given by $\varepsilon \simeq V_{3d}(0)/U$.
\section{Matrix elements}
\label{sec:matrix}
To estimate the matrix elements $M_{{\bf k}}$ and $V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}%
^{^{\prime }}}$ we must approximate the photoelectron wavefunctions
$\psi _{{\bf k}}\left( {\bf r}\right) $. These wavefunctions are
calculated from the potential of a neutral atom, which further is
shifted to make the potential zero outside a muffin-tin radius
$r_{mt}$. The states are then described by spherical Bessel functions
outside $r_{mt}$, which are matched to a solution
of the atomic potential inside $r_{mt}$. For the energy $k^{2}/2$ we
obtain
the partial wave
\begin{equation}
R_{lk}(r)=\cases {a_{lk}\psi_{lk}(r) & $r<r_{mt}$;\cr
\sqrt{\frac{2}{R}}k[\cos\eta_{lk}j_l(kr)-\sin\eta_{lk}n_l(kr)] &
$r>r_{mt}$,\cr} \label{eq:ma1}
\end{equation}
where $\psi _{lk}(r)$ is the solution of the radial Schr\"{o}dinger
equation
for the atomic potential inside the muffin-tin radius, $a_{lk}$ is a
matching coefficient and $\eta _{lk}$ a phase shift. The normalization
is
given by
\begin{equation}
\int_{0}^{R}drr^{2}R_{lk}^{2}(r)=1, \label{eq:ma1a}
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the radius of a large sphere to which the continuum states
are
normalized. The factor $(2/R)^{1/2}k$ is due to the normalization and
the
asymptotic behavior of $j_{l}(x)$ for large $x$.
Slater's rules\cite{Slater} are used to generate the orbitals and charge
densities, from which the potential $V_{3d}(r)$ is calculated. This
gives
the scattering potential $V_{sc}(r)$, which is shown in Fig. \ref
{fig:potential}a. We consider photoemission from a Cu $3s$ hole. Due to
the
dipole selection rules, the core electron is then emitted into a
continuum
state of $p$-symmetry. The matrix elements $V_{{k}{k}^{^{\prime }}}$ of
the
scattering potential $V_{sc}(r)$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:potential}b,
\begin{equation}
V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}=\int drr^{2}R_{k}(r)V_{sc}(r)R_{k^{^{\prime }}}(r),
\label{eq:ma0}
\end{equation}
where the muffin-tin radius $r_{mt}$ is taken as the ionic radius of Cu,
$%
r_{mt}=2.6$ a.u., and we have dropped the $l$ index, since we always
consider $l=1.$ The dipole matrix element $M_{k}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
M_{k}\sim a_{k}(\epsilon _{k}-\epsilon _{c})\int drr^{2}\psi
_{3s}(r)r\psi
_{k}(r). \label{eq:ma1b}
\end{equation}
We assume that the core level is deep, and $\left| \epsilon_{c}\right|$
much larger than the energy difference between the ligand and copper
levels. We can then take the factor $\epsilon_{k}-\epsilon_{c}$
as a constant, which drops out since we always consider relative
intensities. The result for $M_{k}$ is shown as the solid line in
Fig. \ref{fig:dipole}a. These dipole and scattering potential
matrix elements are used in the following numerical calculations.
Extensive calculations of dipole matrix elements for many systems
were performed by Yeh and Lindau.\cite{crossection}
To interpret the results, it is useful to also perform analytical
calculations. For this purpose we need models of the matrix elements.
Below
we consider the limits of low and high kinetic energies of the emitted
electron. In the limit of low kinetic energies, we replace the spherical
Bessel function by its expansion for small arguments
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ma2}
j_l(x)=\frac{1}{(2l+1)!!}x^l,\mbox{ }\mbox{ } n_l(x)=-(2l-1)!!
\frac{1}{ x^{l+1}}
\end{equation}
and the solution $\psi_{lk}(r)$ by its zero energy limit $\psi_{l0}(r)$.
This leads to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:ma3}
\tan\eta_{lk}=\frac{l-\xi}{l+1+\xi}\frac{(kr_{mt})^{2l+1}}
{(2l-1)!!(2l+1)!!} \sim\eta_{lk}, \nonumber \\
a_{lk}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{R}}k\left[\frac{2l+1}{l+1+\xi}
\frac{(kr_{mt})^l}{ (2l+1)!!}\right]\frac{1}{\psi_{l0}(r_{mt})}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{10.5cm}
\special{psfile=FIG2.ps}
\caption{(a) The photoelectron scattering potential $V_{sc}(r)$ given by
Eq.
(\ref{eq:m4}) with respect to $r$ for CuCl$_2$ ($R_0=4.71$ a.u. and
$\protect%
\varepsilon=1.96$). In the inset, we give the atomic configuration of
Cu-Cl
octahedral (nearly octahedral) cluster in CuCl$_2$. (b) The diagonal and
off-diagonal matrix elements of the scattering potential multiplied by
$R$.
In the figure, $k_1=1$ a.u., $k_2=5$ a.u., and $k_3=10$ a.u. are taken.
}
\label{fig:potential}
\end{figure}
Due to the matching, the coefficient $a_{lk}$ contains the ratio $%
\xi=r_{mt}\psi^{^{\prime}}_{l0}(r_{mt})/\psi_{l0}(r_{mt})$. The value of
the
coefficient therefore depends in an interesting way on the wave function
$%
\psi_{l0}$ and its derivative, and if $l+1+\xi$ is close to zero
$a_{lk}$
blows up. Then the matrix elements of the scattering potential also blow
up
and we may expect strong deviations from the sudden approximation. In
such a
case the dipole matrix element $M_{lk}$ also becomes large, i.e., there
is a
resonance ($\eta_{lk}=\frac{\pi}{2}$) in the photoemission cross
section.
From Eqs.(\ref{eq:ma1}) and (\ref{eq:ma1b}) it follows that in the limit
of
a small $k$ the dipole matrix element is proportional to $a_{k}\sim
k^{l+1}$%
. The main peak and the satellites in the photoemission spectrum
correspond
to different kinetic energies and therefore have dipole matrix elements
with
different $k$-values. This is important at low energies, while for large
energies the variation in $M_{lk}$ is generally small over a range of
the
energy difference between the main peak and the satellite, and for the
ratio
of the peaks, the dipole matrix elements should then not play a role.
For
simplicity, we assume that the dipole matrix elements become independent
of $%
k$ for $\tilde{R}_{d}k\gg 1$, where $\tilde{R}_{d}$ is some typical
length
scale of the system. For our case ($l=1$) we use the model (note that
any
constant factor in $M_{k}$ drops out in our final expressions)
\begin{equation}
M_{k}={\frac{(\tilde{R}_{d}k)^{2}}{1+(\tilde{R}_{d}k)^{2}}}\equiv
{\frac{%
\epsilon _{k}/\tilde{E}_{d}}{1+\epsilon _{k}/\tilde{E}_{d}}},
\label{eq:ma4}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{E}_{d}=1/(2\tilde{R}_{d}^{2})$. Fig. \ref{fig:dipole}a
compares this model with the full calculation for a $3s$ orbital. We
obtain $%
\tilde{R}_{d}=1.3$ a.u.. For a $1s$ or $2s$ orbital the length scale is
smaller and $\tilde{R}_{d}\sim 1/2$ a.u.. While we consider $l=1$ the
behaviour for other $l$ is primarily modified for small energies.
We next consider the matrix elements $V_{kk^{^{\prime}}}$. For small
values
of $k$ and $k^{^{\prime}}$ and for $l=1$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:ma5}
V_{kk^{^{\prime}}}&=&\frac{2}{R}\left[\frac{r_{mt}}{\psi_{l0}(r_{mt})}\right]
^2
\frac{(kk^{^{\prime}})^2}{(\xi+2)^2}\int_0^{r_{mt}}\psi_{l0}^2(r)V_{sc}
(r) r^2dr \nonumber \\
&+&\frac{2}{9R}(kk^{^{\prime}})^2\int_{r_{mt}}^{R_0}
\left[r+\left(\frac{
1-\xi}{2+\xi}\right)\frac{r_{mt}^3}{r^2}\right]^2 V_{sc}(r)r^2dr.
\nonumber
\\
\end{eqnarray}
For small values of $k$ and $k^{^{\prime}}$ it then follows that $%
V_{kk^{^{\prime}}}\sim (kk^{^{\prime}})^2$. For large values of $k$ and
$%
k^{^{\prime}}$ the matrix elements become very small due to destructive
interference between the two wave-functions unless $k\approx
k^{^{\prime}}$.
If $k=k^{^{\prime}}$ the matrix elements $V_{kk}$ approach a constant.
These
features are contained in the model
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ma6}
V_{kk^{^{\prime}}}={\frac{\tilde V \tilde R_s}{R}}{\frac{ (\tilde R%
_s^2kk^{^{\prime}})^2 }{ \lbrack 1+(\tilde R_s k)^2\rbrack \lbrack
1+(\tilde %
R_s k^{^{\prime}})^2\rbrack \lbrack 1+\tilde
R_{sd}^2(k-k^{^{\prime}})^2%
\rbrack}},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde R_s$ and $\tilde R_{sd}$ are appropriate length scales and
$%
\tilde V$ has the energy dimension. We recall that $\tilde V$ contains
information about the coefficient $a_{lk}$ defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:ma3})
and
therefore about the atomic potential and that $\tilde V$ may become
particularly large close to a resonance. The dipole matrix element $M_k$
and
potential matrix $V_{kk^{^{\prime}}}$ in our simplified model Eqs. (\ref
{eq:ma4}) and (\ref{eq:ma6}) are given in Fig. \ref{fig:dipole} as
compared
with the exact results.
For large values of $k$ and $k^{^{\prime }}$, the expression Eq.~(\ref
{eq:ma6}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}
V_{kk^{^{\prime
}}}={\frac{\tilde{V}\tilde{R}_{s}}{R}}{\frac{1}{1+\tilde{R}%
_{sd}^{2}(k-k^{^{\prime }})^{2}}}. \label{eq:ma6c}
\end{equation}
An expression of this type can also be derived by assuming that the wave
functions $R_{lk}(r)$ can be approximated by spherical Bessel functions
in
all of space, and by assuming some shape of $V_{sc}(r)$, e.g., a linear
dependence on $r$
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{10.5cm}
\special{psfile=FIG3.ps}
\caption{(a) The dipole matrix element $M_{k}$ as a function of $k$. The
exact result (solid line) is obtained from Eq. (\ref{eq:ma1b}) and the
simplified model by Eq. (\ref{eq:ma4}) is also shown (dashed line). The
appropriate parameter is $\tilde R_d=1.30$ a.u. (b) The matrix elements
$%
V_{kk^{^{\prime}}}$ of the scattering potential are given for $%
k=k^{^{\prime}}$, $k^{^{\prime}}=1$ a.u., and $k^{^{\prime}}=5$ a.u..
The
solid line is from the exact calculation for the model of CuCl$_2$ and
the
dashed line is based on the simplified model (Eq.(\ref{eq:ma6})). The
parameters are $\tilde{V}=-0.36$ a.u., $\tilde R_s=1.77$ a.u. and
$\tilde R _{sd}=1.31$ a.u.. }
\label{fig:dipole}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
V_{sc}(r)=V_{sc}(0)(1-{\frac{r}{R_{0}}}). \label{eq:ma6a}
\end{equation}
For large values of $k$ and $k^{^{\prime }}$ we then obtain
\begin{equation}
V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}={\frac{V_{sc}(0)R_{0}}{R}}{\frac{1-{\rm cos}%
[(k-k^{^{\prime }})R_{0}]}{[(k-k^{^{\prime }})R_{0}]^{2}}}.
\label{eq:ma6aa}
\end{equation}
For this model we relate $\tilde{R}_{s}=\tilde{R}_{sd}=R_{0}/3$ to the
range
$R_{0}$ of the potential and $\tilde{V}=3V_{sc}(0)/2$. Using this
identification in Eq. (\ref{eq:ma6c}), leads to the correct average
value of $V_{kk}$ and to the correct width in $k-k^{^{\prime }}$ of
$V_{kk^{^{\prime
}}}$. The simple form (\ref{eq:ma6c}), however, neglects the effects of
the oscillations of the cos-function in Eq. (\ref{eq:ma6aa}) for large
values of
$(k-k^{^{\prime }})R_{0}$, and it therefore gives a worse representation
of the linear potential (\ref{eq:ma6a}) than the form (\ref{eq:ma6}) gives
for the more realistic scattering potential (\ref{eq:m4}). Later we will
find that it is a reasonable approximation to put $\tilde{R}_{d}$,
$\tilde{R}_{sd}
$ and $\tilde{R}_{s}$ equal to the same value $\tilde{R}$, and introduce
the corresponding energy $\tilde{E}=1/(2\tilde{R}^{2})$.
\section{Sudden approximation}
\label{sec:sudden}
We first discuss the photoemission in the sudden limit, i.e., we neglect
the scattering potential between the emitted electron and the target
($V\equiv 0$). The initial state $|\Psi _{0}\rangle$ is the ground
state of ${\cal H}_{0} $ with $n_{c}=1$ and given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:s1}
|\Psi_0\rangle=-\sin\theta |\psi_c\rangle|\psi_a\rangle +\cos\theta
|\psi_c\rangle|\psi_b\rangle,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\tan 2\theta =2t/(\epsilon_{a}+U-\epsilon_{b}) \label{eq:s2}
\end{equation}
and the corresponding ground state energy is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:s3}
E_0=\epsilon_c+{\frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon_a+U+\epsilon_b)-
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{%
(\epsilon _{a}+U-\epsilon _{b})^{2}+4t^{2}}.
\end{equation}
The final states of the target are given by the two eigenstates of
${\cal H} _0$ with $n_c=0$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:s4}
|\psi _{1}\rangle &=&\cos \varphi |\psi _{a}\rangle -\sin \varphi |\psi
_{b}\rangle , \nonumber \\
|\psi _{2}\rangle &=&\sin \varphi |\psi _{a}\rangle +\cos \varphi |\psi
_{b}\rangle ,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\tan 2\varphi =2t/(\epsilon _{b}-\epsilon _{a}) \label{eq:s5}
\end{equation}
and the corresponding energy eigenvalues $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ are
\begin{equation}
E_{ {1 \atop 2} }={\frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon _{a}+\epsilon _{b})\mp
\delta E/2, \label{eq:s6} \\
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\delta E=\sqrt{(\epsilon _{a}-\epsilon _{b})^{2}+4t^{2}} \label{eq:s7}
\end{equation}
being the optical excitation energy of the system.
The photocurrent $J_{k}^{s}(\omega )$ ($s=1,2$) is given
by,\cite{Hedinbook}
\begin{equation}
J_{k}^{s}(\omega )=|\langle \Psi _{f}^{sk}|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle
|^{2}\delta (\omega -\epsilon _{k}+E_{0}-E_{s}), \label{eq:s8}
\end{equation}
where $|\Psi _{f}^{sk}\rangle $ is a final state. According to the
sudden
approximation, it can be written as the final target state multiplied by
the
photoelectron state, $|\Psi _{f}^{sk}\rangle =|\psi _{s}\rangle |\psi
_{k}\rangle $. This gives
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi _{f}^{sk}|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle =M_{k}w_{s}\equiv
m_{sk},\mbox{ }\mbox{ }w_{s}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
-\sin \left( \varphi +\theta \right) ,\;s=1 \\
\cos \left( \varphi +\theta \right) ,\;\;s=2
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:s9}
\end{equation}
$J_{{\bf k}}^{1}(\omega )$ gives the main line (corresponding to the
quasi
particle line in metal) and $J_{{\bf k}}^{2}(\omega )$ the satellite
line.
The schematic picture of the initial and final state for this system is
given in Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}. Summing the kinetic energy
distribution
of the photoelectron, we obtain the absorption spectra $J_{s}(\omega )$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:s10}
J_{s}(\omega ) &=&\sum_{k}J_{k}^{s}(\omega )\propto \frac{1}{k_{s}}%
|M_{k_{s}}w_{s}|^{2} \nonumber \\
k_{s} &=&\sqrt{2(\omega +E_{0}-E_{s})},
\end{eqnarray}
where the threshold energies for $J_{1}(\omega )$ and $J_{2}(\omega )$
are
given by $E_{1}-E_{0}$ and $E_{2}-E_{0}(\equiv \omega _{th})$,
respectively.
We can thus also write $k_{1}=\sqrt{2(\omega +\delta E-\omega _{th})}$
and $%
k_{2}=\sqrt{2(\omega -\omega _{th})}$. The factor $1/k$ comes from the
$k$%
-summation over a $\delta $-function in energy. For convenience we
introduce
the quantity $\tilde{\omega}=\omega -\omega _{th}$, and thus $\epsilon
_{k_{2}}=\tilde{\omega}$.
In the sudden approximation the kinetic energy of the emitted electron
is large, and we can take $k_{1}=k_{2}$. The ratio $r_{00}$ of the
satellite to
the main peak intensity then is
\begin{equation}
r_{00}=\lim_{\omega \rightarrow \infty }\frac{J_{2}(\omega
)}{J_{1}(\omega )}%
=\cot ^{2}(\varphi +\theta ). \label{eq:s11}
\end{equation}
Taking into account the energy dependence of the dipole matrix element
according to model Eq. (\ref{eq:ma4}) as well as the factor $1/k$, we
obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:s12}
r_{0}(\omega ) &=&r_{00}\left[
{\frac{\tilde{\omega}}{\tilde{\omega}+\delta E%
}}\right] ^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ {\frac{1+(\tilde{\omega}+\delta
E)/\tilde{E}_{d}}{1+\tilde{%
\omega}/\tilde{E}_{d}}}\right] ^{2}\Theta (\tilde{\omega}).
\end{eqnarray}
We now require that the ratio $r_{0}(\omega )$ should reach a fraction
$%
\gamma $ ($\gamma \approx 1$) of its limiting value $r_{0}(\infty )$ for
$%
\omega =\omega _{\gamma }$. This gives
\begin{equation}
{\frac{\omega _{\gamma }-\omega _{th}}{\delta E}}\approx \cases{{3\over
2}{1\over 1-\gamma}, & if $\delta E \ll \tilde{E}_d$;\cr {\gamma^{2/ 3}
(\tilde{E}_d/\delta E)^{4/3}}, & if $\delta E \gg \tilde{E}_d$.\cr}
\label{eq:s13}
\end{equation}
This criterion refers to the energy where $r_{0}(\omega )$ reaches a
fraction $\gamma $ in its rising part, and it does not consider that
there
is a large overshoot for $\delta E/\tilde{E}_{d}\gg 1$. In this case we
can
instead require that $r_{0}(\omega )$ is smaller than $\gamma \approx 1$
in
its descending part. This gives the condition
\begin{equation}
{\frac{\omega _{\gamma }-\omega _{th}}{\delta E}}\approx
{\frac{1}{\gamma
^{2}-1}}\hskip0.5cm\delta E/\tilde{E}_{d}\gg 1,\gamma >1.
\label{eq:s13a}
\end{equation}
In Fig. \ref{fig:sudden} we show results for $r_{0}(\omega )$ over a
large range of values for $\delta E/\tilde{E}$. The figure illustrates
that the dipole matrix element effect alone makes the sudden
approximation invalid for small kinetic energies. It is interesting
that for somewhat larger photon energies $r_{0}$ overshoots. The
reason is that the matrix elements $M_{k}$ saturate for $\epsilon
_{k}\gg \tilde{E}_{d}$, while the factor $1/k$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:s10})
favors the satellite. For $\delta E/\tilde{ E}_{d}=1$, the result is
rather close to the sudden limit for $\tilde{\omega}
/\delta E\sim 1$. Finally, for $\delta E/\tilde{E}_{d}\gg 1$, there is a
substantial overshoot.
\begin{figure}[bt]
\unitlength1cm
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.125in}
\centerline{\rotatebox{-90}{\epsfxsize=2.5in
\epsffile{FIG4.ps}}}
\caption[]{\label{fig:sudden}The ratio $r_0(\omega)$ of the
satellite to the main peak in Eq.(\ref{eq:s12}) divided
by the result for an infinite photon energy ($r_0(\infty)=r_{00}$).
Three values of the excitation energy $\delta E$ are considered.}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\end{figure}
As discussed in the introduction, we would like to study how the
adiabatic
to sudden transition depends on certain factors, like the range $R_{0}$
of
the potential and the energy $\delta E$ of the excitation causing the
satellite. We therefore keep ratio of $t$, $U$ and $\epsilon
_{a}-\epsilon
_{b}$ fixed, but vary their magnitude. In this way we can vary $\delta
E$
without varying the magnitude of the satellite in the sudden limit. Eq.
(\ref
{eq:m3}) requires that we vary $V_{sc}(0)$ as we vary $\delta E$ (via
$U$),
e.g., by varying the dielectric constant $\varepsilon $. In some of the
calculations below, however, we do not impose Eq. (\ref{eq:m3}), to be
able
to see the effect of varying $\delta E$ alone. We furthermore vary the
range
$R_{0}$ of the potential. From the definition Eq. (\ref{eq:m4}) it
follows
that this would also vary the strength of the potential. For this reason
we
simultaneously vary the dielectric constant $\varepsilon $ so that
$V_{sc}(0)
$ stays unchanged when $R_{0}$ is changed. Alternatively, we can use the
analytical matrix elements (\ref{eq:ma4}, \ref{eq:ma6}). We can then
easily
vary the length scale by changing $\tilde{R}$ or the strength by
changing $%
\tilde{V}$.
To know roughly what are interesting values for our parameters we use
experimental results for some copper dihalides.\cite{Laan} We estimate
the
relative strength of the satellite to the main peak, and the energy
difference between the peaks. This gives two equations while in our
model
these quantities, $r_{00}$ and $\delta E$, depend on three parameters,
$t,U,$
and $\epsilon _{a}-\epsilon _{b}$. To only have two parameters we
consider
{\it the symmetric case} $\epsilon _{a}=\epsilon -U/2$ and $\epsilon
_{b}=\epsilon $ as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:schematic}.
In the symmetric case we are restricted to the
shake-down
situation since before the transition the $a$-level is above the
$b$-level, $%
\epsilon _{a}+U-\epsilon _{b}=U/2$, while after the transition the
$a$-level
is below the $b$-level, $\epsilon _{b}-\epsilon _{a}=U/2$. In the
symmetric
case we have $0<\theta =\varphi <\pi /4$, and $r_{00}=\cot ^{2}2\varphi
=U^{2}/(16t^{2})$. Once we know where in the ball-park we have $t$ and
$U$,
we can leave the symmetric case, and also consider, e.g., shake-up cases
when there is no level crossing, $\epsilon _{a}>\epsilon _{b}$. In the
lowest final state the electron essentially stays on level $b$, while
the
transfer of the electron to the level $a$ corresponds to a shake up
satellite. In this case we have $-\pi /4<\varphi <0<\theta <\pi /4$ and
$%
\varphi +\theta <0$.
Our calculations usually take the CuCl$_{2}$ parameters as reference
values. For CuCl$_{2}$ we have $\theta =\varphi = 0.3$, which gives
$r_{00}=2.1$. Further $\tilde{V}=-0.36$ a.u., $\tilde{E}=0.195$ a.u.
(with $ \tilde{R}=1.6$ a.u.), and $\delta E=0.237$ a.u., i.e.,
$\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}=-1.85$ and $\delta E/\tilde{V}=-0.66$
(see also Table II).
\section{Exact treatment}
\subsection{Time-dependent formulation}
To obtain exact results for model Eq.(\ref{eq:6}), we use a
time-dependent
formulation\cite{time-formalism} and solve the Schr\"odinger equation
for
the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{eq:6a}
{\cal H}(\tau)={\cal H}_0+T+V+\Delta f(\tau).
\end{equation}
The interaction is switched on at $\tau=0$, using
\begin{equation} \label{eq:4}
f(\tau)=e^{-i\omega \tau}(e^{-\eta \tau}-1) \hskip1cm \eta>0.
\end{equation}
Here $\eta$ is a small quantity to assure that the external field is
switched on smoothly. The initial ($\tau=0$) state $|\Psi_0\rangle$ is
given
by the ground state of ${\cal H}_0$ with $n_c=1$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:1}).
After a
time $\tau$, the state $|\Psi(\tau)\rangle$ of the system is
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Psi(\tau)\rangle&=&a(\tau)|\psi_a\rangle|\psi_c\rangle
+b(\tau)|\psi_b\rangle|\psi_c\rangle \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_k c_{ak}(\tau)|\psi_a\rangle|\psi_k\rangle +\sum_k
c_{bk}(\tau)|\psi_b\rangle|\psi_k\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficients of $|\Psi(\tau)\rangle$ can be determined by
\begin{equation}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}|\Psi(\tau)\rangle={\cal H}
(\tau)|\Psi(\tau)\rangle,
\end{equation}
which gives four differential equations for the four coefficients
$a(\tau)$,
$b(\tau)$, $c_{ak}(\tau)$, and $c_{bk}(\tau)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}a(\tau)
&=&(\epsilon_a+U+\epsilon_c)a(\tau)+tb(\tau) \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_k{V_k^d}^{\ast}(\tau)c_{ak}(\tau),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}b(\tau)
&=&(\epsilon_b+\epsilon_c)b(\tau)+ta(\tau) \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_k{V_k^d}^{\ast}(\tau)c_{bk}(\tau),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}c_{ak}(\tau)
&=&(\epsilon_a+\epsilon_k)c_{ak}(\tau)+tc_{bk}(\tau) \nonumber \\
&+&V_k^d(\tau)a(\tau),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}c_{bk}(\tau)
&=&(\epsilon_b+\epsilon_k)c_{bk}(\tau) +tc_{ak}(\tau)+V_k^d(\tau)b(\tau)
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{k^{\prime}}V_{kk^{\prime}}c_{bk^{\prime}}(\tau),
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_k^d(\tau)=V_0M_kf(\tau)$ with $V_0$ representing the strength
of
the external field. We solve the equations in the limit when $V_0 \to
0$,
and thus the ratio between $c_{ak}$ and $c_{bk}$ is independent of
$V_0$.
The initial conditions are $a(0)=-\sin\theta$, $b(0)=\cos\theta$, and $%
c_{ak}(0)=c_{bk}(0)=0$. Thus the problem is reduced to solving the
coupled
differential equations, which is done using the Runge-Kutta fourth-order
method.
The photoelectron currents $J_1(\omega)$ and $J_2(\omega)$ corresponding
to
main and satellite lines, respectively, are given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:t1}
J_1(\omega)&=&\sum_k|\langle\Psi_f^{1k}|\Psi(\tau)\rangle|^2 \nonumber
\\
&=&\sum_k|\cos\varphi c_{ak}(\tau)-\sin\varphi c_{bk}(\tau)|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:t2}
J_2(\omega)&=&\sum_k|\langle\Psi_f^{2k}|\Psi(\tau)\rangle|^2 \nonumber
\\
&=&\sum_k|\sin\varphi c_{ak}(\tau)+\cos\varphi c_{bk}(\tau)|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau$ is a sufficiently large time. We let the system evolve for
a
time of the order $1/\eta$ to obtain converged results for a given
finite $%
V_0$. In principle, we should perform the calculation for a few small
values
of $\eta$ and then extrapolate to $\eta=0$ followed by an extrapolation
$%
V_0\to 0$. Here, for simplicity we have performed the calculation for
one
single small value of $V_0$. The calculation was performed for
$\eta=0.1$
eV, 0.08 eV, 0.02 eV, and the results were extrapolated to $\eta=0$
assuming
the $\eta$ dependence $a(\omega)\eta+b(\omega) \eta^2+c(\omega)$. The
error
in this approach occurs primarily for small $\tilde{\omega}(\lesssim 5$
eV),
and it is then less than 5\% in $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$.
The approach above gives the relative intensity of the main and
satellite
peaks
\begin{equation}
r(\omega)=\frac{J_2(\omega)}{J_1(\omega)}.
\end{equation}
It can be shown that the formulas (\ref{eq:t1}, \ref{eq:t2}) above give
identical results to the more conventional formulation (\ref{eq:pt3})
below,
by performing derivations of the type made in, e.g., Ref.
\onlinecite{auger}.
As an example of the results obtained in this formalism, we show in Fig.
\ref
{fig:Cu-dihalides} results for the copper dihalides CuBr$_{2}$,
CuCl$_{2}$
and CuF$_{2}$. The corresponding parameters are shown in Table \ref
{used-parameter} and were estimated from experiment.\cite{Laan} The
figure illustrates that there is a small ``overshoot'' for small
$\tilde{\omega}$
but that the sudden limit is reached fairly quickly as $\tilde{\omega}$
is further increased. We remind that in our CuCl$_{2}$ reference case
$\tilde{E}$=0.195 a.u.=5.3 eV.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{6cm}
\special{psfile=FIG5.ps}
\caption{The ratio $r(\protect\omega)$ between the satellite and
the main peak for the divalent copper compounds CuBr$_2$, CuCl$_2$,
and CuF$_2$. The parameters are given in Table II. The dotted lines
are the limit values ($ r(\infty)$) for the respective cases. }
\label{fig:Cu-dihalides}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Resolvent formulation}
Alternatively, we can work in the energy space, and obtain the spectrum
by
direct inversion of a resolvent operator. We consider the Hamiltonian
${\cal %
H}$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}={\cal H}_{0}+T+V, \label{eq:pt1}
\end{equation}
where by ${\cal H}_{0}$ we understand ${\cal H}_{0}(n_{c}=0)$. The exact
final photoemission state $|\Psi _{f}^{sk}\rangle $ is\cite{Hedinbook}
\begin{equation}
|\Psi _{f}^{sk}\rangle =\left[ 1+\frac{1}{E-{\cal H}_{0}-T-V-i\eta
}V\right]
|\psi _{s}\rangle |\psi _{k}\rangle , \label{eq:pt2}
\end{equation}
where $|\psi _{s}\rangle $ ($s=1,2$) (Eq. (\ref{eq:s4})) are the exact
(target) eigenstates of ${\cal H}_{0}(n_{c}=0)$ and $E=\epsilon
_{k}+E_{s}$
is the energy of the final state. Using Eq. (\ref{eq:pt2}) we calculate
the
matrix element $M(s,{k})\equiv \langle \Psi _{f}^{sk}|\Delta |\Psi
_{0}\rangle $
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M(s,{k}) \label{eq:pt3} \\
&=&\langle \psi _{k}|\langle \psi _{s}|\left[ 1+V\frac{1}{\epsilon
_{k}+E_{s}-{\cal H}_{0}-T-V+i\eta }\right] \Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Introducing a basis set
\begin{equation}
|i\rangle =|\psi _{s}\rangle |\psi _{k}\rangle , \label{eq:d1}
\end{equation}
the matrix elements of $V$ can then be written as
\begin{equation}
V_{ij}\equiv V_{ks,k^{^{\prime }}s{^{\prime }}}=V_{kk^{^{\prime
}}}v_{s}v_{s^{^{\prime }}}. \label{eq:d1a}
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation}
v_{s}=\cases{-{\rm sin}\varphi,& if $s=1$;\cr {\rm cos}\varphi,& if
$s=2$,\cr} \label{eq:d1b}
\end{equation}
where we have used Eqs. (\ref{eq:8}, \ref{eq:s4}). The Hamiltonian
matrix
in this basis set is diagonalized, which gives the eigenvalues $\epsilon
_{\nu }$ and the eigenvectors
\begin{equation}
|\nu \rangle =\sum_{i}c_{i}^{\nu }|i\rangle . \label{eq:d2}
\end{equation}
We then have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M(s,k)\equiv M(i)= \label{eq:d3} \\
&&\langle i|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle +\sum_{\nu }\sum_{j,l}{\frac{%
V_{i,j}c_{j}^{\nu }c_{l}^{\nu }\langle l|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle
}{\epsilon
_{k}+E_{s}-\epsilon _{\nu }+i\eta }}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The quantities $\langle i|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle $ were given in Eq.
(\ref
{eq:s9}), $\langle i|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle =m_{i}=m_{sk}=M_{k}w_{s}$.
By
organizing the sums in Eq. (\ref{eq:d3}) appropriately, the calculation
of
this expression is very fast and the main time is spent in diagonalizing
the
Hamiltonian matrix. We have found this method to be more efficient than
the
time-dependent method above.
In the expression (\ref{eq:d3}), we can identify the first term as the
intrinsic contribution, since this is the amplitude which is obtained if
there is no interaction between the photoelectron and the target. The
extrinsic effects are then determined by the square of the absolute
value of
the second term. The interference between the intrinsic and extrinsic
contributions is given by the cross product of these terms.
\subsection{Separable potential}
It is interesting to consider a separable potential
\begin{equation}
V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}=\tilde{V}b_{k}b_{k^{^{\prime }}}, \label{eq:sep1}
\end{equation}
since it is then possible to obtain an analytical expression for
$r(\omega )$. The operator in the denominator of Eq. (\ref{eq:pt2})
is written as
\begin{equation}
(z-{\cal H}_{0}-T-V)_{ij}=d_{i}(z)\delta _{ij}-\tilde{V}c_{i}c_{j},
\label{eq:sep2}
\end{equation}
where again $|i\rangle =|s\rangle |k\rangle $ is a combined index for
the target state $s$ and the continuum state $k$ and $z$ is a (complex)
number. Then
\begin{equation}
d_{sk}(z)\equiv d_{i}(z)=z-E_{s}-\epsilon _{k} \label{eq:sep3}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
c_{i}\equiv c_{sk}=b_{k}v_{s}. \label{eq:sep4}
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $V$ is separable, it is then straightforward to
invert the expression in Eq. (\ref{eq:sep2}) and obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[(z-{\cal H}_{0}-T-V)^{-1}]_{ij} \label{eq:sep5} \\ \nonumber
&=&{\frac{\delta _{ij}}{d_{i}(z)}}+\tilde{V}{\frac{c_{i}c_{j}}{%
d_{i}(z)d_{j}(z)(1-\tilde{V}\sum_{l}c_{l}^{2}/d_{l}(z))}}.
\end{eqnarray}
This leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega )}}= \label{eq:sep6} \\
&&\left| {\frac{1+{\rm cos}\varphi D_{k_{2}}(E_{0}+\omega )/{\rm cos}%
(\varphi +\theta )}{1+{\rm sin}\varphi D_{k_{1}}(E_{0}+\omega )/{\rm
sin}%
(\varphi +\theta )}}\right| ^{2}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_{s}$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:s10}),
\begin{equation}
D_{k}(\epsilon
)=-{\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}_{s}}}{\frac{b_{k}E(\epsilon )}{%
M_{k}[1+(\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}_{s})C(\epsilon )]}}, \label{eq:sep7}
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{E}_{s}=1/(2\tilde{R}_{s}^{2})$ and
\begin{equation}
C(\epsilon )=-\tilde{E}_{s}\sum_{l}{\frac{c_{l}^{2}}{d_{l}(\epsilon
+i\eta )}%
} \label{eq:sep8}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
E(\epsilon )=-\tilde{E}_{s}\sum_{l}{\frac{c_{l}m_{l}}{d_{l}(\epsilon
+i\eta )%
}}. \label{eq:sep9}
\end{equation}
To obtain a model for $V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}$ we can, for instance, put
\begin{equation}
b_{k}=\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{R}_{s}}{R}}{\frac{(\tilde{R}_{s}k)^{2}}{1+(\tilde{R}%
_{s}k)^{3}}}. \label{eq:sep10}
\end{equation}
Compared with the expression in Eq. (\ref{eq:ma6}), there is no term $%
k-k^{^{\prime }}$ in the corresponding expression for $V_{kk^{^{\prime
}}}$
. The neglect of this term means that $V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}$ goes to zero
more slowly as one of the arguments $k$ or $k^{^{\prime }}$ goes to
infinity. To compensate for this we use the power three for
$\tilde{R}_{s}k$
in the denominator of (\ref{eq:sep10}), while in Eq. (\ref{eq:ma6}) the
corresponding power is two. This is a reasonable approximation for small
$k$%
, but it breaks down for large $k$.
\subsection{On the variables in the intensity ratio}
For the satellite to main line intensity ratio we have,
\[
r(\omega)=\frac{k_{1}}{k_{2}} \left|\frac{M(2,k_{2})}{M(1,k_{1})}%
\right|^{2}.
\]
This ratio does not depend on any constant factor in $M_{k}$, since
$M(s,k)$
is proportional to $M_{k}$. If we take the parameters $\tilde{R}_{d}$,
$%
\tilde{R}_{s}$, and $\tilde{R}_{sd}$ equal to a common typical radius $%
\tilde{R}$ (as will be motivated later), and use the analytic
expressions in
Eqs. (\ref{eq:ma4}) and (\ref{eq:ma6}) then $r(\omega)$ or $%
r(\omega)/r_{0}(\omega)$, apart from $\varphi$ and $\theta$, becomes a
function of $\delta E/\tilde{E}$, $\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}$, and
$\tilde{\omega }%
/\tilde{E}$, with $\tilde{E}= (2\tilde{R}^{2})^{-1}$. We can see this
since $%
M_{k}$ is a function of $k\tilde{R}$, and $V_{kk^{\prime }}$ a function
of $k%
\tilde{R}$ and $k^{\prime }\tilde{R}$ apart from their prefactors. The
prefactor of $V_{kk^{\prime}}$ is $\tilde{V}\tilde{R}/R$, while that for
$%
M_{k}$ has no influence. For each $V$ in a perturbation expansion of Eq.
(%
\ref{eq:pt3}) we have an energy denominator and a $k$-summation. The
$k$%
-summation gives an integral and a factor $Rdk.$ Using variables
$\tilde{R}k$%
, the $\tilde{R}/R$ in the prefactor vanishes. Factoring out $\tilde{E}$
in
the energy denominator, we have a factor $\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}$ for each
$%
V_{kk^{\prime}}$, and instead of $\delta E$ and $\tilde{\omega}$ we have
$%
\delta E/\tilde{E}$ and $\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{E}$.
With $\theta $ and $\varphi $ given, $\delta E$ is proportional to $U$.
$U$
in turn is equal to $-V_{sc}(0) $, and thus somehow related to the
strength
of the scattering potential $\tilde{V}.$ If we fix the value of the
sudden
limit $r_{00}=\cot^{2}\left(\varphi+\theta\right)$ by choosing one of
the
angles, we still have an independent parameter left. This parameter can
be
used to decouple the relation between $\delta E$ and $\tilde{V}$
(whatever
it is). Summarizing, we have found that the parameters of our model
system
appear as the angles $\theta $ and $\varphi$, and the excitation energy
$%
\delta E$ (or $U$), while the coupling between the photoelectron and the
model system only appears in one parameter,
$\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}=2\tilde{V}%
\tilde{R}^{2}$, provided we use $\tilde{\omega }/\tilde{E}$ as variable.
We
have further motivated that we can vary the parameters $\delta E$ and $%
\tilde{V}$ independently.
\section{Approximate treatments}
\subsection{Perturbation approach to lowest order in
$V_{\lowercase{kk^{\prime}}}$}
\label{sec:pert}
The same problem can be also studied using the standard perturbation
approach. We consider the expression for the matrix elements $M(s,k)$ in
Eq. (\ref{eq:pt3}). To lowest order in $V$, we can neglect $V$ in the
denominator of Eq. (\ref{eq:pt3}). Inserting the completeness relation
$ \sum_{i}|i\rangle \langle i|=1$ in terms of eigenstates $|i\rangle
\equiv
|k\rangle |s\rangle $ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M(s,k)=\langle s|\langle k|\Delta |\Psi _{0}\rangle \label{eq:pt0}
\\
&&+\sum_{k^{^{\prime }}s^{^{\prime }}}V_{ks,k^{^{\prime }}s^{^{\prime
}}}[(E-%
{\cal H}_{0}-T+i\eta )^{-1}]_{k^{^{\prime }}s^{^{\prime }},k^{^{\prime
}}s^{^{\prime }}}\langle s^{^{\prime }}|\langle k^{^{\prime }}|\Delta
|\Psi
_{0}\rangle . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Using Eqs. (\ref{eq:d1a}, \ref{eq:d1b}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&M&(1,k)=-\sin (\varphi +\theta )M_{k} \nonumber \\
&-&\sin ^{2}\varphi \sin (\varphi +\theta )\sum_{k^{\prime }}\left[
\frac{%
V_{kk^{\prime }}M_{k^{\prime }}}{E-E_{1}-\epsilon _{k^{\prime }}+i\eta
}%
\right] \nonumber \\
&-&\frac{\sin 2\varphi \cos (\varphi +\theta )}{2}\sum_{k^{\prime
}}\left[
\frac{V_{kk^{\prime }}M_{k^{\prime }}}{E-E_{2}-\epsilon _{k^{\prime
}}+i\eta
}\right] , \label{eq:pt4}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&M&(2,k)=\cos (\varphi +\theta )M_{k} \nonumber \\
&+&\cos ^{2}\varphi \cos (\varphi +\theta )\sum_{k^{\prime }}\left[
\frac{%
V_{kk^{\prime }}M_{k^{\prime }}}{E-E_{2}-\epsilon _{k^{\prime }}+i\eta
}%
\right] \nonumber \\
&+&\frac{\sin 2\varphi \sin (\varphi +\theta )}{2}\sum_{k^{\prime
}}\left[
\frac{V_{kk^{\prime }}M_{k^{\prime }}}{E-E_{1}-\epsilon _{k^{\prime
}}+i\eta
}\right] , \label{eq:pt5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_{kk^{\prime }}=\langle k|V_{sc}|k^{\prime }\rangle $ and $%
M_{k}=\langle k|\Delta |\psi _{c}\rangle $. We can then immediately
calculate the photoemission spectra using Eq.~(\ref{eq:s8}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{8.5cm}
\special{psfile=FIG6.ps}
\caption{$r(\protect\omega)/r_0(\protect\omega)$ from the semi-classical
approximation (SC), the first order perturbation expansion (PT) as well
as
the exact time evolution calculations for different values of the
excitation
energy $\protect\delta E$ and for $U/t=5.76$. The remaining parameters
are
taken from CuCl$_2$ ($R_0^{{\rm Cl}}=4.71$ a.u.). }
\label{fig:ex_energy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{8.5cm}
\special{psfile=FIG7.ps}
\caption{The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:ex_energy} but varying the range
$DR_0$
instead of $\protect\delta E$, where $D$ is a scale factor. The
parameters
of CuCl$_2$ are used. }
\label{fig:range}
\end{figure}
In Figs. \ref{fig:ex_energy} and \ref{fig:range} we compare the
perturbation
expansion with the exact time dependent calculation for a realistic
scattering potential in the symmetric case. In the symmetric case we
have $%
\delta E=2t\sqrt{1+r_{00}}= (U/2)\sqrt{1+1/r_{00}}$, and $U=-V_{sc}(0)$.
Since the ratio $r_0(\omega)$ was discussed extensively in Sec. \ref
{sec:sudden}, we here focus on $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$, which describes
the
effect of the scattering potential. We vary the excitation energy
$\delta E$
by varying $t$, while keeping $r_{00}$ constant. We also vary the
potential
range by replacing $R_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:m4}) by $DR_0$ and then varying
$D$%
. With $r_{00}$ fixed, $\delta E$ is proportional to $V_{sc}(0)$. Thus a
small $\delta E$ and a small $D$ make the perturbation weak. The
calculations are made for a range of parameter values around those given
for CuCl$_2$ in Table \ref{used-parameter}.
\subsection{Semi-classical approach}
\label{sec:semi}
We can also perform the photoemission calculation by assuming a
classical
trajectory of the emitted photoelectron\cite{Mahan}, producing a
time-dependent potential which drives the dynamics of the the model. It
has been reported that the semi-classical approach can give the
unexpectedly good results for the systems with coupling to
plasmons.\cite{Lars98,Inglesfield,Bardy} The essence of the
semi-classical approach is to replace the scattering potential
$V_{sc}(r)$ by a time-dependent potential using the charge density
$\rho ({\bf r},\tau )$ of the emitted electron, {\it i.e.}
\begin{equation}
V_{sc}(r)\rightarrow \int d{\bf r}V_{sc}(r)\rho ({\bf r},\tau
)=V_{sc}(v\tau
), \label{eq:c1}
\end{equation}
where we have used $\rho ({\bf r},\tau )=\delta ({\bf r}-{\bf v}\tau )$.
We
can then write the Hamiltonian as
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}(\tau )={\cal H}_{0}(n_{c}=0)+V(\tau ), \label{eq:c2}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal H}_{0}(n_{c}=0)$ can be expressed in terms of the exact
final
states ($\psi _{1}$ and $\psi _{2}$) in the presence of a core hole
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{0}(n_{c}=0)=E_{1}\psi _{1}^{\dagger }\psi _{1}+E_{2}\psi
_{2}^{\dagger }\psi _{2}. \label{eq:c3}
\end{equation}
The time-dependent potential takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:c4}
&&V(\tau )=n_{b}V_{sc}(v\tau ) \nonumber \\
&=&V_{11}(\tau )\psi _{1}^{\dagger }\psi _{1}+V_{22}(\tau )\psi
_{2}^{\dagger }\psi _{2}+V_{12}(\tau )(\psi _{1}^{\dagger }\psi
_{2}+\psi
_{2}^{\dagger }\psi _{1}), \nonumber \\
&&
\end{eqnarray}
where (cf.~Eq. (\ref{eq:d1b}))
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:c5}
V_{11}(\tau ) &=&\sin ^{2}\varphi V_{sc}(v\tau ),\hskip0.3cmV_{22}(\tau
)=\cos ^{2}\varphi V_{sc}(v\tau ), \nonumber \\
V_{12}(\tau ) &=&V_{21}(\tau )=-{\frac{1}{2}}\sin 2\varphi V_{sc}(v\tau
).
\end{eqnarray}
The remaining system (target) is still purely quantum mechanical, and we
write its time-dependent wave function $|\Psi (\tau )\rangle $ as
\begin{equation}
|\Psi (\tau )\rangle =a_{1v}(\tau )|\psi _{1}\rangle e^{-iE_{1}\tau
}+a_{2v}(\tau )|\psi _{2}\rangle e^{-iE_{2}\tau }. \label{eq:c6}
\end{equation}
The classical electron velocity $v$ is determined by energy
conservation,
that is, $\frac{1}{2}v^{2}=\tilde{\omega}$. We have here chosen the
velocity
corresponding to the satellite. We could also have performed two
calculations, with the velocities corresponding to the leading peak and
to
the satellite, respectively. In contrast to the approach used here,
this would, however, lead to the problem that the spectral weight
would not be normalized. Applying the time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger
equation to $|\Psi (\tau )\rangle $, we obtain $a_{1v}(\tau )$ and
$a_{2v}(\tau )$,
\begin{equation}
i\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau }a_{1v}(\tau )=V_{11}(\tau )a_{1v}(\tau
)+V_{12}(\tau )a_{2v}(\tau )e^{-i\delta E\tau }, \label{eq:c7}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
i\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau }a_{2v}(\tau )=V_{22}(\tau )a_{2v}(\tau
)+V_{21}(\tau )a_{1v}(\tau )e^{i\delta E\tau }, \label{eq:c8}
\end{equation}
where $\delta E$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:s7})) is the optical excitation energy.
Eqs.~(%
\ref{eq:c7}) and (\ref{eq:c8}) are subject to the initial conditions
(cf Eq. \ref{eq:s9})
\begin{equation}
a_{sv}(0)=w_{s}.
\end{equation}
The final photoemission currents $J_{i}(\omega )$ is
\begin{equation}
J_{i}(\omega )\propto |a_{iv}(\tau _{0})|^{2},\mbox{ }\mbox{ }i=1,2.
\end{equation}
It is sufficient to perform the calculation up to $\tau =\tau _{0}\equiv
R_{0}/v$, since the potential vanishes for larger values of $\tau $. The
relative intensity between main and satellite contributions is given by
$%
r(\omega )=J_{2}(\omega )/J_{1}(\omega )$ as before.
In Figs. \ref{fig:ex_energy} and \ref{fig:range} we compare the
semi-classical and exact results for a realistic potential in the
symmetric
case. The semi-classical theory is inaccurate over most of the energy
range
considered here. For large energies however, the semi-classical theory
comes
much closer to the exact result than does the PT. It is also clear that
an
increasing $\delta E$ ($\simeq V_{sc}(0)$) does not noticeably affect
the
energy for the adiabatic-sudden transition, where it strongly effects
the
maximum deviation. An increasing $D$ on the other hand not only strongly
increases the maximum deviation, but also makes the adiabatic-sudden
transition energy smaller. The dependence on the parameters will be
investigated more extensively in the next section.
\section{Adiabatic-sudden transition}
\label{sec:adiabatic}
We are now in a position to address the adiabatic-sudden transition and
its
dependence on the parameters. The calculations are performed with the
analytical matrix elements in Eqs. (\ref{eq:ma4}, \ref{eq:ma6}). First
we
study the different characteristic lengths, $\tilde{R}_{d}$ for the
dipole
matrix elements, and $\tilde{R}_{s}$ and $\tilde{R}_{sd}$ for the
scattering
potential matrix elements. We find that it makes sense to use only one
effective length $\tilde{R}$, and the corresponding energy
$\tilde{E}=1/(2\tilde{R}^{2})$.
As we remarked in Sec. VD, $r/r_{0}$ as a function of $%
\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{E}$ depends on the parameters $\delta E/\tilde{E}$
and
$\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}$, and also on the ''system'' parameters $\theta $
and $%
\varphi $. We vary $\delta E$ independently of $\tilde{V}$, although for
a
given model there is a direct relation between these two quantities.
Part of
this relation can be offset by using different $\theta $ and $\varphi $
(with $r_{00}$ constant) but we do not explore this possibility. The
exact
solution with a separable potential is used to discuss the validity and
breakdown of perturbation theory. We find that $\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}$
has a large effect on the deviation from the sudden limit, but little
effect on the value of $\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{E}$ where the deviation
becomes small,
while $\delta E/\tilde{E}$ has a comparatively small effect on both
magnitude and range of the deviation. For simplicity we use the
CuCl$_{2}$ parameters $\theta=\varphi= 0.3$, which gives $r_{00}=2.1$.
For CuCl$_2$ we further have $\tilde{V}$=-0.36 a.u.,
$\tilde{E}$=0.195 a.u. ($\tilde{R}$=1.6 a.u.), and $\delta E=0.237$
a.u., i.e., $\tilde V/\tilde E=-1.85$ and $\delta E/\tilde V=-0.66$.
In our calculations, we vary $\tilde V/\tilde E$ and $\delta E/\tilde V$
by typically a factor of two around these reference values.
\subsection{Exact numerical treatment with analytic matrix elements}
We first illustrate the dependence on the ratio between the length
scales $ \tilde{R}_{d}$, $\tilde{R}_{s},$ and $\tilde{R}_{sd}$. In Fig.
\ref{fig:rd}
we show the results for different ratios $\tilde{R}_{d}/\tilde{R}_{s}$
keeping $\tilde{R}_{sd}/\tilde{R}_{d}=1$. These results are obtained for
$%
\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}_{s}=-2.0$ and $\delta E/\tilde{V}=-0.5$, where
$\tilde{E}%
_{s}=1/(2\tilde{R}_{s}^{2})$ is the energy scale set by the scattering
potential length scale. Fig. \ref{fig:rd} shows that as $\tilde{R}_{d}/%
\tilde{R}_{s}$ is reduced the magnitude of the "overshoot" is increased.
There are, however, no qualitative changes.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\rotatebox{-90}{\epsfysize=3.5in
\epsffile{FIG8.ps}}}
\caption{The ratio $r(\protect\omega)/r_0(\protect\omega)$ as a function
of $ \tilde R_d/\tilde R_s$ for a fixed $\tilde R_{sd}/\tilde R_s=1$
and for $\protect\varphi=\protect\theta=0.3$. The figure illustrates
that there are no qualitative changes as the length scales for the
dipole and scattering matrix elements become different.}
\label{fig:rd}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:rsd} shows results for different values of
$\tilde{R}_{sd}/ \tilde{R}_{s}$ for a fixed $\tilde{R}_{d}/
\tilde{R}_{s}=1$. From Eq. (\ref {eq:ma6}) it can been seen
that this corresponds to varying the range of values $k-k^{^{\prime }}$
where $V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}$ is large, without changing the range
over which $V_{kk}$ varies. The figure illustrates that the overshoot
becomes larger as $\tilde{R}_{sd}/\tilde{R}_{s}$ is reduced.
This is natural, since decreasing $\tilde{R}_{sd}$ effectively makes the
scattering potential stronger by expanding the range of values $
k-k^{^{\prime }}$ with large scattering matrix elements. The qualitative
behaviour, however, is not changed. In view of Figs. \ref{fig:rd} and
\ref {fig:rsd}, we study below the case when $\tilde{R}_{sd}=
\tilde{R}_{s}=\tilde{ R}_{d}$, as mentioned in Sec. VD.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\rotatebox{-90}{\epsfysize=3.5in
\epsffile{FIG9.ps}}}
\caption{The ratio $r(\protect\omega)/r_0(\protect\omega)$ as
a function of $\tilde R_{sd}/\tilde R_s$ for a fixed $\tilde
R_{d}/\tilde R_s=1$ and for $\protect\varphi=\protect\theta=0.3$.
The figure illustrates that there is no qualitative changes as
the ratio of the two length scales in the scattering matrix
elements is varied.}
\label{fig:rsd}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:strength} shows such results for different values of the
strength of the scattering potential $\tilde V/\tilde E$ and for
different values of the excitation energy $\delta E/\tilde V$.
In each panel $\delta E /\tilde V$ is kept fixed, but the ratio
is varied by a factor of four from Fig. \ref{fig:strength}a to
Fig. \ref{fig:strength}c. Typically $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$ has
an overshoot for small values of $\tilde{\omega}$. For somewhat
larger $\omega$ the ratio approaches unity and possibly becomes
smaller than unity. The overshoot can be fairly large and happens
on a small energy scale ($\sim \tilde E$). In a
few cases of a large overshoot, $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$ does not become
approximately unity until $\tilde{\omega}$ is several times $\tilde E$,
although the relevant energy scale is still $\tilde E$. In the case of
an
undershoot, $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$ approaches unity from below very
slowly
(energy scale much larger than $\tilde E$). The undershoot is, however,
relatively small, and if we do not require a high accuracy, we consider
the
sudden approximation is valid when the overshoot becomes small. This
means
that as the range of the scattering potential is made larger, the sudden
limit is reached at a smaller energy. This is the opposite to what one
would
expect from the semi-classical theory. The figure illustrates that
$\delta E$
is not the relevant energy scale. Since in each panel we keep $\delta
E/%
\tilde V$ fixed, there is a variation of $\delta E/\tilde{E}$ by a
factor of
four. Furthermore there is a variation of $\delta E/\tilde{V}$ by a
factor
of four in going from the top to the bottom panel in Fig.
\ref{fig:strength}. There is no corresponding change in the energy
for the adiabatic to sudden transition.
\subsection{Separable potential}
It is interesting to study a separable potential, since it is then
possible
to obtain an analytical solution. This makes it easier to interpret the
results. It also allows the study the effects of multiple scattering,
i.e. the deviations from first order perturbation theory. Fig.
\ref{fig:separable}
shows results of the exact and first order theory using the same values
of $ \delta E/\tilde{V}$ and $\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}$ as in Fig.
\ref{fig:strength}b. The separable potential
overestimates the magnitude of the overshoot in $r(\omega )/
r_{0}(\omega)$ quite substantially. Otherwise the results are rather
similar. For a qualitative
discussion, we can therefore use the separable potential.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\rotatebox{-90}{\epsfxsize=2.5in
\epsffile{FIG10.ps}}}
\vskip0.8cm
\caption{The ratio $r(\protect\omega )/r_{0}(\protect\omega )$ as a
function
of $\tilde{\protect\omega}/\tilde{E}$ for different values of
$\tilde{V}/%
\tilde{E}$ and $\protect\delta E/\tilde{V}$ and for $\protect\varphi =%
\protect\theta =0.3$. The figure illustrates that $\tilde{E}$ is an
appropriate energy scale for the adiabatic to sudden transition.}
\label{fig:strength}
\end{figure}
For simplicity, we consider $\delta E=0$. We further put
$M_{k}=(\tilde{R}k)^{2}/\left[ 1+(\tilde{R}k)^{3}\right] =b_{k}$.
This is a poor approximation for large $k$, but then anyhow also
$V_{kk^{\prime }}$ is poorly represented by the separable potential.
Our approximations lead to simple results for the functions $C$,
$D$ and $E$ entering in Eqs. (\ref{eq:sep6}-\ref{eq:sep10}).
\begin{equation}
C(\epsilon )=-\tilde{E}\sum_{k^{^{\prime }}}{\frac{b_{k^{^{\prime
}}}^{2}}{%
\epsilon -\epsilon _{k^{^{\prime }}}+i\eta }} \label{eq:as1}
\end{equation}
and $E(\epsilon )={\rm cos}\theta \tilde{M}C(\epsilon )$. Then
\begin{equation}
D(\epsilon )=-{\rm cos}\theta
{\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}}{\frac{C(\epsilon
)}{1+(\tilde{V}/\tilde{E})C(\epsilon )}}. \label{eq:as2}
\end{equation}
Since $D_{k}$ is independent of $k$ in this approximation, we have
dropped
the index $k$. The function $C(\epsilon )$ is shown in Fig. \ref
{fig:universal}. For $\varphi =\theta $ we can then write
\begin{equation}
{\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega )}}=\left| {\frac{1-\frac{{\rm cos}%
^{2}\varphi }{{\rm cos}2\varphi
}\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}C(\tilde{\omega}%
)/[1+\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}C(\tilde{\omega})]}{1-\frac{1}{2}\frac{%
\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}C(\tilde{\omega})/[1+\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}C(%
\tilde{\omega})]}}\right| ^{2}. \label{eq:as3}
\end{equation}
For a level ordering as indicated in Fig. \ref{fig:schematic},
$0<\varphi
<\pi /4$ and cos$^{2}\varphi /{\rm cos}(2\varphi )\geq 1$. In our
standard
case with $\varphi =0.3$, $\cos ^{2}\varphi /\cos (2\varphi )=1.11$.
Thus
the term in the numerator of Eq. (\ref{eq:as3}) dominates. The factor
$1+(%
\tilde{V}/\tilde{E})C(\tilde{\omega})$ gives the multiple scattering,
which
is not included in the first order perturbation theory, i.e. the first
order
result is
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega )}\right] _{{\rm PT}}=\left|
\frac{1-%
\frac{\cos ^{2}\varphi }{\cos 2\varphi
}\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}C(\tilde{%
\omega})}{1-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}C(\tilde{\omega})}\right|
^{2}. \label{eq:as3a}
\end{equation}
We now compare the behaviors of Eqs. (\ref{eq:as3}) and (\ref{eq:as3a}),
to see the effects of using perturbation theory. For small values of
$\tilde{\omega}$, Re$C(\tilde{\omega})$ is positive and then changes
sign at about $\tilde{ \omega}/\tilde{E}\sim 2$. Im $C(\tilde{\omega})$
is always positive. Due to
our crude approximations for $b_{k}$ and $M_{k}$, $C(\tilde{\omega})$
rapidly becomes unreliable beyond $\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{E}=2$. Both for
the exact and perturbative expressions $r/r_{0}$ goes from over- to
undershoot approximately when Re$C(\tilde{\omega})=0$. This is somewhat
earlier than in Fig. 11, where however $\delta E=0.5$.
Comparing $r(\omega)/r_{0}(\omega )$
for the exact (Eq. (\ref{eq:as3})) and the first order result (Eq. (\ref
{eq:as3a})), we find that the exact solution is larger when ${\rm Re}C(%
\tilde{\omega})\gtrsim {\rm Im}C(\tilde{\omega})$, cf Fig. \ref
{fig:separable}. This is consistent with second order perturbation
theory, which is found to enhance $r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$ for small
$\tilde{ \omega}$ and reduce it for large $\tilde{\omega}$. For
$\tilde{\omega}=0$, $C(\tilde{\omega})$ is purely real and slightly
larger than 0.1, thus multiple scattering gives a divergence in both
$J_{1}(\tilde{\omega})$ and $J_{2}(\tilde{\omega})$ when
$\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}\sim -10$. This is due to the attractive potential
$V$ forming a bound state from the continuum states.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{9.5cm}
\special{psfile=FIG11.ps}
\caption{The ratio $r(\protect\omega)/r_0(\protect\omega)$ for a
separable scattering potential (\ref{eq:sep1}). According to the
exact result in upper
panel, the overshoot is substantially overestimated by the separable
potential compared to Fig. \ref{fig:strength}b, but there is still a
qualitative agreement with the more realistic model (\ref{eq:ma6}). The
lower panel shows how perturbation theory works and it illustrates the
effects of multiple scattering. }
\label{fig:separable}
\end{figure}
The important conclusion from analysing the separable potential is
that if $\tilde V$ is not too large, first order perturbation
theory gives roughly the correct range over which there are essential
deviations from the sudden limit, while multiple scattering
increases the magnitude of these deviations for small $\tilde{\omega}$
and slightly decreases them for larger $\tilde{\omega}$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{9.5cm}
\special{psfile=FIG12.ps}
\caption{The function $C(\epsilon)$ relevant for a separable
potential is given in the upper panel. The low panel gives the
behaviors of $F(\epsilon)$ defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:Fk1}).
The dotted lines give the asymptotic behaviors of $F(\epsilon)$
in Eq.(\ref{eq:apt8}). }
\label{fig:universal}
\end{figure}
We next discuss the physical interpretation of the expression
(\ref{eq:as3}) (or the perturbational expressions in (\ref{eq:pt0},
\ref{eq:pt4}, \ref{eq:pt5})). Here unity (the first term in
(\ref{eq:pt0}, \ref{eq:pt4}, \ref{eq:pt5})) corresponds to
a direct transition into the final continuum state
corresponding to energy conservation. The second term
(the last two terms in (\ref{eq:pt0}, \ref{eq:pt4}, \ref{eq:pt5}))
corresponds to a virtual transition into some other
continuum state followed by one or several scattering events
with the electron ending up in the continuum state corresponding
to energy conservation. Let us consider
the virtual emission into a continuum state with a larger
energy than the final state and let this be followed by one
scattering event into the final state. For a negative $\tilde V$
the interference with the direct event is then constructive.
For small photon energies such events dominate for two reasons.
Firstly, there are many more states available above the energy
corresponding to energy conservation than below, and secondly
the dipole matrix elements suppress the transitions to the
energies below. As a result, both the main peak and the satellite
are enhanced by the scattering effects. For the values of $\varphi$
and $\theta$ considered here ($<\pi/4$), the relative effect is
stronger for the satellite. As a result $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$
is enhanced. For larger photon energies Re$C(\tilde{\omega})$
becomes negative. The density of states of partial waves
with given $l$ and $m$ quantum numbers decreases with
energy ($\sim 1/\sqrt{\epsilon})$). This favours virtual
emissions to states below the final continuum state. Depending
on the model for $b_k$ and $M_k$, these matrix elements
may have the same effect. As a result, Re $C(\tilde{\omega})$ becomes
slightly negative for large energies and the ratio
$r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$ is slightly smaller than one.
The relevant energy scale for $C(\omega)$ is $\tilde E$. This is a
combination of the two effects discussed above. The turn on of
the dipole matrix elements on an energy scale of the order $\tilde E$
favors an increasing value of $C$ over this energy scale, while the density
of states effects becomes more important for larger energies. As a result,
both Re $C(\omega)$ and Im $C(\omega)$ have a maximum at an energy
of the order $\tilde E$.
\subsection{Perturbational treatment with analytic matrix elements}
In this section we study the perturbation theory expression in more
detail and without relying on a separable potential. Instead we
consider the more realistic matrix elements in Eqs. (\ref{eq:ma4})
and (\ref{eq:ma6}), assuming that $\tilde{R}_{d}=\tilde{R}_{s}=
\tilde{R}_{sd}=\tilde{R}$. We define a function $F_{k}$ by
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k^{^{\prime }}}{\frac{V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}M_{k^{^{\prime
}}}}{\epsilon
-\epsilon _{k^{^{\prime }}}+i\eta }}\equiv
-{\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}}%
M_{k}F_{k}(\epsilon /\tilde{E}), \label{eq:Fk1}
\end{equation}
which is possible due to the simple form of $V_{kk^{^{\prime }}}$ and $%
M_{k^{^{\prime }}}$. Explicitly we have
\begin{equation}
F_{k}\left( \epsilon \right) =\frac{1}{\pi }\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{%
x^{4}dx}{\left[ 1+x^{2}\right] ^{2}\left[ 1+\left(
\tilde{R}k-x\right)
^{2}\right] \left[ x^{2}-\epsilon -i\eta \right] }. \label{eq:Fk2}
\end{equation}
From Eqs. \ref{eq:pt4} and \ref{eq:pt5} we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:as4}
& &\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega )}=
\\ \nonumber
& &\left| \frac{%
1-\cos ^{2}\varphi
{\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}}F_{k_{2}}\left(\frac{\tilde{\omega }}%
{\tilde{E}}\right)-\frac{\sin 2\varphi \sin (\varphi +\theta )}{2\cos (\varphi
+\theta )}{\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}}F_{k_{2}}\left(\frac{
\tilde{\omega }
+\delta E}{\tilde{E}}\right)}{1-\sin ^{2}\varphi
{\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}%
}F_{k_{1}}\left(\frac{\tilde{\omega }+\delta E}
{\tilde{E}}\right)-\frac{\sin
2\varphi \cos (\varphi +\theta )}{2\sin (\varphi +\theta
)}{\frac{\tilde{V}}{ \tilde{E}}}F_{k_{1}}\left(\frac{\tilde{\omega }}
{\tilde{E}}\right)}\right| ^{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\tilde{R}k_{2}=\sqrt{\tilde{\omega }/\tilde{E}}$ and $%
\tilde{R}k_{1}=\sqrt{\left( \tilde{\omega }+\delta E\right)
/\tilde{E%
}}$ we see, as stated earlier, that $r/r_{0}$ depends only on
$\tilde{V}/%
\tilde{E}$, $\delta E/\tilde{E}$ and $\tilde{\omega
}/\tilde{E}.$
First we consider the limit of small values of $k$ and $\delta E$. For
$ \tilde{\omega }=\delta E=0$ we have $F_{0}\left( 0\right) =1/16$,
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{r(0)}{r_{0}(0)}=\left[ {\frac{1+\frac{|\tilde{V}|}{\tilde{E}%
}\cos \varphi \cos \theta /(16\cos (\varphi +\theta ))}{1+\frac{
|%
\tilde{V}|}{\tilde{E}} \sin \varphi \cos \theta /(16\sin
(\varphi
+\theta ))}}\right] ^{2}. \label{eq:apt7}
\end{equation}
If the more localized level $a$ is above $b$ (see Fig.
\ref{fig:schematic})
in the initial state and below $b$ in the final state (``shake-down''),
we have $0<\varphi <\pi /4$ and $0<\theta <\pi /4$, and the factor in
the brackets is larger than unity. Thus interaction effects enhance
the ratio $r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$. This corresponds to a constructive
interference between intrinsic and extrinsic effects. This is in
contrast to the destructive interference found for the plasmon
case.\cite{Lars98,plasmon} The present treatment, however, refers to
the ``shake-down'' scenario, and
it is more appropriate to compare the plasmon case with the ''shake up''
case ($-\pi /4<\varphi <0<\theta <\pi /4$ and $\varphi +\theta <0$).
Then
the expression (\ref{eq:apt7}) for $r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$ indeed
becomes smaller than one, and the relative weight of the satellite is
reduced for small energies. We notice, however, that both the satellite
and the main peak are enhanced by the interference, but that the main peak
is enhanced more in the ''shake-up'' situation.
We next consider the case when $k$ is large.
$F_{k}\left(
\epsilon \right) $ for large $k$ and $\epsilon $ is (with
$\tilde{R }k\approx \sqrt{\epsilon }$)
\begin{equation}
F_{k}\left( \epsilon \right) =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\epsilon }}\left[
i- \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\epsilon }}+\tilde{R}k-\sqrt{\epsilon}\right].
\label{eq:apt8}
\end{equation}
For the case when $\theta =\varphi $ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega)}-1=-{\frac{|\tilde{V
}|}{2\tilde{\omega }}\frac{1+\delta E/\tilde{E}}{2\cos (2\varphi
)}+ \frac{|\tilde{V}|^{2}}{4\tilde{\omega }\tilde{E}}}\left(
{\frac{\cos^{4}\varphi }{\cos^{2}(2\varphi )}}-{\frac{1}{4}}\right).
\label{eq:apt8a}
\end{equation}
Thus the approach to the sudden limit goes as $1/\tilde{\omega }$
with a coefficient which depends on the parameters. With our standard
CuCl$_{2}$ parameters, we have
\[
\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega )}-1=-0.30{\frac{|%
\tilde{V}|}{\tilde{\omega }}}\left( 1+\frac{\delta
E}{\tilde{E}}%
\right) +0.24{\frac{|\tilde{V}|^{2}}{\tilde{\omega }\tilde{E}}}
\]
We note that for large $|\tilde{V}|/\tilde{E}$, and when
$|\tilde{V}|$ is large enough compared to $\delta E,$ the last
(positive) term dominates. The approach to the sudden limit is
then set by $|\tilde{V}|^{2}/\tilde{E }=2\left( \tilde{R}
\tilde{V}\right) ^{2}$.
To evaluate Eq.(\ref{eq:as4}) when $\delta E=0$ we only need the function
$F(\epsilon)$,
$$
F\left( \epsilon \right) =\frac{1}{\pi }\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{%
x^{4}dx}{\left[ 1+x^{2}\right] ^{2}\left[ 1+\left(
\sqrt{\epsilon}-x\right)
^{2}\right] \left[ x^{2}-\epsilon -i\eta \right] }.
$$
We show $F\left( \epsilon \right) $ in the lower panel of
Fig.\ref{fig:universal}. The
results Eq. (\ref{eq:apt8}) for large values of $\epsilon $ are shown by
the dotted lines in the figure. Clearly the approach of Re $%
F$ to its asymptote is very slow. If we take $\delta E=0$
we have the same form as in first order perturbation theory
with a separable potential Eq. (\ref{eq:as3a}),
\begin{equation}
\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{0}(\omega )}=\left| \frac{1-\frac{\cos ^{2}\varphi
}{%
\cos 2\varphi
}\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}F(\tilde{\omega})}{1-\frac{1}{2}%
\frac{\tilde{V}}{\tilde{E}}F(\tilde{\omega})}\right| ^{2},
\label{eq:apt100}
\end{equation}
where we have put $\varphi=\theta$.
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:universal}, $F(\epsilon )$ has a qualitatively
similar behavior as $C(\epsilon )$ for $\epsilon/\tilde E\lesssim 2$.
As in the case of the function $C$, the relevant energy scale is
$\tilde E$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{1.cm}
\centerline{\rotatebox{-90}{\epsfxsize=2.5in \epsffile{FIG13.ps}}}
\vskip0.8cm
\caption[]{\label{fig:pert}
The ratio $r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$ as a function of
$\tilde{\omega}/\tilde E$ for different values of
$\tilde V/\tilde E$ and $\delta E/\tilde V$.}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:pert} we show $r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$ as a function
of $%
\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{E}$ for a few values of $\delta E/\tilde{V}$ and
$%
\tilde{V}/\tilde{E}$. We see that $r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$ starts at
a
positive value (cf Eq.~(\ref{eq:apt7})), and reaches a broad maximum at
about $\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{E}\sim 0.5-1.5$. Compared to the separable
potential solution in Fig. \ref{fig:separable}, the overshoot behavior
is
robust up to fairly large energies, which is due to
Im$F(\tilde{\omega})$
decaying more slowly than Im$C(\tilde{\omega})$. For much larger values
of $%
\omega ,$ $\left( r/r_{0}-1\right) $ decays as $1/\tilde{\omega}$, as
shown
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:apt8a}). Here, based on the discussion in Sec. VIIB, we
can
expect that as multiple scattering becomes important, the region where
there
is an overshoot is substantially reduced and the region with an
undershoot
becomes larger. At the same time, the overshoot intensity will be
enhanced.
These behaviors are actually confirmed by comparing with the exact
calculations given in Fig. \ref{fig:strength}.
Fig. \ref{fig:pert} illustrates that for intermediate values of
$\tilde{%
\omega}$, when Re$F$ dominates, $\left( r/r_{0}-1\right) $ goes as
roughly $%
|\tilde{V}|/\tilde{\omega}$ if $\delta E/\tilde{E}$ is not too large.
For
larger (but not too large) values of $\tilde{\omega}$, Re$F$ becomes
small
and Im$F$ dominates.
Since Re$F$ is positive for small energies, this leads to a constructive
interference between intrinsic and extrinsic effects. For energies of
the order $\tilde{E}$,
Re$F$ changes sign, and the interference becomes weakly
destructive. For somewhat larger energies the extrinsic effects are
mainly
determined by the imaginary part of $F$. From Eq. (\ref{eq:apt8a}) it
follows
that in perturbation theory the extrinsic effects become small on the
energy
scale $\tilde{V}^{2}/\tilde{E}$.
\subsection{Semi-classical approximation}
In this section we analyze the adiabatic-sudden transition within the
semi-classical framework. From the coupled differential equations
Eqs.~(\ref
{eq:c7}) and (\ref{eq:c8}) we can obtain differential equations for $%
\partial |a_{iv}(\tau )|^{2}/\partial \tau $, $i=1,2$. Integration of
these
equations, leads to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:a1}
&&|a_{2v}(\tau _{0})|^{2}-|a_{2v}(0)|^{2} \nonumber \\
&=&2{\rm Im}\int_{0}^{\tau _{0}}V_{12}(\tau )a_{1v}(\tau )a_{2v}^{\ast
}(\tau )e^{i\delta E\tau }d\tau ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau _{0}=R_{0}/v$ is the time at which the emitted electron with
the
velocity $v$ leaves the range $R_{0}$ of the scattering potential. $%
|a_{iv}(\tau _{0})|^{2}-|a_{iv}(0)|^{2}$ is a measure of the deviation
from
the sudden limit. For small values of $\tau $ both the coefficients $%
a_{iv}(\tau )$ and the exponent $e^{i\delta E\tau }$ are approximately
real
and there is a small contribution to the imaginary part of the integral
in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:a1}). As $\tau $ grows there is, however, a contribution
from
both these sources.
To obtain a qualitative understanding of the semi-classical
approximation,
we solve the Schr\"{o}dinger equations Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c7}) and
(\ref{eq:c8})
to lowest order in $1/v$. This leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a_{1v}(\tau )=a_{1v}(0) \label{eq:a1a} \\
&&-i\int_{0}^{\tau }d\tau ^{^{\prime }}[V_{11}(\tau ^{^{\prime
}})a_{1v}(0)+V_{12}(\tau ^{^{\prime }})a_{2v}(0)] \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and a similar result for $a_{2v}(\tau )$. This gives
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|a_{2v}(\tau _{0})|^{2}-|a_{2v}(0)|^{2}={\frac{1}{2}}\sin (2\varphi
)\left\{ {\frac{1}{2}}\sin (2\theta )\right. \label{eq:a1b} \\
&&\left. \times \left[ \int_{0}^{\tau _{0}}d\tau V_{sc}(\tau )\right]
^{2}+\sin (2\varphi +2\theta )\delta E\int_{0}^{\tau _{0}}d\tau \tau
V_{sc}(\tau )\right\} . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
To discuss the result, we for a moment assume a simple $\tau
$-dependence of
$V_{ij}(\tau )$
\begin{equation}
V_{ij}(\tau )=V_{ij}(0)(1-{\frac{\tau }{\tau _{0}}}), \label{eq:a3}
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the $r$-dependence used in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ma6a}). We
note, however, that this form is too simple to describe the behavior of
the
more realistic potential in Eq.~(\ref{eq:m4}). Inserting
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:a1a})
and (\ref{eq:a3}) in Eq.~(\ref{eq:a1b}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:a4}
\Delta _{2} &\equiv |&a_{2v}(\tau
_{0})|^{2}-|a_{2v}(0)|^{2}={\frac{1}{4}}%
V_{sc}(0)\sin (2\varphi ) \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ {\frac{1}{4}}\sin (2\theta )V_{sc}(0)+{\frac{1}{3}}\sin
(2\varphi +2\theta )\delta E\right] \tau _{0}^{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
We now extend this treatment to intermediate values of $v$ where the
adiabatic to sudden transition takes place. Using the expressions
Eqs.~(\ref
{eq:s2}), (\ref{eq:s5}) and (\ref{eq:s7}) to relate $\delta E$ and $%
U=-V_{sc}(0)$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{r(\omega )}{r_{00}}-1=\frac{\Delta _{2}}{\sin ^{2}(2\varphi )\cos
^{2}(2\varphi )}=-{\frac{\sin (2\varphi )}{\sin (2\theta
)}}{\frac{(\delta
E)^{2}\tau _{0}^{2}}{12}}. \label{eq:a5}
\end{equation}
{\it Within the semi-classical theory} the condition for the sudden
approximation is then
\begin{equation}
{\frac{v}{R_{0}}}={\frac{1}{\tau _{0}}}\gg \delta E\sqrt{\frac{\sin
(2\varphi )}{12\sin (2\theta )}}. \label{eq:a6}
\end{equation}
We are now in a position to discuss the approach to the sudden limit.
Within
a semi-classical framework it seems clear that we have to require that
the
hole potential is fully switched on after a ``short'' time $\tau _{0}={%
v/R_{0}}$, i.e., that the emitted electron leaves the range of the
scattering potential after a short time. The question is, however, what
we
mean by ``short''. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:a4}) it follows that the time-scale
is
set by both the inverse of $\delta E$ and the inverse of $V_{sc}(0)$. In
Eq.~(\ref{eq:a6}) we have used the relation between $\delta E$ and
$V_{sc}(0)
$ to remove $V_{sc}(0)$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:a6}).
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:a6}) we obtain the condition for the sudden
approximation
within the SC theory
\begin{equation} \label{eq:a6a}
\tilde{\omega}={\frac{1}{2}}k^2\gg (\delta E)^2 R_0^2={\frac{(\delta
E)^2}{2%
\tilde E}}\sim {\frac{V_{sc}(0)^2 }{\tilde E}}.
\end{equation}
Thus, according to the semi-classical theory, the sudden approximation
requires that $\epsilon_k\gg(\delta E)^2/\tilde E$.
Comparison with the full quantum mechanical calculations in Fig.
\ref{fig:strength} shows that this criterion is not appropriate
for the range of parameters considered here. The reason is that we
have considered a parameter range where the semi-classical theory
is not very accurate.
It is interesting that the SC theory correctly predicts that the
weight of the satellite goes to zero at threshold. Nevertheless,
the SC theory does not give the correct physics at the threshold.
In the full quantum mechanical calculation the weight of the
satellite goes to zero due to the effects of the dipole matrix
element, which becomes very small at small photoelectron energies.
This effect is not included in the SC theory. In the semi-classical
treatment, the small weight of the satellite is due to the fact
that the scattering potential between the outgoing slow electron and
the excitation means that the hole potential is only switched on slowly.
In the quantum mechanical treatment, on the other hand, the scattering
potential leads to an enhancement of the relative weight of the
satellite close to the threshold for the shake-down case.
\section{Discussion}
We have studied the photoemission spectrum of a simple model with a
localized charge transfer excitation. We have obtained exact numerical
results for the spectrum as a function of the photon energy $\omega$ and
in particular focussed on the ratio $r(\omega)$ between the weights of
the satellite and the main peak. These calculations are compared with
perturbational and semi-classical treatments. The results have been
analyzed using the latter two approaches.
An important effect in the ratio $r(\omega)$ is due to the energy
dependence of the dipole matrix elements and a factor $1/(\partial
\epsilon_k/\partial k)\sim 1/k$ in the expression for the spectrum.
This leads to a suppression
of the satellite close to the threshold, but can lead to an overshoot
further away from the threshold. This effect was discussed in Sec. \ref
{sec:sudden} and is described by $r_0(\omega)$. If the interaction
between the emitted electron and the target is weak, this effect
dominates. It is determined by the excitation energy $\delta E$ and
the relevant energy scale $\tilde E_d$ of the dipole matrix element.
If $\delta E/\tilde E_d$ is small, $ r_0$ reaches its limiting value
from below, while there is an overshoot if $\delta E/\tilde E_d\gg 1$.
In both cases $r_0$ reaches its limiting value for
a kinetic energy of the order a few times $\delta E$.
To study the effects of the scattering potential between the emitted
electron and the target we have focussed on the ratio
$r(\omega)/r_0(\omega)$. This quantity shows an overshoot for small
values of $\omega$ in the ``shake-down'' situation studied here.
Depending on the parameters there may
be an undershoot for larger energies, which extends over a large energy
range. This undershoot is, however, fairly small for the cases
considered here. The sudden approximation is then valid to a
reasonable accuracy when
the overshoot has become small. We show that this happens on the energy
scale $\tilde E=1/(2\tilde R^2)$, where $\tilde R$ is a typical length
scale of the scattering potential.
One of the main results of this paper is that for a coupling
to localized excitations, the adiabatic to sudden transition
takes place at quite small kinetic energies of the photoelectron.
This is in contrast to the large kinetic energies needed for the
case of coupling to plasmons. In the plasmon case, the kinetic
energy is typically so large that the semi-classical treatment is
a very good approximation. The adiabatic to sudden transition is
then expected to happen on the energy scale
$(\omega_q\lambda)^2$,\cite{Inglesfield} where $\omega_q$ and
$\lambda$ are the plasmon frequency and wavelength, respectively.
Since the long wavelength plasmons dominate the transition, this
happens at very large energies. For a localized excitation, the
relevant length scale of the scattering potential is smaller, and
the transition is expected to take place at a smaller energy scale.
Actually, the transition takes place at such a small energy that
the semi-classical theory is usually not valid any more. It is
interesting that the semi-classical theory therefore predicts the
opposite dependence on the range $\tilde R$ of the scattering
potential, namely as $\tilde R^2$ instead of $\tilde E =1/(2\tilde
R^2)$.
For the ''shake-down'' scenario considered here (the two outer levels
cross as the hole is created), we find constructive interference
(increase of $r(\omega )/r_{0}(\omega )$) between the intrinsic and
extrinsic processes at
low photoelectron energies. This is in contrast to the destructive
interference found in the plasmon case and to the reduction of $r(\omega
)/r_{0}(\omega )$ found here for the ''shake-up'' case (no level
crossing).
\section*{acknowledgement}
This work has been supported by the Max-Planck Forschungspreis.
One of us (LH) carried out part of his contribution to this work
at the Max-Planck Institute for Festk\"{o}rperforschung.
|
\section{Introduction}
The HEGRA system \cite{hegra_perf,hegra_trigger,hegra_mkn}
of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes
(IACTs) is the first installation employing the stereoscopic
observation of air showers with multiple Cherenkov telescopes
on a routine basis. Compared to individual telescopes, IACT
stereoscopy
provides an improved reconstruction of shower
parameters and better background rejection (see, e.g., \cite{stereo}).
Major new
instruments for VHE gamma-ray astronomy
now in the construction phase -- such as
VERITAS \cite{veritas} and HESS \cite{hess}
-- are based on the concept of IACT stereoscopy,
with frequently half a dozen or more telescopes observing the
same shower from different viewing angles.
In Cherenkov telescopes \cite{iact_review}, the Cherenkov light emitted by
shower particles is imaged onto a ``camera'' in the focal plane
of a large reflector, generating
an elongated, roughly elliptical image.
The major axis of the image represents the image of the shower axis.
Therefore, the major axis of the
image points towards the image of the source on one side, and to
the point where the shower axis intersects the plane of the
telescope dish on the other side (Fig.~\ref{fig_image}). If a shower
is observed by a stereoscopic system of two Cherenkov telescopes,
its direction (i.e., the image of the source) can be determined by
superimposing the two images and intersecting their major axes.
Similarly, the core location is obtained by intersecting
the image axes, starting from the locations of the two telescopes
(assuming that all telescope dishes are in a common plane).
Thus, the four parameters describing the major axes of the two images
can be used to determine the four parameters describing the shower
geometry - a direction in space and an impact point in a reference plane.
It may be worth noting that the stereoscopic reconstruction of air
showers makes the single (trivial) assumption than on average Cherenkov
images are symmetric with respect to the (image of the) shower axis.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize10.0cm
\epsffile{image.eps}}
\caption{Cherenkov image of a gamma-ray shower
and its interpretation. The major axis
of the image approximates the image of the shower axis; the
image of the gamma-ray source is located on the image of the
shower axis. Due to fluctuations in the shower development and
in the imaging process, the center of gravity (c.o.g.) of the
image can be displaced from the shower axis, and also the
orientation of the image can deviate. These errors are indicated
as an error ellipse for the image c.o.g., and an error on the
image orientation. Taking into account these errors, the image of the
source is constrained to the region between the dashed-dotted lines.
Since with a simple elliptical parameterization there is a
head-tail ambiguity of the image, the source can be located
on either side of the image. The shape of the image, in
particular its ellipticity, can be used to estimate the shower
impact parameter relative to the telescope and hence the
distance $d$ between the image of the source and the c.o.g.
of the Cherenkov image.}
\label{fig_image}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If a shower
is observed by more than two telescopes, the shower geometry
is overconstrained and some kind of suitable averaging or
fitting procedure is required to extract optimum shower
parameters from the information obtained from the different
views. Particularly crucial is the case where the quality of the
information provided by the different telescopes differs
significantly, e.g.
because one telescope is well within the light pool and sees a
large intensity of Cherenkov light, whereas a distant telescope
may see barely enough light to provide a meaningful image. Ideally,
the reconstruction algorithm should take this difference in image
quality into account.
This paper reviews a number of different algorithms
and describes tests of their performance based on the large
sample of gamma rays \cite{hegra_mkn} collected with the HEGRA IACT system
during the 1997 outburst of Mkn 501.
\section{Techniques to reconstruct the shower geometry}
To reconstruct shower parameters from the telescope images,
two alternative approaches can be followed:
\begin{description}
\item[Using image parameters.]
Images
provided by the different telescopes are analyzed individually,
and their
key features are summarized in a small number of parameters (usually
the well-known Hillas parameters). Shower parameters are
derived on the basis of these image parameters.
\item[Using the full image information.]
A global optimization procure is applied to derive
the shower parameters directly from the amplitudes measured
in the individual pixels of all cameras. An example of
such techniques are global fits, where parameterized
shower images or image templates are matched to the
images observed in the different telescopes
\cite{hegra_fit,cat_fit}.
\end{description}
In this paper, we will concentrate primarily on methods
of the first type. They are easier to
implement, and usually require significantly less
processing time. Often, analytical solutions for the
shower parameters can be derived, and one does not have
to worry about issues which arise in numerical optimization
procedures, such as the choice of proper starting values and
the convergence
to the global optimum.
For completeness and to serve as a reference, also results based
a technique of the second type will be given.
We will discuss seven different algorithms, six based
on the Hillas image parameters and one based on a global fit to pixel
amplitudes.
\begin{description}
\item[Algorithm 1.] For all pairs of telescopes, the image axes, derived using
the Hillas
parameterization, are intersected. In case of $N$ telescope images, the
resulting $N(N-1)/2$ intersection points are averaged, weighted with the
sine of the angle between the image axes, to take into account that image pairs
with a large stereo angle provide the most precise determination of the shower
axis. Similarly, the core location can be obtained by intersecting the image
axes, starting from the telescope locations. This technique is used, e.g., for
all published results from the HEGRA IACT system. It is illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig_method}(a).
\item[Algorithm 2.] A drawback of Algorithm 1 is that differences in the
quality of the images in the different telescopes are not taken into account.
The algorithm can be improved by determining the uncertainty in the
determination of the image c.o.g. and in the direction of the image axis,
and by taking the resulting errors
(see Fig.~\ref{fig_image}) into account when intersecting the
image axes, see
Fig.~\ref{fig_method}(b).
For $N$ intersecting lines with fixed error bands, the optimum
solution can be derived analytically. Since the width of the error band
associated with each image
depends on the distance $d$ to the image c.o.g., one needs to iterate, but the
result is stable after two iterations. This method also provides
errors on the shower parameters.
\item[Algorithm 3.] The image shape contains information on the distance
$d$ (Fig.~\ref{fig_image})
between the image c.o.g. and the image of the source. In
particular, the ratio of image {\em width} over image {\em length} can
serve as a measure for $d$ (see also \cite{whipple_wl}).
Smaller {\em width/length} implies large impact distance and
large $d$.
Together with a suitable error estimate for $d$, the location,
orientation and shape of each image constrains the image of the source
to two elliptical regions on both sides of the image (reflecting the
left-right ambiguity inherent in the parameterization of
shower images), see Fig.~\ref{fig_method}(c). For two or more images, these
error ellipses can be combined analytically to yield the optimum shower
direction and its errors. An analogous method determines the core location.
\item[Algorithm 4.] Algorithms 1,2,3 determine independently the shower
direction and the core location. Since the measurement of the image orientation
is used both in the determination of the shower direction and of the shower
core, a combined determination of core and direction should yield improved
results. Technically, for a given shower geometry, the predicted image
center lines are calculated, and a $\chi^2$ is defined measuring the agreement
of the observed image and its orientation with this prediction. Shower
geometry is chosen to minimize the sum of $\chi^2$ over telescope images.
This method is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_method}(d).
\item[Algorithm 5.] Algorithm 4 can be augmented
to include the estimate of $d$ from the {\em width/length}-ratio
(see Algorithm 3), by
adding corresponding terms to the $\chi^2$.
\item[Algorithm 6.] Similar to algorithm 4, this algorithm -- proposed by
Hillas \cite{global_width}
-- calculates the image axes for a given shower geometry, and
varies the shower parameters such as to minimize the sum of the squared
distances of pixels to the axes, weighted with the pixel amplitudes.
This technique is analogous to the determination of the image axis for
single images, except that the weighted sum of pixel distances is minimized
for the entire set of images together, rather than for single images
\footnote{At
first glance, Algorithm 6 may appear as an algorithm using the full pixel
information rather than the image parameters. However, given the Hillas image
parameters, equivalent to the moments of inertia of the image with respect
to the major and minor axis, on can easily calculate the second moment with
respect to an arbitrary axis.}.
\item[Algorithm 7.] This last algorithms makes use of the full image
information, by comparing the measured images with parameterizations of
shower images, considering the shower geometry, the energy and the
height of the shower maximum as free parameters which are chosen to
minimize the $\chi^2$ describing the agreement between model and data.
On the basis of Monte-Carlo simulations, the technique was discussed in
\cite{hegra_fit}; a similar method was presented in \cite{cat_fit}. The
method used here differs from \cite{hegra_fit} in a different choice of
weights, which result in improved convergence.
\end{description}
In our implementation, Algorithms 1,2 and 3 use analytic expressions
(with one iteration in case of Algorithm 3), whereas Algorithms 4
through 7 are based on numerical minimization procedures.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize14.0cm
\epsffile{method.eps}}
\caption{Illustration of different techniques to determined the
shower direction from multiple Cherenkov images.
(a) Intersecting pairs of image axes, followed by an averaging over
intersection points. (b) Intersecting image axes taking into account
the errors on image location and image orientation, resulting in
an error ellipse for the image of the source. (c) Using in addition
the {\em width/length}-ratio to constrain the source image to two
regions on either side of an image. (d) Optimizing the shower
geometry such that the predicted image axes best match the observed
images.}
\label{fig_method}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Data sample}
To test the different algorithms and to experimentally determine the
directional resolution achieved with each algorithm, data collected
with the HEGRA IACT system during the 1997 outburst of Mkn 501 were
used. In the HEGRA IACT system is located on the site of the
Observatorio del Roque de las Muchachos on the Canary Island of
La Palma at 2200 m asl. In 1997, the IACT system comprised four telescopes,
located in the center and at three sides of a square with roughly 100~m
side length. A fifth telescope at the remaining corner was integrated into
the system in 1998. The telescopes are identical, equipped with
8.5~m$^2$ mirrors with 5~m focal length, and with 271-pixel cameras with
a diameter of the field of view of $4.3^\circ$, and an equivalent pixel
size of $0.25^\circ$. Detailed about the hardware and the data analysis
can be found in \cite{hegra_perf,hegra_trigger,hegra_mkn,hermann_padua}.
The trigger condition for individual telescopes requires a coincidence
of two pixels above a threshold of 10 photoelectrons (before June `97) or
8 photoelectrons (after June `97).
For typical gamma-ray images, cameras trigger
once the image has more than about 40 photoelectrons.
The HEGRA IACT system as a whole is triggered and
data are recorded whenever at least two telescopes trigger in
coincidence (see \cite{hegra_trigger} for details on the trigger system).
In the design of the HEGRA cameras and their electronics, an
important aspect was that one wanted to read out not
only those telescopes which had triggered, but also the remaining
telescopes, which will shower fainter, but frequently still usable
images.
Camera signals are digitized continuously by 120~MHz Flash-ADCs and
are stored in a 34~$\mu$s ring buffer. A coincidence trigger
of at least two telescopes is generated with a delay of 1 to 2 $\mu$s;
After such a trigger, the readout system addresses the relevant
locations in the Flash-ADC memory and extracts the signals.
In 1997, Mkn 501 was observed in the so-called wobble mode, with the
source offset by $0.5^\circ$ in declination from the optical axis of
the telescopes. The offset alternated every 20~min. A region offset
by the same amount, but in the opposite direction, is used as a control
region and for background subtraction.
The analysis is based on data taken during three new-moon periods, where
the gamma-ray flux from Mkn 501 was particularly high. Only data at small
zenith angles, below $20^\circ$, are included; these showers behave
essentially like ``ideal'' vertical showers, at least as far as the
angular reconstruction is concerned.
The usual selections concerning data quality were applied, see
\cite{hegra_mkn}. In total, the sample comprises
100748 events within $0.5^\circ$ from the source, and 80878 events in the
equivalent off-source region.
Images were flat-fielded, and corrections for pointing errors of
the telescopes were applied \cite{hegra_pointing}.
Image parameters were determined by selecting ``image pixels''
as those pixels which either have a signal of 6 or more photoelectrons,
or which have a signal of at least 3 photoelectrons and are adjacent
to a pixel with 6 or more photoelectrons.
\section{Errors assigned to image parameters, and angular resolution}
Some of the algorithms discussed above require errors on the image parameters
as input for the reconstruction of the shower axis. The relevant image
parameters are the coordinates $(x,y)$ of the center of gravity of the
images, and the direction $\theta$ of the major axis of the image.
To parameterize the errors on the center of gravity, it is more
convenient to use a coordinate system where axes $(u,v)$ are defined by
the major ($u$) and minor ($v$) axes of the image. In this system, the errors on
$u$, $v$, and on the orientation $\theta$ of the image should be
essentially uncorrelated. The errors
(in units of degr.) were parameterized on the basis of
Monte-Carlo simulations \cite{hegra_mc}:
$$
\Delta v = \left\{ {0.03 \over A} + 0.009^2 \right\}^{1 \over 2} f(w)
~~~~,~~~~~~~
f(w) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} 1 & \mbox{~~if~} w < 0.08 \\
w/0.08 & \mbox{~~if~} w \ge 0.08
\end{array} \right.
$$
and
$$
\Delta \theta = \left\{ {\left( {600 \over A}\right) }^{1.5}
+ 1.1^2 \right\} ^{1 \over 2}
+45 \left( {w \over l} - 0.2 \right)^2
$$
Here, $A$ denotes the number of photoelectrons in the image ({\em size}),
$w$ the image {\em width} and $l$ the {\em length}. The error in
$u$ is not very relevant as long as the major axis of the image points
more or less towards the source; $\Delta u = 2 \Delta v$ was used.
As a first check to see if these errors describe the uncertainties
in the real data, the distribution in {\em miss} was plotted for
individual telescopes of the
(background subtracted) Mkn 501 gamma-ray sample, with the (signed)
{\em miss} parameter normalized to the expected error. The {\em miss} parameter
describes the distance between the image axis and the point on the camera
which corresponds to the image of the source.
The error on {\em miss} is $\Delta^2_{miss} = d^2 \Delta \theta^2 +
\Delta v^2$. For typical values of $d \approx 1^\circ$
the $\Delta \theta$ term gives the dominant contribution.
The normalized {\em miss} distribution has an rms width of 1.06,
and its central part is well described by
a Gaussian with a width of 0.90, indicating both that the errors estimated are
accurate within 10\%, and that alignment errors of the
telescopes are small on the scale of the resolution.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize7.0cm
\epsffile{ctsh_q.eps}}
\caption{(a) Predicted uncertainty in the measurement of the (projected)
direction of the shower axis, for events with at least
two triggered telescopes (full
lines) and for events where all four telescopes triggered (dashed). Only
triggered telescopes are used in the reconstruction. (b) Deviation between
the measured shower axis and the direction to Mkn 501 for events with a
predicted angular error of less than $0.04^\circ$, after statistical
subtraction of the background. The curve represents a Gaussian fit with a
width of $0.037^\circ$. (c) Experimental angular
resolution (in projections), determined using a
Gaussian fit, as a function of the predicted error of the measurement.}
\label{fig_sel}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To verify that also errors on the shower
direction can be reliably calculated by propagating the errors on the image
parameters, events were reconstructed with Algorithm 2 and
those events were selected where the predicted error on the shower
direction was less than $0.04^\circ$ (Fig.~\ref{fig_sel}(a)).
For these events, the
distribution in the difference between the reconstructed shower direction
and the source, Mkn 501, was plotted (Fig.~\ref{fig_sel}(b)),
projected onto two orthogonal axes. Indeed, for
this subsample of events, a (projected) angular resolution of
$0.037^\circ$ is obtained, confirming
the validity of the approach to estimate the errors, by treating the
image parameters obtained by the different telescopes as independent measurements.
Here and in the following, `angular resolution' refers to the width
of the angular distribution of shower axes in a projection.
If angular resolution is defined as the half opening angle of a cone
in space, which contains 68\% of the events, the numerical values are
a factor 1.5 larger (assuming a Gaussian distribution in the errors).
Fig.~\ref{fig_sel}(c) finally shows the measured
angular resolution as a function of the predicted resolution, demonstrating
good agreement except for the tail of events with very large
predicted errors ($> 0.2^\circ$), where the measured angular
resolution is slightly better than expected
(most likely due to imperfections in the parameterizations
of the errors). Hence, already with the extremely simple
and fast Algorithm 2 one can reliably reject events with poorly reconstructed
showers, which is important, e.g., for the determination of energy spectra.
In addition to errors on the image parameters, Algorithms 3 and 5
require an estimate of $d$ based on the image shape; we used the
empirical relations
$$
d = 1.4 - 1.25 {w \over l} ~~~~~~,~~~~~~
\Delta d = \max \left( {2.5 \over \sqrt{A}}~,~0.15 \right)
$$
\section{Comparison of reconstruction techniques}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize10.0cm
\epsffile{ctsh_final3_log.epsi}}
\caption{Angular resolution obtained from the Mkn 501 data
with the various
algorithms, for different data samples and reconstruction modes.
Full squares: events with exactly two triggered telescopes,
using only these two telescopes; open circles: events with
exactly two triggered telescopes, using images in all four
telescopes; full circles: events where all four telescopes
triggered and all images are used.}
\label{fig_resol}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The angular resolutions obtained with the seven algorithms
described above are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig_resol}, for three
characteristic data samples chosen to emphasize the specific
features on the algorithms:
\begin{description}
\item[2-Telescope events] (full squares).
In these events, exactly two telescopes
have triggered, and only these two telescopes are used for the
reconstruction. The 2-Telescope sample serves primarily to verify that all
algorithms work properly; unless additional shape information
is used (such as in Algorithms 3, 5, and 7), all algorithms
should give identical results if only two images are used in
the reconstruction
\footnote{It should be noted that there is a big difference between the
2-Telescope sample,
where exactly two of the four telescopes triggered, and samples
(``2/x'')
where two telescopes are used for the reconstruction, regardless
of the state of the other two. The 2-Telescope sample selects
events which either have energies near the trigger threshold, or
which have quite distant cores. A 2/x-Telescope sample yields
for Algorithm 2
a resolution of about $0.10^\circ$, compared
to the $0.14^\circ$ for the 2-Telescope sample -- see below.}.
\item[2+2-Telescope events] (open circles). In these events,
exactly two telescopes have triggered, but images in the other
two untriggered telescopes are included in the reconstruction.
These events represent a particular challenge to reconstruction
algorithms, since they combine images of very different quality.
Triggered images contain a mean number of about 150
photoelectrons, compared to about 30 photoelectrons in images which did
not trigger.
\item[4-Telescope events] (full circles). In these events, all
four telescopes have triggered and are used in the reconstruction.
This class of events will obviously provide the best angular
resolution.
\end{description}
For the 2-Telescope sample (full squares in
Fig.~\ref{fig_resol}), Algorithms 1, 2, 4 and 6 do indeed
provide the identical angular resolution.
Algorithms 3, 5 and 7 -- which add shape information -- give
significantly improved resolution. This improvement can be traced to
events with small stereo angles, i.e. with shower cores along the
line connecting the two telescopes; for such events, the purely
geometrical reconstruction fails and the otherwise relatively
poor shape information helps to stabilize the reconstruction.
Adding now in the reconstruction the faint images
of the other two telescopes, which did not trigger -- the
2+2-Telescope sample (open circles) -- one mixes images of rather different
quality. If all images are combined with equal weight, as
in Algorithm 1, the faint images hurt the resolution; the
resulting resolution is
worse than if only the two triggered telescopes are used.
In all other algorithms,
the faint images weigh less than the good images, either because
explicitly larger errors on the image parameters are assigned
(Algorithms 2-5), or because the effect of the images is weighted
with the number of photoelectrons they contain (Algorithms 6,7).
These algorithms improve the angular resolution by about 20\% to
30\% compared to the 2-Telescope sample. Little is gained by
adding the shape information via the $d(w/l)$ relation; with
four views there is always at least one reasonably large stereo angle.
In many respects, the 4-Telescope sample (full circles)
is less critical than
the 2+2-Telescope sample, since the differences between the
quality of the four images are not nearly as big. Hence, it
is no surprise that the variation between algorithms is smaller,
ranging from a resolution of $0.072^\circ$ for the worst case
(Algorithm 1) to $0.056^\circ$ for the best case (Algorithm 7).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize14.0cm
\epsffile{dircore.eps}}
\caption{(a) Reconstruction of the shower direction,
by intersecting the image axes, starting from the image
c.o.g.
(b) Reconstruction of the shower core by
intersecting the image axes, starting from the telescope locations.
(c) $\chi^2$ describing the consistency in the determination
of shower cores in overconstrained events, vs. $\chi^2$ describing
the consistency of the determination of the shower direction,
for background-subtracted gamma-ray events from Mkn 501.}
\label{fig_dircore}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
One may wonder why the joint fits of the shower direction and
of the core location (Algorithms 4, 5, 6) do not provide significant
improvements. The explanation is relatively simple, and is
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_dircore}. The geometrical figure
describing the determination of the direction (Fig.~\ref{fig_dircore}(a))
and the figure describing the determination of the core
(Fig.~\ref{fig_dircore}(b)) are essentially scaled versions of
each other, since the {\em distance} parameter $d$ of the image is
approximately proportional to the distance $r$ from the telescope
to the core location. The main difference is that in the determination
of the shower direction, the error on the position of the image
c.o.g. enters in addition to the error on the image orientation;
in the core determination, only the latter matters. Since the
error on the c.o.g. is usually of little relevance compared to the
error on the orientation, the joint fit does not add additional
constraints. Indeed, one finds that in Algorithm 2, the
$\chi^2$ describing how well the telescopes match in the determination
of the shower direction, and the $\chi^2$ of the core determination
are highly correlated (Fig.~\ref{fig_dircore}(c)).
Fitting the full image information (Algorithm 7) results in
only very modest improvements compared to the simpler Algorithms
2 - 6. At least with the pixel size of $0.25^\circ$ of the
HEGRA cameras, the Hillas image parameters seem to very efficiently
capture the essence of the information contained in the images.
\section{Dependence of the angular resolution on the number
of telescopes used in the reconstruction}
An interesting question is how the angular resolution depends
on the number of telescopes $N_{tel}$ used in the reconstruction.
If the
individual images can be considered as independent,
the resolution should improve like $1/\sqrt{N_{tel}}$.
However, at some point
shower fluctuations will start to dominate the resolution.
As mentioned above, to address this issue one cannot simply
use the event samples where exactly 2, 3 or 4 telescopes have
triggered, since the 2-telescope sample is biased towards
low-energy or distant showers, whereas in the 4-telescope
sample central high-energy events are enhanced.
To start from identical event samples and to avoid a ``trigger bias'',
the investigation was based on the 4-telescope sample, but only
a subset of telescopes was used to reconstruct the shower.
The resulting resolutions are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_resol}(a),
for Algorithms 2 and 3. (Note that Algorithm 3 can reconstruct
the shower direction from a single image, apart from the head-tail
ambiguity.) Except for the minimum number of telescopes -- 1 for
Algorithm 3 and 2 for Algorithm 2 -- data are consistent with a
$1/\sqrt{N_{tel}}$-dependence.
The issue was further
was explored on the basis of Monte-Carlo simulations for the
HESS telescope system \cite{hess_mc}. These simulations used
an array of 589 telescopes, arranged as a square grid of 31 x 19
telescopes, spaced 33.3~m. In the analysis, arbitrary subsets
of telescopes can be selected. The sets studied here include a set
with all telescopes turned on, a set where every other telescope
is active, and sets with telescopes on square grids with an effective
spacing of 67~m, 100~m, 133~m, and 167~m. Only showers well
contained within the array were considered. Fig.~\ref{fig_resol1}(b)
shows the resulting angular resolution as a function of the mean number
of telescopes used in the reconstruction.
The $1/\sqrt{N_{tel}}$-dependence of the resolution holds up to about
50 telescopes used per event,
and resolutions better than $0.03^\circ$. For even higher telescope
numbers, the dependence appears to flatten somewhat.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfxsize8.0cm
\epsffile{ctshres.eps}}
\caption{(a) Angular resolution obtained from the Mkn 501 data with
Algorithm 2 (full circles) and Algorithm 3 (open
circles), for events where all four telescopes triggered,
but only a (random) subset of telescopes is used in the
reconstruction. The curve illustrates a $1/\sqrt{N_{tel}}$-dependence.
(b) Angular resolution obtained in
Monte-Carlo studies using an array of telescopes, as a
function of the average number of telescopes used in the
reconstruction. Shower energies range from 0.5 TeV to 1 TeV.
The curve illustrates a $1/\sqrt{N_{tel}}$-dependence.
(The telescope characteristics differ from
those of the HEGRA telescopes, and the resolutions cannot
be compared directly.)}
\label{fig_resol1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks}
The main conclusions from these studies of different
algorithms for the stereoscopic reconstruction of
multi-telescope IACT events are:
\begin{itemize}
\item By assigning and properly propagating errors of the
image parameters, reliable error estimates for the shower
direction can be obtained. It is possible to select
subsamples with improved angular resolution
-- less than $0.05^\circ$, e.g. -- for special
purposes, such as to study the size of the source, or
to exclude poorly reconstructed events.
\item In particular when combining multiple and partly
redundant images of rather different quality, the
reconstruction algorithm must properly
account for these differences.
\item Using image shape information to constrain the
direction of the shower axis helps in the case of
2-telescope events with small stereo angles; for events
with more than two telescopes, the improvement is small.
\item Compared to the simple, robust and fast Algorithms 2 and 3,
the more `fancy' Algorithms 4, 5 and 6 as well as the
rather sophisticated image fitting procedure of algorithm 7
give only modest improvements. For most practical purposes;
Algorithms 2 or 3 may represent the simplest and best choice.
\end{itemize}
Of course, these conclusions hold primarily for the HEGRA
Cherenkov telescopes. To which extent they can be applied to
other IACT systems depends on the degree of similarity in the
trigger concept and the layout of the cameras.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The support of the HEGRA experiment by the German Ministry for Research
and Technology BMBF and by the Spanish Research Council
CYCIT is acknowledged. We are grateful to the Instituto
de Astrofisica de Canarias for the use of the site and
for providing excellent working conditions. We thank the other
members of the HEGRA CT group, who participated in the construction,
installation, and operation of the telescopes. We gratefully
acknowledge the technical support staff of Heidelberg,
Kiel, Munich, and Yerevan.
|
\section{Introduction}
Polyakov's proposal~\cite{Polyakov:a} of using type 0A/0B string theory for
describing non-supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories is a promising and
novel attempt at formulating the QCD string and provides an alternative
way of extending the AdS/CFT correspondence~\cite{Maldacena, Gubser:a,
Witten:a} beyond the realm of supersymmetric field theories.
Simply put, the proposal postulates using a closed string theory in $d\leq 10$
space-time dimensions with
world-sheet supersymmetry and a diagonal GSO projection that removes
all space-time fermions, thus yielding a non-supersymmetric theory in
target space.
One can refer to such theories for which
$d<10$ as ``non-critical'' although the name can be confusing because Weyl
invariance is recovered once the conformal factor of the world-sheet metric
is counted among the other space-time coordinates. Throughout this paper,
$d$ will always include such Liouville mode and hence Weyl invariance
is retained, at least at the lowest level in the sigma-model expansion.
So far, most of the literature following~\cite{Polyakov:a} has analyzed
the most conservative case of non-supersymmetric theories in
$d=10$~\cite{Klebanov:a, Klebanov:b, Klebanov:c, Minahan:a,
Minahan:b, Alishahiha}.
Such theories~\cite{Dixon, Seiberg} are often referred to as type 0A or 0B,
depending on the particular GSO projection employed. Their open string
descendants were analyzed in~\cite{Bianchi, Sagnotti, Angelantonj, Bergman}.
However, it is our opinion that the ``non-critical''
scenario~\cite{Alvarez:a, Ferretti:a, Alvarez:b, Costa, Armoni, Zhou}
must be taken
seriously and will give rise to additional interesting models that are
not accessible at $d=10$. Throughout the paper we shall continue to refer
to these lower dimensional theories as type 0A or 0B in even dimensions,
depending on the choice of chirality in the GSO projection.
In odd space-time dimensions there is only one such theory due to the lack of
chirality. We shall refer to it as type 0AB.
Although the full conformal field theory corresponding to the above
non-critical string theory has not yet been constructed, there are
some indications that such a construction is indeed possible:
Consider the issue
of modular invariance. Define the fermionic traces for the pair of
Majorana--Weyl fermions $\psi(z)$, $\bar\psi(z)$ as\footnote{We use the
notation of~\cite{Polchinski:a}. Here $q=\exp(2\pi i \tau)$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^0_0(\tau) &=& {\mathrm tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg(q^N\bigg) \nonumber \\
Z^0_1(\tau) &=& {\mathrm tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg((-)^F q^N\bigg) \nonumber \\
Z^1_0(\tau) &=& {\mathrm tr\;}_{\mathrm R} \bigg(q^N\bigg) \nonumber \\
Z^1_1(\tau) &=& {\mathrm tr\;}_{\mathrm R} \bigg((-)^F q^N\bigg). \label{zetas}
\end{eqnarray}
In the ordinary type II string theory in $d$ dimensions,
modular invariance requires that the holomorphic contribution of the
fermions to the partition function
\begin{equation}
Z^0_0(\tau)^{(d-2)/2} - Z^0_1(\tau)^{(d-2)/2} - Z^1_0(\tau)^{(d-2)/2}
\pm Z^1_1(\tau)^{(d-2)/2}
\end{equation}
and the analogous antiholomorphic contribution be separately modular
invariant up to an overall opposite phase.
It is well known that the lowest dimension where the product of the
holomorphic contribution and the antiholomorphic contribution is modular
invariant is $d=10$.
In type 0 theories, the joined contributions of the holomorphic and the
antiholomorphic sectors give rise to
\begin{equation}
|Z^0_0(\tau)|^{d-2} + |Z^0_1(\tau)|^{d-2} + |Z^1_0(\tau)|^{d-2}
\pm |Z^1_1(\tau)|^{d-2},
\end{equation}
which is modular invariant for any $d$. Of course, for $d\not=10$ the explicit
expressions for the fermionic traces will be modified because of the
changes in the spectrum, but we view the above as an indication that the
continuation ``off-criticality'' is more likely to work for the type 0
string than for the usual type II.
Another objection that needs to be addressed is the ``$d=2$ barrier''.
Let us briefly recall the physics behind this problem as presented
e.g.~in~\cite{Polchinski:a}. Because
we do not yet know how to describe RR fields at the level of the sigma-model
we are forced to discuss this argument in the case of the bosonic theory. In
this context it is well know that there exists an exact CFT solution in
any $d$ in which the only non-zero background fields are a flat metric
$g_{MN}$, a
linearly rising dilaton $\Phi$ and an exponential tachyon $T$
\begin{equation}
g_{MN}=\eta_{MN}, \quad\Phi=\sqrt{\frac{26-d}{6}}X^1, \quad
T=\exp\left(\left( \sqrt{\frac{26-d}{6}}-\
\sqrt{\frac{2-d}{6}}\right)X^1 \right).
\end{equation}
For $d\leq 2$ the background tachyon is
exponentially rising, preventing the string from entering the region of
strong coupling. Moreover, fluctuations around the tachyon background are
stable and thus the theory is well defined. On the contrary, for $d>2$, the
background tachyon oscillates. In principle this could still act as a cutoff
for the string coupling but the fluctuations have some negative frequency
square modes and the theory becomes unstable.
As stressed in~\cite{Polyakov:a, Polyakov:b} we should not think of the
``$d=2$ barrier'' as a no-go theorem but rather as an indication that
solutions for $d>2$ will necessarily involve a curved space-time metric.
This is the type of situation that is of interest in the connection
with gauge theory so, in a sense, it is to be expected that flat space-time
be ruled out. Unfortunately, we
do not yet have an example of an exact CFT of this type and we
are forced to work order by order in $\alpha^\prime$ at the level of the
effective action.
But it should be clear that there are no a priori reasons
for why there should not exist an exact solution.
A third encouraging sign comes from the analysis of the RR sector performed
in Section 3. By making some plausible assumptions about the massless
degrees of freedom it is possible to construct a rather compelling picture
of the RR sectors in various dimensions and their couplings, including
Chern--Simons terms. For instance, the necessity of doubling the RR spectrum
in $d=4$ or $d=8$ Minkowski space-time is seen as coming from the fact
that there are no real self-dual forms in these dimensions.
Finally, let us note that considering $d<10$ from the sigma model point of
view is a very natural thing to do if the string theory has a
perturbative tachyon.
The only way for a theory with a perturbative tachyon to make sense is if
there exists a mechanism through which the tachyon field condenses by acquiring
a vacuum expectation value. The tachyon potential at that point will then
give rise to a tree-level contribution to the cosmological constant by
shifting the central charge. Since the effective central charge is going to
be different from zero anyway\footnote{It seems unnatural and there is no
symmetry argument for which the tachyon potential should vanish at that
point.}, one
is led to consider the theory with the most general value for the
effective central charge
\begin{equation}
c_{\rm eff.} = 10 - d - \frac{1}{2}V\bigg(\langle T \rangle\bigg).
\end{equation}
{}From the target space point of view this acts as a contribution to the
cosmological constant and thus shows that, for $d>2$, one should look at
curved space-times.
None of the above points constitute a proof that conformally invariant
solutions to the type 0A/B string exist for arbitrary $d$ but we view them
as strong indications that such construction is possible. Having taken this
as our basic assumption, throughout the paper we work at the level of the
effective action to one loop in $\alpha^\prime$, i.e. the gravity level
without higher order corrections.
The form of the action of the type 0 gravity, can be determined perturbatively,
with a certain number of ambiguities involving the tachyon potential and
the coupling to the RR fields, which are essentially there because of lack
of supersymmetry on the target space. However, supersymmetry on the world
sheet allows one to make some statements on these terms,
as we will see in Section 3. We will stay generic and will
be able to show that in any
dimension there exists a set
of exact solutions of the classical equations of motion, which give AdS metric
and involve a non-zero RR field, other than constant dilaton and tachyon.
Such solutions depend only on a {\it finite} number of parameters for which
a string-theoretical derivation is still lacking.
The solutions found represent Polyakov's conformal fixed points in the dual
gauge theory --- they support a condensed tachyon, but the first issue to be
addressed is the stability against quantum fluctuations of the fields.
Because of the mixing of several of these fields it is not enough to
analyze the tachyon itself, one has to disentangle the full set of
fluctuations~\cite{Ferretti:b}. For simplicity, we restrict
to the case where the space is $d$-dimensional AdS, so that there are no
KK modes to be worried about. There the analysis simplifies
considerably, but it is
still non trivial because of dilaton-tachyon mixing.
Another issue that was raised in~\cite{Polyakov:a} is the field
theory interpretation of these solutions. There it was claimed that they
may represent an interacting UV conformal point.
To address this issue one needs to show that these gravity
solutions represent in fact a point in wider space, that is actually the
RG phase diagram of the field theories we have at hand.
In this enlarged theory space there may be more than one conformal solution
and there exist trajectories which interpolate between these
points.
These considerations have already been realized in the framework of
type IIB supergravity, where the RG flow is believed
to be driven by operators dual to scalar fields coming
from KK reduction in the compact
directions~\cite{Distler, Girardello:a, Girardello:b, Porrati}, or
by the running of the dilaton \cite{Kehagias:a, Gubser:b, deMelloKoch,
Kehagias:b}. It turns out that
type 0 gravity provides an example of this general feature
of the AdS/CFT correspondence, as well.
In fact, the physics is already captured
by the set of solutions involving no compact space. Even without including
KK modes, the tachyon will mix with the dilaton field, and generate
on the field theory side a RG flow that connects interacting
conformal fixed points.
\section{A look at the type 0A/B theory in $d=10$}
In this section we briefly summarize some known facts about the perturbative
properties of these theories. We will thus set $d=10$ throughout this section
and consider perturbation theory around the (unstable) vacuum. We will,
however, point out the
various places where modifications occur when one is
considering $d\not= 10$. We will return to these changes in Section 3
where we present the detailed structure of the RR terms in $d\leq10$.
In the notation of~\cite{Polchinski:a}, there are (up to equivalences)
only four consistent ways of
combining the various sectors of the ${\cal N}=(1,1)$ NSR closed oriented
string in $d=10$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathbf IIA}\;\;&:&\;\;
(NS+,NS+)\oplus(NS+,R+)\oplus(R-,NS+)\oplus(R+,R-)\nonumber \\
{\mathbf IIB}\;\;&:&\;\;
(NS+,NS+)\oplus(NS+,R+)\oplus(R+,NS+)\oplus(R+,R+)\nonumber \\
{\mathbf 0A}\;\;&:&\;\;
(NS+,NS+)\oplus(NS-,NS-)\oplus(R+,R-)\oplus(R-,R+)\nonumber \\
{\mathbf 0B}\;\;&:&\;\;
(NS+,NS+)\oplus(NS-,NS-)\oplus(R+,R+)\oplus(R-,R-). \label{GSO}
\end{eqnarray}
The first two are the usual type IIA/B superstring and the last two are
those of interest here. The massless fields of the theory are the dilaton
$\Phi$, graviton $g_{MN}$ and two-form $B_{MN}$ coming from the $(NS+,NS+)$
sector and twice as many RR fields coming from the doubled RR sectors.
There is a tachyon $T$ from the $(NS-,NS-)$ and no fermionic mode at all. All
other modes are massive.
\subsection{Selection rules for $d=10$}
The lack of space-time fermions means that the
theory has no space-time supersymmetry; however, the presence of
${\cal N}=(1,1)$ world-sheet supersymmetry has the
following simplifying features~\cite{Klebanov:a}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] All tree-level correlators involving an odd number of tachyons
and only $(NS+, NS+)$ vertex operators are zero. This can be seen from the
explicit form of the vertex operators.
The vertex operator for the massless $(NS+, NS+)$ states and
for the tachyon in the $(NS-, NS-)$ sector are, again in the
notation of~\cite{Polchinski:a}
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{0,0}_{(NS+, NS+)}&=&-(i\partial X^M +k\cdot\psi~ \psi^M)
(i\bar\partial X^N +k\cdot\tilde\psi~ \tilde\psi^N)~
{\mathrm e}^{ik\cdot X}\nonumber\\
V^{-1,-1}_{(NS+, NS+)}&=&{\mathrm e}^{-\phi-\tilde\phi}~
\psi^M\tilde\psi^N~
{\mathrm e}^{ik\cdot X}\nonumber\\
V^{0,0}_{(NS-, NS-)}&=&k\cdot\psi~ k\cdot\tilde\psi~
{\mathrm e}^{ik\cdot X}\nonumber\\
V^{-1,-1}_{(NS-, NS-)}&=&{\mathrm e}^{-\phi-\tilde\phi}~
{\mathrm e}^{ik\cdot X}.\label{nsvertex}
\end{eqnarray}
Since on the sphere we need to take any two of the above in the $(-1,-1)$
picture and all the rest in the $(0,0)$ picture it is clear that we will always
end up with the correlation function of an odd number of $\psi$'s
which vanishes.
In particular, notice that in this vacuum $\langle T \rangle = 0$ whereas
we expect a tachyon condensate in the true vacuum.
\item[b)] All tree-level correlators involving an odd number of tachyons,
any number of fields from the $(NS+, NS+)$ and two RR fields from the
same sector must vanish.
For instance, if the amplitude with one tachyon did not vanish there
would be a tachyon pole in some tree-level correlation
function of the corresponding type II theory. The vanishing of the
amplitude can also be seen at the level of the correlation functions of the
vertex operators. We can always use the vertex operators for the RR fields
in the $(-1/2, -1/2)$ picture -- written as a bispinor it reads
\begin{equation}
V^{-1/2,-1/2}_{(R\pm, R\pm)}={\mathrm e}^{-\phi/2-\tilde\phi/2}~
\Theta_\alpha\tilde\Theta_\beta~ {\mathrm e}^{ik\cdot X}~. \label{rrvertex}
\end{equation}
In a correlator that involves
two such vertex operators, one remaining $(NS\pm,NS\pm)$
vertex (\ref{nsvertex}) needs to be taken in the $(-1,-1)$ picture yielding
an overall even number of $\psi$'s. Schematically, this part of the correlator
is proportional to $C\Gamma^{2n}$ and only connects spinors of opposite
chirality because the charge conjugation matrix $C$ anticommutes with the
chirality matrix $\Gamma_\chi$.
This is also true in $d=6$ whereas in
$d=4$ and $d=8$ the opposite is true, since now the matrix $C$ commutes with
$\Gamma_\chi$. Hence, in $d=4$ and $d=8$ we expect to find a coupling between
an odd number of tachyons and RR fields from the same sector and none
between an odd number of tachyons and RR fields from the opposite sector.
\item[c)] The reverse statement holds for an even number of
tachyons (in particular
no tachyon at all). The correlators will now involve an odd number of $\psi$'s
and these vanish in $d=10$ between spinors of
opposite chirality. Again, it is
natural to expect that such a statement will hold in $d=6$ and be reversed in
$d=4$ and $d=8$.
\end{itemize}
For odd space-time dimensions, both statements b) and c)
are empty due to the lack of chirality and we do not expect any particular
symmetry of the couplings.
Statement c) is also consistent with the fact that in $d=10$
all correlation functions
between $(NS+, NS+)$ fields and fields from \emph{one} given RR sector are
the same as in type II theory, which is obvious because the vertex operators
and their correlation functions are precisely the same and there is no
loop in which other modes could propagate.
In particular, it indicates that there are Chern--Simons terms in the
effective action and that the various field strengths need to be modified
by shifting them with a $B_{MN}$ dependent transformation just as in
type II supergravity. It seems natural to postulate that such terms will
be present also in lower dimensions in the cases
where they are allowed by the symmetries of the problem.
These simple properties and some explicit tree-level
computations~\cite{Klebanov:a} allow one
to write down, for the critical case, to first non-trivial
order in $\alpha^\prime$, an effective action up to terms quadratic in the
gauge fields.
Below we shall present our proposed generalization of this action in
any dimension including Chern--Simons terms.
\subsection{D-branes in the $d=10$ theory}
We conclude this section with a look at the type of D-branes in this
theory~\cite{Bergman, Billo}. In this subsection we always work in $d=10$.
Due to the doubling of the RR fields, there are twice as many D-branes as
in the corresponding type II theory. Let us denote
by $F$ and $F^\prime$ the RR fields from the
two RR sectors of (\ref{GSO}) respectively\footnote{We refrain from using the
notation $F$ and $\bar F$ used in~\cite{Klebanov:a} because we reserve such
notation for the $d=4$ and $d=8$ case where such fields are complex
conjugate of each other.}. For a given $p$ we have thus
four types of elementary branes (counting the anti-branes) with charges
$(Q=1, Q^\prime=1)$, $(Q=1, Q^\prime=-1)$, $(Q=-1, Q^\prime=1)$,
$(Q=-1, Q^\prime=-1)$. Branes charged only with respect to, say, $F$ are
possible but carry charge $(Q=2n, Q^\prime=0)$ in these units and thus can be
built from the four constituents above.
A quick way to understand the spectrum of massless excitations living on
the world-volume of a stack of such branes is to consider the closed string
exchange between two such branes, perform a modular transformation and
read off the spectrum from the open string sector.
Let us denote the usual open string traces in the various sectors
as\footnote{We use the symbol ${\mathrm Tr\;}$ to denote the sum over all eight
transverse bosonic and fermionic components, to distinguish it from the
trace ${\mathrm tr\;}$ in (\ref{zetas}).}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg(q^N\bigg) &=&
\left(\frac{f_3(q)}{f_1(q)} \right)^8\nonumber \\
{\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg((-)^F q^N\bigg) &=&
\left(\frac{f_4(q)}{f_1(q)} \right)^8 \nonumber \\
{\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm R} \bigg(q^N\bigg) &=&
\left(\frac{f_2(q)}{f_1(q)} \right)^8,
\end{eqnarray}
where, as usual,
\begin{eqnarray}
f_1(q) &=& q^{1/12}\Pi(1-q^{2n}) \nonumber \\
f_2(q) &=& \sqrt{2} q^{1/12}\Pi(1+q^{2n}) \nonumber \\
f_3(q) &=& q^{-1/24}\Pi(1+q^{2n-1}) \nonumber \\
f_4(q) &=& q^{-1/24}\Pi(1-q^{2n-1}).
\end{eqnarray}
The closed string exchange can be written in terms of these functions by
making a modular transformation $\tilde q={\mathrm e}^{-\pi\tilde t}\to
q={\mathrm e}^{-\pi /\tilde t} = {\mathrm e}^{-\pi t}$.
Let us denote by $H$ the light-cone oscillator part of the closed string
Hamiltonian, and use the boundary states $|B\rangle$ to denote the branes
(cf.~\cite{Hussain, DiVecchia} for a complete discussion of the boundary
state formalism). Let us also introduce the shorthand notation
\begin{equation}
\left[NS+, NS+\right]
=\langle B|{\mathrm e}^{-\tilde t H}|B\rangle_{(NS+, NS+)},
\end{equation}
and similar expressions for the other sectors. Then, after a modular
transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[NS+, NS+\right]&\to& \frac{1}{2}
\left({\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg(q^N\bigg) -
{\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm R} \bigg(q^N\bigg) \right) = \frac{1}{2}
\left(\frac{f_3(q)^8 - f_2(q)^8}{f_1(q)^8} \right) \nonumber\\
\left[NS-, NS-\right] &\to& \frac{1}{2}
\left({\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg(q^N\bigg) +
{\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm R} \bigg(q^N\bigg) \right) = \frac{1}{2}
\left(\frac{f_3(q)^8 + f_2(q)^8}{f_1(q)^8} \right) \nonumber\\
\left[R\pm, R\pm\right] &\to& -\frac{1}{2}
{\mathrm Tr\;}_{\mathrm NS} \bigg((-)^F q^N\bigg) = -\frac{1}{2}
\left(\frac{f_4(q)^8}{f_1(q)^8} \right).\\
\end{eqnarray}
All RR sectors give the same contribution.
There are three elementary cases to consider. First, consider the case of
two like-like charged branes $(Q_1=1, Q^\prime_1=1)$ and
$(Q_2=1, Q^\prime_2=1)$.
Let us consider the type 0B case for definitiveness; all considerations apply
to the type 0A case as well.
In this case we have the following situation:
\begin{equation}
\left[NS+, NS+\right]+\left[NS-, NS-\right]+
\left[R+, R+\right]+
\left[R-, R-\right] \to
\frac{f_3(q)^8 - f_4(q)^8}{f_1(q)^8}.
\label{electric}
\end{equation}
{}From (\ref{electric}) we read off, with the wisdom
of~\cite{Polchinski:b, Witten:b},
that the world-sheet theory has no tachyon,
no fermions, and the same massless bosons as pure $d=10$ Yang-Mills theory
dimensionally reduced to $p+1$ dimensions.
Second, consider the case $(Q_1=1, Q^\prime_1=1)$ and
$(Q_2=1, Q^\prime_2=-1)$.
Here the exchange is
\begin{equation}
\left[NS+, NS+\right]-\left[NS-, NS-\right]+
\left[R+, R+\right]-
\left[R-, R-\right] \to
-\frac{f_2(q)^8}{f_1(q)^8}. \label{fermi}
\end{equation}
Perhaps the only subtlety is the minus sign in front of the $(NS-, NS-)$
exchange. This sign is fixed by looking at the coupling of the tachyon
to the branes and noticing~\cite{Klebanov:a} that it has a coupling constant
proportional to the product of the charges of the brane, thus yielding
$Q_1 Q^\prime_1 \times Q_2 Q^\prime_2 = -1$.
{}From (\ref{fermi}) we see that this brane configuration has only fermions
on the world-volume. These two configurations were
studied in~\cite{Klebanov:c}.
Finally the brane/anti-brane case is given by
$(Q_1=1, Q^\prime_1=1)$ and $(Q_2=-1, Q^\prime_2=-1)$ and corresponds to
\begin{equation}
\left[NS+, NS+\right]+\left[NS-, NS-\right]-
\left[R+, R+\right]-
\left[R-, R-\right] \to
\frac{f_3(q)^8+f_4(q)^8}{f_1(q)^8}.
\end{equation}
There is an open string tachyon in this theory, just as in~\cite{Green, Banks},
signaling an instability of the theory.
\section{Type 0 effective actions, Ramond--Ramond fields
and Chern--Simons terms}
In this section we present our proposal for the effective action of type 0
string theory in any dimension including the Chern--Simons couplings.
Lacking a formulation from ``prime principles'', the identification of the
RR sectors and their couplings requires a certain amount of guesswork. The
picture that emerges, however, is quite simple and satisfying. We shall
see, for instance, that
it gives support to the idea that the RR sectors must be doubled compared
to the type II string.
\subsection{The NS-NS sector}
The NS-NS sector is common to all of these theories and can in principle be
obtained from a sigma-model approach. It involves the massless fields of the
$(NS+,NS+)$ sector (a dilaton $\Phi$, a graviton $g_{MN}$ and an
antisymmetric tensor $B_{MN}$)
and a tachyon $T$ from the $(NS-,NS-)$ sector.
The tachyon potential $V(T)$ is an even function from the property a)
of the previous section~\cite{Klebanov:a}. The relevant action is thus,
in the string frame
\begin{equation}
S_{NS-NS} = \int {\mathrm d}^dx\;\sqrt{-g}\left\{{\mathrm e}^{-2\Phi}\left(
R -\frac{1}{12} |{\mathrm d} B|^2 + 4 |{\mathrm d}\Phi|^2 -
\frac{1}{2}|{\mathrm d} T|^2 - V(T) \right) \right\}, \label{nspart}
\end{equation}
where it is natural to absorb the central charge deficit $10-d$ into the
definition of the tachyon potential, i.e.
\begin{equation}
V(T) = -10 + d - \frac{d-2}{8} T^2 + \cdots
\end{equation}
It should be kept in mind that (\ref{nspart}) is by no means unique. It
suffers from the usual ambiguities that come from extrapolating on-shell
data. In particular, there could be arbitrary (even) functions of $T$
multiplying the various kinetic terms in the Lagrangian. Up to this order in
$\alpha^\prime$ this is essentially all that can happen\footnote{Things
become even
more complex at the next order in $\alpha^\prime$ -- for instance there
could be terms of the type $T^{2n}R^{MN}\partial_M T\partial_N T$.}.
As shown in the Appendix
A of~\cite{Klebanov:a} however, precisely because of their ambiguous nature
it is possible to redefine away some of them, such as the term $RT^2$. At the
same time, terms of the type $T^2 |{\mathrm d} B|^2$ and their counterpart
for the RR kinetic terms are needed and should be kept.
In the following we will never need the field $B_{MN}$ and we will
set the coefficients of $R$, $|{\mathrm d}\Phi|^2$ and $|{\mathrm d} T|^2$
as in (\ref{nspart}),
the main conclusions being independent of the presence of such terms.
\subsection{RR kinetic and Chern--Simons terms}
One guiding principle~\cite{Armoni} in the identification of the RR sector
is the idea that for any $d$ there will still be massless
excitations in the R sector of the open string and thus their on-shell
degrees of freedom will fall into representations of the little group
$SO(d-2)$. The resulting situation is best summarized in the table below.
In ten dimensions one obtains massless RR fields in the type 0A theory by
considering tensor products of spinors of different chiralities
$(\mathbf{+-})$ and $(\mathbf{-+})$, and in the 0B theory of same
chiralities $(\mathbf{++})$ and $(\mathbf{--})$. This can be readily
generalized for any non-critical even dimension, whereas it is not
quite clear what the right generalization to odd dimensions is. Note,
however, that an odd dimensional bispinor can be decomposed in terms
of the lower even dimensional bispinors as
$({\mathbf ++})\oplus({\mathbf +-})\oplus({\mathbf -+})\oplus({\mathbf --})$,
and that this is the sum of the field contents of the
0A and the 0B theories of one lower dimension.
It thus seems reasonable to assume that a sum of two modular invariant
sectors should yield a modular invariant theory in one dimension higher
without doubling the RR spectrum by hand\footnote{A different point of
view was taken in \cite{Armoni}. It will be interesting to find a resolution
to this puzzle.}.
{\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
$d$ & $SO(d-2)$ & Spin reps. & & $R\times R$ sector(s)&
Real off-shell fields \\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$4$ & $U(1)$ & ${\mathbf 1}_{1/2}$, ${\mathbf 1}_{-1/2}$
&0A& ${\mathbf 1}_0+{\mathbf1}_0$ & $2A$ \\
&&&0B& ${\mathbf 1}_{-1}+{\mathbf 1}_{1}$ & $A_M$ \\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$5$ & $SU(2)$ & $\mathbf{2}$ &0AB & $\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{3}$ &
$A, A_M$ \\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$6$ & $SU(2)^2$ & $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2}),\; (\mathbf{2},\mathbf{1})$ &0A&
$2(\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2})$ &
$2A_M$ \\
&&&0B& $2(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{1})+(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{3})+
(\mathbf{3},\mathbf{1})$ &
$2A, A_{MN}$ \\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$7$ & $ Sp(4)$ & $\mathbf{4}$ &0AB& $\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{5} +\mathbf{10}$ &
$A, A_M, A_{MN}$ \\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$8$ & $SU(4)$ & $\mathbf{4},\; \mathbf{\bar 4}$ &0A&
$2(\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{15})$ & $2A, 2A_{MN}$ \\
& & &0B& $\mathbf{6}+\mathbf{10}+\mathbf{\bar{6}}+\mathbf{\bar{10}}
$ & $2A_M, A_{MNR}$\\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$9$ & $SO(7)$ & $\mathbf{8}$ &0AB&
$ \mathbf{1}+\mathbf{7}+\mathbf{21}+\mathbf{35}$ &
$A, A_M, A_{MN}, A_{MNR}$ \\
&&&&&\\ \hline &&&&&\\
$10$& $SO(8)$ & $\mathbf{8}_s,\; \mathbf{8}_c$ &0A&
$2(\mathbf{8}+\mathbf{56})$ &
$2A_M, 2A_{MNR}$ \\
& & &0B& $2(\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{28}+\mathbf{35})$ &
$2A, 2A_{MN}, A_{MNRP}$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
To understand the table consider for example $d=8$. In the type 0B theory,
the bispinor in the $(R+,R+)$ sector decomposes into
$\mathbf{4}\times\mathbf{4}=\mathbf{6}+\mathbf{10}$. These
are all complex representations that yield a complex vector and a complex
three form with a self dual field strength. Notice that it is possible to
construct a self dual form in $d=8$ only if it is complex because $*^2=-1$.
The bispinor in the $(R-,R-)$ sector yields the complex conjugate fields.
These two sets of fields can be combined into two real one-forms and one real
three-form without any duality constraint. These are the fields written
in the last column.
Notice that in odd dimensions we have only one version of the theory
(0AB) without
the restriction on the rank of the forms.
In even dimensions the forms
come in even or odd rank depending on the RR projection. In $d=10$ and
$d=6$ the assignment is the familiar one (odd forms for type A and even
for type B) whereas in $d=8$ and $d=4$ it is reversed. Of course, it is
possible to dualize some of the fields to obtain the magnetically
charged branes. The unique form of degree $d/2 -1$ for the type 0B case
admits both electric and magnetic charges.
Notice that if it were not for the doubling of the RR sectors it would be
impossible to write off-shell real fields for the 0B theory
in $d=4$ and $d=8$
because, due to the Minkowski signature, it is impossible to impose either
self-duality or anti-self-duality on real forms.
We view this fact, together with the
argument based on modular invariance, as yet another piece of evidence
for the necessity of the presence of both RR sectors.
To obtain the complete form of the RR couplings up to two derivatives we
need to address the issue of Chern--Simons terms. The terms of relevance here
are those constructed with 3 gauge fields and 2 derivatives.
Despite the lack of space-time supersymmetry,
the Chern--Simons terms are present,
at least in $d=10$, because they are there in the type II theories.
It thus seems
that the presence of these terms is dictated more by world-sheet supersymmetry
than by space-time supersymmetry and it is natural
to assume that such terms are also present in lower dimensions.
The presence of so many RR fields may seem to lead to difficulties in
determining these terms.
However, there are two simplifying features that we infer from
the $d=10$ case: First, there will not be terms involving only RR fields
since they correspond to the correlation function of an odd number of
spin fields. One of the three gauge fields must therefore be the
$(NS+, NS+)$ two-form $B_{MN}$. Second, applying the selection rules of the
previous section, we see that the coupling will involve fields from the same
RR sector in $d=6$ and $d=10$ and from the opposite sector in $d=4$ and $d=8$.
Let us start with the case of $d$ odd. In this case our proposal for the
RR part of the action is
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{{\mathrm 0AB}}_{d=5} &=& \int\;f(T)
(F_1*F_1 + F_2*F_2) + B F_1 F_2\nonumber\\
S^{{\mathrm 0AB}}_{d=7} &=& \int\;f(T)
(F_1*F_1 + F_2*F_2 + \tilde F_3*\tilde F_3)
+ B F_2 F_3\nonumber\\
S^{{\mathrm 0AB}}_{d=9} &=& \int\;f(T) (F_1*F_1 + F_2*F_2 +
\tilde F_3*\tilde F_3 + \tilde F_4*\tilde F_4)
+ B F_3 F_4. \label{actodd}
\end{eqnarray}
The forms $F_n$ are the field strengths associated to the RR gauge potentials.
In this section we use ``index free'' notation and redefine the normalization
coefficients to one in order not to clutter the formulas too much. A wedge
product between forms is always understood. The tilde above the forms always
indicates the ``NS-NS shift'', e.g. $\tilde F_4=F_4 + B F_2$, with the
appropriate modified gauge transformation just as in type II supergravity.
Notice that, once it is assumed that the Chern--Simons terms are present, the
modification in the field strength must also be present for the action to
transform correctly under electric/magnetic duality. $f(T)$ is a function of
the tachyon whose first few coefficients in the Taylor expansion around zero
can in principle be determined by extrapolating from the on-shell
computation~\cite{Klebanov:a} in $d=10$. We shall see that the detailed form
of these functions is not directly relevant for the computations of the
properties of the dual field theories.
To write the actions for the even dimensional cases, let us denote the field
strengths from the two RR sectors by $F, \; F^\prime$ for $d=6$ and $d=10$
and by $F, \; \bar F$ for $d=4$ and $d=8$. In the former case the field
strengths are real whereas in the latter they are complex conjugates of each
other. The form of highest degree in the type 0B case is special -- it is
self dual in the complex case and its vertex operator does not contain the
chiral projection.
{
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{{\mathrm 0A}}_{d=4} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_1*\bar F_1) +
f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_1*F_1+ \bar F_1*\bar F_1)
+i B F_1 \bar F_1\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0B}}_{d=4} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_2*\bar F_2) +
f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_2*F_2 +\bar F_2*\bar F_2)
\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0A}}_{d=6} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_2* F_2 + F^\prime_2* F^\prime_2)
+ f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_2* F^\prime_2) + B (F_2 F_2 + F^\prime_2 F^\prime_2)
\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0B}}_{d=6} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_1* F_1 + F^\prime_1* F^\prime_1+
\tilde F_3 *\tilde F_3 )
+ f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_1* F^\prime_1 + \tilde F_3 *\tilde F_3 ) \nonumber\\
&& + B (F_1 F_3 + F^\prime_1 F_3)
\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0A}}_{d=8} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_1*\bar F_1 +
\tilde F_3 * \tilde {\bar F_3})
+f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_1*F_1+ \bar F_1*\bar F_1 + \tilde F_3 * \tilde F_3
\nonumber \\ &&+\tilde{\bar F_3} * \tilde{\bar F_3} )
+i B F_3 \bar F_3\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0B}}_{d=8} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_2*\bar F_2 + \tilde F_4 *
\tilde{\bar F_4})
+f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_2*F_2 +\bar F_2*\bar F_2 \nonumber\\
&&+ \tilde F_4 * \tilde F_4
+\tilde{\bar F_4} * \tilde{\bar F_4})
+ B (F_2 \bar F_4 + F_4 \bar F_2)
\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0A}}_{d=10} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_2* F_2 + F^\prime_2* F^\prime_2 +
\tilde F_4* \tilde F_4 +\tilde F^\prime_4*\tilde F^\prime_4)
\nonumber \\&&+ f_{\mathrm odd}(T)( F_2* F^\prime_2 +
\tilde F_4*\tilde F^\prime_4)
+ B (F_4 F_4 + F^\prime_4 F^\prime_4)
\nonumber \\
S^{{\mathrm 0B}}_{d=10} &=& \int\;f_{\mathrm even}(T) (F_1* F_1 + F^\prime_1* F^\prime_1+
\tilde F_3* \tilde F_3 + \tilde F^\prime_3* \tilde F^\prime_3
+ \tilde F_5 *\tilde F_5 )\nonumber \\&&
+ f_{\mathrm odd}(T) (F_1* F^\prime_1 + \tilde F_3 *\tilde F^\prime_3
+ \tilde F_5 *\tilde F_5 )
+ B (F_3 F_5 + F^\prime_3 F_5).\label{acteven}
\end{eqnarray}
}
We present the form of the actions in all their generality because it will be
useful for future more detailed computations. For our present purposes
however, it should be noticed that the kinetic terms in the actions can be
diagonalized by letting $F_\pm = F\pm F^\prime$ in $d=6,10$ and
$F_\pm = F\pm i\bar F$ in $d=4,8$.
\subsection{Massive type 0 gravity}
There is still one RR form field that can be added to the actions
(\ref{actodd}) and (\ref{acteven}).
In a $d$-dimensional space-time it is possible to
introduce a rank $d-1$ gauge potential coupling to a corresponding
extended object. It carries no physical degrees of freedom and
therefore it is not visible in the on-shell analysis of the previous
subsection. Its rank $d$ field strength, however, carries an energy density
and it does affect the physics. This form will be used in Section 5
when constructing various field theory duals. This case will provide
the simplest example which displays
most of the interesting physics, and it allows one to avoid
the complications of disentangling the Kaluza-Klein
modes.
In type IIA supergravity
(and thus in $d=10$ type 0A for each RR sector) it is well known
how to introduce such a field~\cite{Romans,Bergshoeff:1996ui}.
The required modifications in the bosonic sector are the addition of the
terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\int\; M F_{10} +\frac{1}{2} M^2 *1 \label{addit}
\end{eqnarray}
to the action, and a further shift of the 2- and the 4-form
field strengths by
$MB$ and $MB^2/2$, respectively. The gauge transformations are changed
accordingly in order to re-ensure gauge invariance. Integrating over
the gauge potential of $F_{10}$ imposes the constraint that $M$ be constant.
Solving the equation of motion for $M$ establishes a connection
between $M$ and $F_{10}$. In the case $B=0$ -- relevant to our analysis --
they are simply Hodge duals of each other as is readily seen from
(\ref{addit}).
From the string theory point of view \cite{Polchinski:b},
the natural generalization of the RR $\beta$-function
equations implies ${\mathrm d} * F_{d}=0 $ and ${\mathrm d} F_{d}=0$,
as the top-form, too, appears in the reduction of
an even dimensional type 0A
bispinor into antisymmetric tensor representations.
In our case, we must also include the coupling with the tachyon.
The relevant addition is
\begin{eqnarray}
- \frac{1}{2} \int f(T) F_{d} * F_{d}
\end{eqnarray}
that we assume be present in any dimension.
\section{Classical solutions}
In what follows we shall show that the above described low energy
theories allow Freund--Rubin type solutions~\cite{Freund}, where the
dilaton and the
tachyon are constant,
the space-time factorizes into a product of an AdS space and a sphere,
and the only nontrivial
form-field is a RR field. Such types of solutions are very familiar from the
supergravity literature, see e.g.~\cite{Duff:a, Duff:b, Kim,
Salam, Randjbar-Daemi}.
It is sufficient to consider the Einstein frame action\footnote{We now switch
to component notation for clarity and reinstate all the appropriate
normalizations. Note that our normalization of the tachyon differs by a factor
of $\sqrt{2}$ from that of most of the recent literature.}
\begin{eqnarray}
S &=& \int {\mathrm d}^dx \sqrt{-g}~ \Bigg\{ R - \frac{1}{2} (\partial_{M}\Phi)^2
- \frac{1}{2} (\partial_{M}T)^2 - V(T)~{\mathrm e}^{a\Phi} \nonumber \\ & & \qquad
- \frac{1}{2~(p+2)!}~ f(T)~ {\mathrm e}^{b\Phi}~ \Big(F_{M_1 \cdots M_{p+2}}\Big)^2
\Bigg\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $V(T)$ is the sum of the tachyon potential and the central
charge deficit,
and $f(T)$ is the coupling between the $(p+2)$-dimensional RR
form $F$ and the tachyon. The RR gauge field is the appropriate linear
combination of some of the fields of the previous section in such a way that
the kinetic terms are diagonal. After diagonalization, $f(T)$ no longer has
any particular symmetry property.
The coefficients $a$ and $b$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
a &=& \sqrt{\frac{2}{d-2}} \\
b &=& \frac{1}{2} (d-2p-4) \sqrt{\frac{2}{d-2}} .
\end{eqnarray}
The field $B_{MN}$ that we are setting to zero
here may appear linearly in the full
action only
in the Chern--Simons term, but in that case multiplied by $F \wedge F$,
which will vanish in the Freund--Rubin ansatz.
The equations of motion can be summarized as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Box \Phi &=& aV(T)~ {\mathrm e}^{a\Phi} + \frac{b}{2}~ f(T)~
{\mathrm e}^{b\Phi}~ \frac{1}{(p+2)!}~ \Big(F_{M_1 \cdots M_{p+2}}\Big)^2
\label{dilaton} \\
\Box T &=& V'(T)~ {\mathrm e}^{a\Phi} + \frac{1}{2}~ f'(T)~
{\mathrm e}^{b\Phi}~ \frac{1}{(p+2)!}~ \Big(F_{M_1 \cdots M_{p+2}}\Big)^2
\label{tachyon} \\
R_{MN} &=& \frac{1}{2}~ \partial_M \Phi~ \partial_N \Phi +
\frac{1}{2}~ \partial_M T~ \partial_N T \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{1}{d-2}~ g_{MN}~ V(T)~ {\mathrm e}^{a\Phi} +
\frac{1}{2}~ f(T)~ {\mathrm e}^{b\Phi}~ \tilde{T}_{MN} \label{gravity} \\
0 &=& \nabla^N~ \Big( f(T)~ {\mathrm e}^{b\Phi}~ F_{NM_1 \cdots M_{p+1}}
\Big)~. \label{formfield}
\end{eqnarray}
The tensor $\tilde T_{MN}$ is shorthand for the (trace subtracted)
stress energy tensor
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{T}_{MN} &=& \frac{1}{(p+1)!} \Bigg( F_{MK_1 \cdots K_{p+1}}
F_{N}^{~~K_1
\cdots K_{p+1}} - \frac{(p+1)~ g_{MN}}{(p+2)(d-2)} \Big(F_{K_1
\cdots K_{p+2}}\Big)^2 \Bigg) \nonumber \\
& &
\end{eqnarray}
Again, we have ignored potential contributions from Chern--Simons terms
because they vanish for the classical solution. They do contribute to the
analysis of the fluctuations in the general case and also for this reason,
in the next section, when computing the critical properties of the field
theory duals we restrict to the simple case $d=p+2$ where such complications
do not arise. We hope to return to the general case in a later
paper~\cite{Ferretti:b}.
These equations of motion have a solution with constant dilaton
$\Phi=\Phi_0$ and tachyon $T=T_0$ in the gravity background of a product space
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathrm AdS}_{p+2} \times {\mathrm S}^{d-p-2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The size of the two maximally symmetric spaces is determined by
setting\footnote{The Greek indices refer to the AdS space and the
Latin indices to the sphere.}
(always in units of $\alpha^\prime$)
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}=-\frac{1}{R^2_0}\left(g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\lambda}
-g_{\mu\lambda}g_{\nu\rho} \right)\quad
R_{ijkl}=+\frac{1}{L^2_0}\left(g_{ik}g_{jl}-g_{il}g_{jk}
\right). \label{riemann}
\end{equation}
Finally, the RR field is set proportional to the volume-form
of the anti-de Sitter
space, and hence its only nontrivial components are
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{p+2}} &=& F_0~ \sqrt{-g({\mathrm AdS}_{p+2})}~
\epsilon_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{p+2}},
\end{eqnarray}
where the constant $F_0$ is related to the conserved charge $k$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
k = f(T_0)~{\mathrm e}^{b\Phi_0}~F_0~. \label{chargek}
\end{eqnarray}
Given the two functions $V(T)$ and $f(T)$, the tachyon and the dilaton vacuum
expectation values are determined from Eqs.~(\ref{dilaton}), (\ref{tachyon})
and (\ref{chargek}). The tachyon $T_0$
can be expressed implicitly, as the solution of an algebraic equation, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{f'(T_0)}{f(T_0)} &=& \frac{1}{2}(d-2p-4)~ \frac{V'(T_0)}{V(T_0)}.
\label{tnaught}
\end{eqnarray}
The dilaton $\Phi_0$ can then be readily obtained from
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathrm e}^{(a+b)\Phi_0} &=& \frac{(d-2p-4)}{4}~ \frac{k^2}{f(T_0)~V(T_0)}~.
\end{eqnarray}
The radii of the anti-de Sitter space $R_0$ and that of the sphere
$L_0$ can be solved from the Einstein equations (\ref{gravity})
\begin{eqnarray}
R^2_0 &=& (p+1)(d-2p-4) \frac{{\mathrm e}^{-a\Phi_0}}{V(T_0)} \label{rrr} \\
L^2_0 &=& (d-p-3)(d-2p-4) \frac{{\mathrm e}^{-a\Phi_0}}{V(T_0)}. \label{landlambda}
\end{eqnarray}
In the derivation we assumed $k\neq 0$. Also three
special dimensionalities were excluded for compactness:
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)]
The case $d = p+3$ leads to an infinite radius in the AdS space-time,
i.e.~the flat Minkowski space times a circle, and is not considered in
what follows.
\item[b)]
For $d=2p+2$ the dilaton becomes a free parameter. Rather
than its vacuum expectation value $\Phi_0$, the charge $k$
is determined from the equation of motion (\ref{dilaton})
\begin{eqnarray}
k^2 = -2 V(T_0)~f(T_0)~ .
\end{eqnarray}
The rest of the formulae (\ref{tnaught}), (\ref{rrr}) and (\ref{landlambda})
are still valid.
\item[c)]
We assumed that $V(T_0) \neq 0$. In addition to some completely Ricci flat
solutions this condition also excludes the middle dimensional branes,
for which we have $d=2p+4$.
In these dimensions the radii are
\begin{eqnarray}
R_0^2 = L_0^2 = 4~(p+1)~ \frac{f(T_0)}{k^2}~,
\end{eqnarray}
Now $T_0$ is determined from $V(T_0) = 0$ (not $V^\prime(T_0)=0$)
and $\Phi_0$ from
\begin{eqnarray}
V'(T_0) {\mathrm e}^{a\Phi_0} - \frac{k^2}{2} \frac{f'(T_0)}{f(T_0)^2} =0~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
The solutions discussed above are physically acceptable only for
$f(T_0)>0$.
\section{Dual field theory interpretation}
In this section we finally make contact with the conjectured gravity/field
theory duality by studying the field theory duals of the type 0 theories
for the simple case of $d=p+2$. This case already contains all the
relevant qualitative features of the most general one, without the
complication of the Kaluza--Klein analysis.
Let us state the logic of the approach.
The classical solutions on the gravity side
correspond to fixed points on the field theory side.
There is a geodesic flow that relates these classical solutions,
which is interpreted as the renormalization group
flow connecting different fixed points.
Fluctuation modes with positive, vanishing, and
negative mass square correspond to irrelevant,
marginal, and relevant deformations.
The critical exponents can be obtained from these masses and they depend on
a finite set of undetermined parameters due to the arbitrariness of the
tachyon couplings. These parameters should be fixed by comparing some
universal quantities with experiment which leads to a prediction
for the remaining quantities.
\subsection{Stability of the AdS$_d$ solutions}
Classical solutions can serve as sound vacua for
a quantum theory only if small fluctuations around the solutions
are stable. In Minkowski space this implies that tachyonic
fluctuation modes are forbidden.
In an AdS background this requirement can be relaxed, and one
finds the bound
\cite{Abbott, Breitenlohner, Mezincescu:a, Mezincescu:b}
\begin{eqnarray}
m^2 \geq - \frac{(d-1)^2}{4}~ \frac{1}{R_0^2}~. \label{BF}
\end{eqnarray}
for the masses of the scalar fluctuation modes.
The first source of these instabilities near the solutions found in
the previous section are obviously fluctuations
in the tachyon field $T$. Tachyonic instabilities
may enter also through the various scalar fields that appear on the AdS space,
as the fields are compactified on the sphere $S^{d-p-2}$.
In order to show that the theory is stable against these perturbations,
one has to
linearize the full set of equations of motion around the classical
solution, and check that no mode violates
the bound (\ref{BF}).
This can be done, but the physically relevant features
already appear in the case where the transverse sphere is absent.
We shall discuss this example below in detail.
As $d=p+2$, the nontrivial RR field is the top-form,
dual to a cosmological constant
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{p+2}} &=& F~ \sqrt{-g}~
\epsilon_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{p+2}}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Note, that this is no longer the Freund--Rubin ansatz, but the RR
field is a priori entirely general and unconstrained.
This is the field discussed in Section 3.3.
The equation of motion (\ref{formfield}) becomes
in this case a constraint, and it turns out that
the conserved charge is
\begin{eqnarray}
k = f(T)~{\mathrm e}^{b\Phi}~F~. \label{cha}
\end{eqnarray}
With the help of (\ref{cha}), the
equations of motion for the other fields reduce to a Hamiltonian form
\begin{eqnarray}
\Box \Phi &=& -\frac{\partial}{\partial\Phi} {\cal V}(\Phi,T) \\
\Box T &=& -\frac{\partial}{\partial T} {\cal V}(\Phi,T) \\
R_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\Phi\partial_\nu\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu
T\partial_\nu T-\frac{1}{d-2}{\cal V}(\Phi,T)g_{\mu\nu}
\end{eqnarray}
where the effective potential is
\begin{equation}
{\cal V}(\Phi,T) = - V(T) {\mathrm e}^{a\Phi} -
\frac{1}{2}~ \frac{k^2}{f(T)}~ {\mathrm e}^{-b\Phi}~.
\end{equation}
Let us linearize the equations of motion near a classical solution
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi &=& \Phi_0 + \varphi \\
T &=& T_0 + t \\
g_{\mu\nu} &=& \hat{g}_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}~.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to do this, we need some knowledge of the functions
$V(T)$ and $f(T)$.
The only characteristics of these functions that will
enter the stability analysis are the coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
x = \frac{V'(T_0)}{V(T_0)}~, \qquad
y = \frac{V''(T_0)}{V(T_0)}~, \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
z = \frac{f''(T_0)}{f(T_0)} \label{xxyyzz}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Perturbative string theory analysis around $T=0$ yields \cite{Klebanov:a}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(T) &=& d-10 - \frac{d-2}{8}~T^2 + {\cal O}(T^4) \\
f(T) &=& 1 + T + \frac{1}{2}~ T^2 + {\cal O}(T^3).
\end{eqnarray}
This is not enough to determine the coefficients (\ref{xxyyzz}),
and they should indeed
be treated as free parameters of the theory. Including other unknown
functions (see discussion in Section 3.1) would give rise to more than three
such parameters, but the analysis performed here would still have the same
qualitative features.
The fact that the graviton fluctuations actually decouple completely
from those of the scalars simplifies the calculations:
The graviton equations of motion can, in fact, be
derived to first order from the effective action
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{{\mathrm h}} &=& \int {\mathrm d}^dx~ \sqrt{-(\hat{g}+h)}~
\Bigg\{ R(\hat{g}_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}) +
{\cal V}(\Phi_0,T_0) \Bigg\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
The scalar fluctuations obey
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big( -{\Box}+
{\cal M}~ \Big)
\left(\begin{tabular}{c}
$\varphi$\\
$t$
\end{tabular} \right) =0
\label{scalfluct}
\end{eqnarray}
where the mass matrix is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M} = d(d-1)~ R^{-2}_0~ \left(\begin{tabular}{cc}
$1$ & $\sqrt{\frac{d-2}{2}}\,x$ \\
$\sqrt{\frac{d-2}{2}}\,x$ & $d~ x^2 -y - \frac{2}{d} z$
\end{tabular} \right)~.
\end{eqnarray}
The mass eigenvalues are
\begin{eqnarray}
m^2_{1,2} &=& d(d-1) \, R^{-2}_0 \, \Bigg(1 + \frac{\tau}{2}
\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\tau^2+(2d-4) x^2}\Bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau = d~ x^2 -\frac{2z}{d}-y-1~.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the masses depend only on two independent parameters
$x$ and $\tau$.
If we assume, following \cite{Klebanov:b}, that $f(T) = \exp(T)$,
then the equations of motion give $x=-2/d$,
and we can easily extract some interesting
qualitative features as the only
undetermined parameter is $\tau$.
In this case
there turns out to be three different, continuously connected phases:
First, there can be two
particles, both with positive mass squared. Second, there can be a
particle and a tachyon that obeys the bound (\ref{BF}).
Third, there can be a tachyon that makes the vacuum unstable. In AdS/CFT
correspondence this translates into the statement that there can be
at most one relevant operator in the infrared
near the fixed point described by this theory.
\subsection{Solutions connecting conformal fixed points}
The stability analysis as applied to the critical points
of the potential yields local information
about the behavior of the dual field theory near its fixed points.
Depending on the form of the potential, there may exist gravity
solutions that interpolate between different critical points.
These solutions should be interpreted on the field theory side as RG
trajectories between conformal points.
In order to study these interpolating solutions we consider the
ansatz
\begin{equation}
\label{Liouv-ansatz}
{\mathrm d} s^2={\mathrm d} y^2+A^2(y)~ {\mathrm d} x^2_{\parallel}
\end{equation}
and allow the two scalars to depend on the Liouville coordinate $y$.
We already know from the previous sections that there are exact
solutions of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
A(y) = {\mathrm e}^{y/R}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $R$ is the radius of the pertinent AdS space.
The Einstein equation gives rise to two independent equations.
Defining the following auxiliary function
\begin{equation}
\gamma(y)=(d-1)~ \frac{{\mathrm d}}{{\mathrm d} y}\log (A)~,
\end{equation}
the full set of equations takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{A}}{A} + (d-2)\left( \frac{\dot{A}}{A} \right)^2 &=&
\frac{1}{d-2}{\cal V} \label{dump1}\\
\ddot{\vec{{\Phi}}}+\gamma\dot{{\vec{\Phi}}} &=&
-\vec{\nabla}{\cal V} \label{dump3} \\
\dot{\gamma} &=&
-\frac{d-1}{2(d-2)}\big(\dot{\vec{\Phi}}\big)^2 \leq 0 \label{dump2}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we denote derivatives with respect to $y$ with a dot,
and we have introduced the compact notation $\vec{\Phi}=(\Phi,T)$
for the two scalars.
Provided $\gamma \geq 0$, equation (\ref{dump3})
has the physical interpretation
of a particle moving on a plane
in the potential ${\cal V}$, subject to a
friction force.
Let us assume that the potential has two critical points
$\vec{\Phi}_1$ and $\vec{\Phi}_2$ that satisfy
${\cal V}(\vec{\Phi}_1) > {\cal V} (\vec{\Phi}_2)$, and that there is
at least one unstable direction at $\vec{\Phi}_1$ for increasing $y$
and, similarly, a stable direction for $\vec{\Phi}_2$.
This can always be arranged by choosing the ${\cal O}(T^4)$ part
in $V(T)$ suitably.
Due to the friction coefficient we expect our particle to roll down
starting from the IR fixed point, and to
converge in an infinite amount of time towards the lower UV fixed point.
This happens, since $\gamma$ is strictly positive:
Indeed, at the critical points $\gamma$
approaches the values
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma &\to& \frac{d-1}{R_1} \quad \mbox{for } y\to -\infty \\
\gamma &\to& \frac{d-1}{R_2} \quad \mbox{for } y\to +\infty~,
\end{eqnarray}
and the friction coefficient decreases
monotonously between them according to (\ref{dump2}).
This is consistent with the fact that
\begin{equation}
R^2_{1,2}=\frac{(d-1)(d-2)}{{\cal V}(\vec{\Phi}_{1,2})}
\end{equation}
as follows from (\ref{dump1}).
The solution might be oscillatory near the UV critical point.
Whether this happens depends on whether the friction
is enough to stop the particle as it arrives
at the lower point.
Clearly, if one wants to interpret the result as an RG
flow, the oscillatory behavior would be difficult to accommodate
in the field theory picture. The oscillatory solutions
are exactly the solutions that would violate the bound (\ref{BF}),
which is a necessary condition
for the consistency of the system on the gravity side.
Hence, quite remarkably, the stability in the gravity theory
is dual to the consistency of the field theory interpretation.
Some universal information can be read from
the local behavior of these solutions.
In the spirit of the Wilsonian RG treatment, let us study
the critical behavior near the two fixed points
in the linearized approximation. We must first identify the appropriate
coordinate which in field theory can be consistently interpreted as
the energy scale
and parameterizes the interpolating solution.
Such a coordinate can be chosen to
be\footnote{This definition corresponds locally, near the fixed points,
to the one used in \cite{Maldacena}. However,
there are alternative definitions. For instance choosing $U=\dot A$
one obtains the holographic relation, cf.~\cite{Peet}. All of these
definitions lead to the same universal quantities.}
\begin{equation}
U=\frac{A^2}{\dot{A}}
\end{equation}
since at the critical points this reduces to $U=R~ {\mathrm e}^{y/R}$, where
the metric takes the standard form
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm d} s^2 = \frac{R^2}{U^2} {\mathrm d} U^2+\frac{U^2}{R^2} {\mathrm d} x_{\parallel}^2~.
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{equation}
\vec{\Phi}(U) = \vec{\Phi}_0+\delta\vec{\Phi}(U)~,
\end{equation}
so that Eq.~(\ref{scalfluct}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\left[-\frac{1}{R^2}[d~U\partial_U+U^2\partial_U^2]+
{\cal M}\right]\delta\vec{\Phi}=0.
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues of $\cal M$, namely $m_i^2$ are
found in Section 5.1, and for each of the two
eigenvectors we get two linearly independent solutions
\begin{equation}
\delta\tilde{\Phi}_i=A_iU^{\lambda^i_+}+B_iU^{\lambda^i_-}~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\lambda^i_\pm=\frac{-(d-1)\pm\sqrt{(d-1)^2+4m_i^2R^2}}{2}~. \label{roots}
\end{equation}
Notice first that the stability condition (\ref{BF}) ensures
the reality of the roots and they only depend on the dimensionless
parameters $x$, $y$, and $z$.
The IR limit corresponds to taking $U\to 0$, for which there must be at
least one positive eigenvalue, say, $(m^{{\mathrm IR}}_1)^2 >0$.
In order for the solution not to
blow up at this point we must choose $B^{\mathrm IR}_1=B^{\mathrm IR}_2=0$.
If $(m^{{\mathrm IR}}_2)^2 <0$ we must
also set $A^{\mathrm IR}_2=0$, otherwise, the trajectory may
in general start with a
linear combination of the two eigenvectors. The trajectory will then evolve to
the UV fixed point as $U\to \infty$ where there will be at least one
negative mass eigenvalue, say $(m^{{\mathrm UV}}_1)^2$.
Generically, both the coefficients
$A^{\mathrm UV}_1$ and $B^{\mathrm UV}_1$ will be non-zero and the root
$\lambda^1_+$ will dominate.
In the AdS/CFT correspondence it is common to identify
$g_{\mathrm YM}^2={\mathrm e}^\Phi$. This relation is plausible by considering
the weak coupling expansion of the world-volume gauge theory living on
the stack of D-branes. On the other hand, away from the Gaussian fixed
point there is no a priori reason to make such an identification. Thus we
will stay general and regard $\Phi$ and $T$ as the coupling constants.
We can now read off the leading order
behavior of the $\beta$-functions near the
fixed points:
\begin{equation}
\beta_i(g_i)=U\frac{{\mathrm d} g_i}{{\mathrm d} U}=\lambda_+^i(g_i-g_i^*)+\dots,
\end{equation}
where $g_i=\tilde{\Phi}_i$.
In particular, the conformal dimension of an operator
coupled to
the bulk field $\tilde\Phi_i(U,x)$ (a linear combination of the original
tachyon and dilaton) is $\Delta_i= d-1 + \lambda_+^i$ and
the anomalous dimension is $\lambda_+^i$.
Note that, if $\lambda_+$ vanishes, then we should have $A=0$ as well.
This represents a marginal operator within our approximation and the
computation of the $\beta$-function would pick up the sub-leading contribution
which in the UV is $\lambda_- = -(d-1)$. This is what happens
in~\cite{Kehagias:a}, where the RG flow is studied in the framework of
type II supergravity.
One could also study confining and asymptotically free solutions of these
models as well as extend to situations where Kaluza--Klein modes are
present. We hope to return to some of these issues in the future.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We wish to thank R. Iengo, G. Mussardo,
S. Randjbar-Daemi and A. Schwimmer for
discussions.
We are also grateful to all the participants to the
A. Salam I.C.T.P. journal club for providing a forum for discussion.
This work was supported in part by the European Union TMR programs CT960045
and CT960090.
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent run (1997-98) of the Stanford Linear Collider (SLC)
was the most productive to date :
approximately 350K Z bosons were detected, compared to 210K
for the entire program from 1992-96, at peak luminosities
of $3 \times 10^{30} {\rm cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$, nearly a
factor of three improvement compared to the
best previous results. Nevertheless, LEP enjoys a
28 : 1 advantage in statistics, and it is only due to the
unique features of SLC operation that the SLD experiment is able
to contribute several state-of-the-art electroweak and b-physics
measurements. These well-known features are :
\begin{itemize}
\item High (75\%), precisely measured (${{\delta \cal P} \over{P}} \sim 0.5\%$)
longitudinal e- polarization.
\item A small and stable $e^+e^-$ luminous region (1.5 by 0.8 by 700 $\mu m$)
and a uniquely precise CCD-based vertex detector
(I.P. determined to 4 by 4 by 30 $\mu m$).
\end{itemize}
In what follows, recent electroweak results will be summarized, some historical
background provided, and implications of the data will be discussed.
\section{The Electroweak Observables}
The polarized differential cross section at the Z pole is given by :
$$ {d\sigma \over {d cos\theta}} \sim (1 - {\cal P}_e A_e)(1 + cos^2\theta)
+ 2A_f(A_e - {\cal P}_e)cos\theta, $$
where the parity violating asymmetries in terms of the
vector and axial vector NC couplings for fermion flavor $f$
are $A_f = {2v_f a_f \over {v_f^2 + a_f^2}}$.
The polarized $e^-$ beam at the SLC allows for the isolation of the
initial state ($A_e$) and final state ($A_f$) asymmetries. The initial state
couplings are determined most precisely via the left-right Z production asymmetry
$$ A_{LR}^0 = {1 \over {\cal P}_e}
{\sigma_L - \sigma_R \over {\sigma_L + \sigma_R}} = A_e , $$
while the left-right-forward-backward asymmetry for the
final state flavor $f = b,c,s,e,\mu ,\tau$
$$ A_{LRFB} =
{(\sigma_{LF} - \sigma_{LB}) - (\sigma_{RF} - \sigma_{RB})
\over {(\sigma_{LF} + \sigma_{LB}) + (\sigma_{RF} + \sigma_{RB})}}
= {3 \over{4}} {\cal P}_e A_f , $$
determines the final state couplings.
The $A_{LR}$ measurement is unique among all electroweak precision
measurements in that no efficiency or acceptance effects enter, and no
significant final state identification is required.
Due to the
extensively crosschecked high precision polarimetry,
the total systematic error ($\sim 0.75\%$)
ensures that the result is statistically dominated (stat. error $\sim 1.3\%$).
The quantity $A_{LR}^0$ provides by far the
most precise determination of
$sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$ presently available, and rivals
the 4 experiment CERN
average, without recourse to the assumption
of lepton/hadron universality inherent in the most precise
technique from LEP ($A_{FB}(b)$).
The significance of the $A_{LRFB}$ measurement, while not as precise as
$A_{LR}$, is that it provides the only direct measurement of the important
parameter $A_b$ (and the charm, strange and muon analogs as well), which
can only be obtained indirectly from unpolarized asymmetries.
While the weak mixing angle measurements are particularly sensitive to
vacuum polarization loop effects (and hence to the Higgs mass),
$A_b$ is instead
affected by corrections at the Zb${\rm \overline{b}}$ vertex.
In the context of the Minimal Standard Model (MSM), these
vertex corrections are insensitive to $M_{Higgs}$ and hence $A_b$
has an unambiguous predicted value (compared to experimental precision).
The combination of independent measurements of $A_e$ and $A_b$
is therefore a powerful test of the MSM.
In addition, measurements of the hadronic partial width ratios
$R_b$ and $R_c$, which are best measured at LEP and SLD, respectively,
have become precisely known. In particular, $R_b$ is interesting
due to high precision (0.4\% in the world average), and the fact that
it provides a nicely complimentary measurement to $A_b$ : $A_b$ is primarily
sensitive to {\em right}-handed NC b couplings, while $R_b$ is most sensitive
to the {\em left}-handed sector.
\section{Remarks on High Precision }
The unique precision of $A_{LR}$ is a centerpiece of the SLD
program, but the extensive
crosschecks which have bolstered our confidence in this
measurement are not so well known and are briefly reviewed here.
In the early years (1992-95), a number of dedicated accelerator
experiments were performed to establish the integrity of the
polarimetry, in particular 1) the $e^-$ bunch helicity transmission was verified
by setting up a current/helicity correlation in the SLC,
2) medium precision M\o ller and Mott polarimeters confirmed
the high precision Compton polarimeter result to $\sim 3\%$. In addition,
the advent of spin manipulation via ``spin bumps" in the SLC arcs
allowed us to minimize the spin chromaticity ($d{\cal P}/dE$)
which helped reduce a resulting polarization correction from $>1\%$ in 1993 to $<0.2\%$ by 1995.
Since 1997, two additional detectors of the Compton scattered photons
(the Compton $e^-$ are seen in the primary device), with rather different
systematics, presently confirm our overall polarization scale to within $0.5\%$.
Most recently, two longstanding questions were answered : 1) A dedicated experiment using
the End Station A fixed target polarimeter confirmed that accidental $e^+$ polarization
is consistent with zero ($-0.02\pm0.07\%$), 2) A short resonance scan was used to calibrate the
SLC energy spectrometers against $M_Z$, verifying their accuracy on $E_{cm}$
to about 40 MeV and leading to an estimate of induced systematic
error of $\sim 0.5\%$.
\footnote{This result was somewhat inflated
by instrumental problems during the scan,
compared to our prior estimate of $\sim 0.4\%$, but
remains at or below the polarimeter uncertainty.}
In summary, several years of instrumental work and crosschecks, supplemented by
extensive accelerator based tests, have answered
a large number of detailed questions, from the most fundamental to the
fairly obscure. The high precision of $A_{LR}$ is now very well established.
\section{Results and Interpretation}
The preliminary results are given below
(with the exception of kaon tagging for $A_b$,
and the latest $\sim 100K$ events for $R_b$,
these results are based on the entire
1992-1998 SLD data set). \cite{mor99}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{SLD electroweak results.\label{tab:exp}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|}
\hline
{ Observable } & {Prelim. Result} &
{$sin^2\theta_W$} & {comments}\\
\hline
\hline
{ $A_{LR}$ } & {$0.1504\pm0.0023$} &
{$0.23109\pm0.00029$} & {Incl. SLD leptonic result}\\
\hline
\hline
{ $A_{e}$ } & {$0.1504\pm0.0072$} &
{} & {(The LEP leptons only}\\
{ $A_{\mu}$ } & {$0.120\pm0.019$} &
{($0.2317\pm0.0008$)} & {result for $sin^2\theta_W$ :}\\
{ $A_{\tau}$ } & {$0.142\pm0.019$} &
{} & {$0.23153\pm0.00034$)}\\
\hline
{ $A_c$ } & {$0.634\pm0.027$} &
{} & {(LEP : $0.634\pm0.040$)}\\
{ $A_b$ } & {$0.898\pm0.029$} &
{} & {(LEP : $0.887\pm0.021$)}\\
\hline
{ $R_c$ } & {$0.169\pm0.006$} &
{} & {These observables are}\\
{ $R_b$ } & {$0.2159\pm0.0020$} &
{} & {consistent with the MSM.}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
A few comments are in order :
\begin{itemize}
\item Final errors will be $\sim \pm 0.00025$ for $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$,
and $\sim \pm 0.022$ for $A_b$, mainly due to improved systematics.
\item Additional $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$ information
derives from the left-right asymmetry in the lepton sample
(the dominant $A_{LR}$ result is from a hadronic sample).
\item The $A_b$ result is just over one sigma away from the SM prediction
(0.935), but if $A_b$ is deduced from the LEP $A_{FB}(b)$ measurement, the
SLD/LEP combined result is 2.6 sigma low.
\item The SLD $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$ result is nicely
consistent with lepton-based
results from LEP (0.8 sigma), a situation that has
held stably since 1995, while the $A_{FB}(b)$ dominated LEP hadronic
average differs from the lepton based result by 2.2 sigma.
\end{itemize}
The difficulty seen with the b-flavor results may be a
statistical fluctuation or due to analysis bias, or may point to the
intruiging possibility of an anamoly in b-NC couplings, in particular,
the right-handed coupling, a situation
which is difficult to motivate theoretically
(the $R_b$ world average is consistent with the MSM).
In either of the later two cases, the b-hadron based $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$
result is called into question - for now we feel it is reasonable to
perform our electroweak fits using the lepton-based weak mixing angle
average.
We first work within the framework of the MSM - Figure 1 shows the
result of separate fits to the Higgs mass using the lepton-based
$sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$ results from SLD and LEP, the $M_W$ results from
LEP II and the Tevatron, and for comparison the result using the
$A_{FB}(b)$ based weak mixing angle measurement from LEP.
\footnote{The $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ of Kuhn etal. is used for the
fits discussed here - the Jegerlehner etal. value used by the LEP EWWG
yields a $\chi^2$ minimum about 30 GeV lower, but due to larger
errors,
provides about the same 95\% confidence upper bound.\cite{alpha}}
The $M_W$ measurements seem to be confirming the very low Higgs
mass favored by $A_{LR}$. It is also noteworthy that even when $M_W$
precision reaches $\pm 30$ MeV (presently
$\pm 44$ MeV), the strongest contraints will still be
coming from $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$. The key to this enterprise
is that improved $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ determinations are becoming available \cite{alpha},
with further improvements expected from new low energy R data
\footnote{Improved data for the critical 2-5 GeV region is already available
from BES, with an eventual factor of two improvement in precision
expected in this region. \cite{DPF} }. To fully exploit higher precision
in $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ will
also require the expected FNAL Run II
improvements in $\delta m_{top}$, from the present 5 GeV to below 3 GeV.
\begin{figure} [h]
\begin{minipage}{5.8cm}
\leavevmode\centering
\epsfxsize=5.8cm
\epsfbox{mhiggs2.eps}
\caption{Selected MSM fits.}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{5.8cm}
\leavevmode\centering
\epsfxsize=5.8cm
\epsfbox{st4ju_doe2.eps}
\caption{Global S,T fit.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
A more general approach employs a fit to the S,T,U parameters \cite{ST},
which encompass a broad class of models dominated by oblique radiative
effects, including supersymmetric models. We perform a global fit to all
the world's electroweak data, including $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$, $M_W$,
Z-width and leptonic BRs, DIS-$\nu$ scattering, and atomic parity violation,
but excluding the heavy quark results from LEP and SLD (as these may
be showing significant vertex corrections). Figure 2 shows
the 68\% and 90\% fit ellipses and the contributions
from the three most precise inputs to the fit.
The MSM allows
the banana-shaped shaped region, whose size is limited by the present
FNAL top mass errors, and the LEP II direct Higgs search bounds (a
value of 98 GeV for the combined result is used here).
Also shown are a collection of points sampled from the 5-parameter
space of the Minimal Supersymetric Model (MSSM). It is evident
how light Higgs masses, and hence the MSSM, are presently
favored (in particular by $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$ and $M_W$). It is also
intriguiging how $sin^2\theta_W^{eff}$ has begun to place limits
on MSSM parameters, and with improved precision could play a role in untangling
ambiguous Higgs observations at the LHC.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Standard Model (SM) has accomplished a great success
to describe enormous phenomena of elementary particles.
Most of the experimental data have shown quite a good
quantitative agreement with the SM predictions
for various observables.
Precision measurements of the $Z$--pole observables
at LEP and SLD have provided highly accurate tests
on the Standard Model \cite{sm1,sm2,sm3}.
After the controversies about the discrepancy of $R_b$
($\equiv \Gamma(Z \to b \bar{b}) /\Gamma(Z \to \mbox{hadrons})$)
are resolved along with the improvement of the experiment,
no evidences of the new physics signal from colliders are reported yet.
The new physics effects are thought
to be as large as the loop effects of the SM at most.
We are still looking for a hint of the discrepancy
from the SM predictions in the list of the LEP and SLC data.
The forward--backward asymmetry of $Z \to b \bar{b}$ decay, $A_{FB}^b$,
may be a clue of such discrepancies
as it shows $-2 \sigma$ deviation from the SM prediction.
If we consider the left-right forward-backward asymmetry $A_b$,
which is directly measured by SLD and is related to $A_{FB}^b$,
the discrepancy is larger.
The combined fit for the LEP and SLD measurements gives
$A_b = 0.881 \pm 0.018$ which is $3 \sigma$
away from the SM prediction \cite{sm3}.
Taking this deviation to be serious,
anomalous couplings are required in the $Z b \bar{b} $ vertex.
At the same time we demand that the partial decay width $\Gamma_b$
(alternatively $R_b$) should be kept within
the experimental bound with these anomalous couplings.
The possibility of anomalous couplings are discussed
in many literatures.
Field presented an detailed analyses on the asymmetries
and couplings in model independent way \cite{field}.
Chang and Ma suggested a vectorlike heavy quark model
to explain $A_{FB}^b$ and $R_b$ data \cite{chang}.
In this letter, we attempt to extract the anomalous
couplings in $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
which explain $A_{FB}^b$ data of LEP and SLD together with $R_b$
through an extended scheme of electroweak precision test.
The remarkable feature is that the anomalous right-handed coupling
is required as well as the left-handed one
since variables for asymmetries are affected by the ratio
of the right-handed coupling to the left-handed one.
Since the SM electroweak radiative correction is almost
left-handed, the anomalous right-handed current may be a sensitive
probe to new physics effects.
Altarelli et al. have suggested the $\epsilon$ variables
for the electroweak precision test \cite{altarelli1}
and modified the analysis including $\Gamma_b$
to describe the large $m_t^2$ dependences
of electroweak radiative corrections to $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
\cite{altarelli2}.
However it is still dissatisfactory to describe the general couplings.
Here we suggest an extension including $A_{FB}^b$ data
to extract the general type of the anomalous couplings of
$Z b \bar{b}$ vertex.
We apply our analysis to the model
in the presence of the nonuniversal contact interactions.
The nonuniversal interaction acting on the third generation can be
an attractive candidate for the new physics
\cite{hill1,zhang,lee,hill2,hill3},
since we favor that the SM predictions for other flavours
should not be much disrupted by the new physics effects.
As another realization of the new physics effects,
we consider the left-right model (LR model) in the general scheme.
In the framework of LR model
based on the extended electroweak gauge group
SU(2)$_L \times$SU(2)$_R \times$U(1),
the anomalous right-handed couplings are naturally introduced
as well as the left-handed ones as is desirable.
In this model the anomalous couplings in $b$ sector are
directly related to those in the lepton sector
and should be strictly constrained.
For given bounds of the LR model parameter set,
both of the $A_{FB}^b$ and the $R_b$ data
can be shown to be accommodated.
This paper is organized as follows:
We extract the anomalous current interactions
in $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex in terms of the model independent
parameterization of the basic observables including $A_{FB}^b$
in Section II.
Our analysis in terms of new $\epsilon$ variables are applied
to the minimal nonuniversal contact term that is $d>4$
and its effect on the $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
in Section III.
The model with SU(2)$_L \times$SU(2)$_R \times$U(1)
gauge group is considered in Section IV.
We present constrained parameter set $(\epsilon_b,\epsilon'_b)$
and show that both of the $A_{FB}^b$ and the $R_b$ data
can be accommodated.
Finally we conclude in Section V.
\section{Model independent parameterization}
Provided that we allow the additional contribution
of the new physics to the $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex,
we write the most general amplitude for $Z \to b \bar{b}$ decay
for the model--independent analysis as
\begin{equation}
M(Z \to b \bar{b}) = \frac{g}{2 \cos \theta_W}
\epsilon^\mu \bar{u} \big( \gamma_\mu (g_{bV}^0 - g_{bA}^0 \gamma_5)
+ \Delta^L_b \gamma_\mu P_L + \Delta^R_b \gamma_\mu P_R \big) u~,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_\mu$ is the polarization vector for $Z$ boson and
$g_{bV}^0$ ($g_{bA}^0$) are tree level vector
(axial--vector) couplings of $b$ quark pair to $Z$ boson given by:
\begin{equation}
g_{bV}^0 = -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{2}{3} s_0^2~,~~~~~
g_{bA}^0 = -\frac{1}{2}~,
\end{equation}
with the Weinberg angle at tree level, $s_0^2$, satisfying
$s_0^2 c_0^2 = \pi \alpha(m_{_Z}) /\sqrt{2} G_F m_{_Z}^2$.
In the SM, $ \Delta^L_b = \Delta^{SM}_b (m_t^2)$ and $ \Delta^R_b=0$
where the leading contribution of $\Delta^{SM}_b(m_t^2)$
in the large $m_t$ limit is given by \cite{akhundov}
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{SM}_b(m_t^2) = \frac{\alpha}{4 \pi \sin^2 \theta_W}
| V_{tb} |^2 \frac{1}{2} \left(
\frac{m_t^2}{m_{_W}^2} +
\left( \frac{8}{3} + \frac{1}{6 \cos^2 \theta_W} \right)
\log \frac{m_t^2}{m_{_W}^2} \right)~,
\end{equation}
which arises from the top quark exchange diagrams
shown in Fig. 1.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=10cm}
\caption{ Electroweak radiative corrections to $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex.
}
\end{center}
\vskip 0.5cm
\end{figure}
We present the analysis in terms of the precision variables
in order to incorporate the SM corrections.
It is helpful to introduce the precision variables
for the study of the new physics effects on the electroweak data
because the additional contributions of new physics are expected
to be comparable with the loop contributions of the SM.
The $\epsilon$ analysis suggested by Altarelli et al.
\cite{altarelli1,altarelli2}
provides a model independent way to analyze the electroweak
precision data.
In this scheme, the electroweak radiative corrections
containing whole $m_t$ and $m_H$ dependencies are parametrized
into the parameters $\epsilon$'s and thus the $\epsilon$'s can be
extracted from the data without specifying $m_t$ and $m_H$.
The universal correction terms to the electroweak form factors
$\Delta \rho$ and $\Delta k$ are defined from the vector and
axial vector couplings of lepton pairs to $Z$ boson
as Eq. (4) of Ref. \cite{altarelli2}
and extracted from the inclusive partial decay width $\Gamma_l$
and the forward-backward asymmetry $A_{FB}^l$.
Thus we present the amplitude in terms of
the vector and axial-vector couplings
instead of the left- and right-handed couplings in Eq. (1).
Meanwhile the SM correction (3) is left-handed
and so we introduce the additional terms in the left-
and right-handed basis.
Another correction term $\Delta r_W$ is obtained
from the mass ratio $m_{_W}/m_{_Z}$ by the Eq. (1)
of Ref. \cite{altarelli2}.
The $\epsilon$ parameters are defined by the linear combinations
of correction terms to avoid the new physics effects being masked
by the large $m_t^2$ corrections in $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$.
We note that $\Delta r_W$ is irrelevant for our analysis and
affects only on $\epsilon_2$.
Hence we lay aside $\epsilon_2$ in our analysis of this letter.
The parameter $\epsilon_b$ is introduced to measure
the additional contribution to the $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
due to the large $m_t$-dependent corrections in the SM.
Since the electroweak radiative correction of the SM
shown in Eq. (3) is left-handed in the large $m_t$ limit,
Altarelli et al. have defined $\epsilon_b$
through the effective couplings $g_{bA}$ and $g_{bV}$
in the following manner:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{bA} &=& -\frac{1}{2} (1+\frac{1}{2} \Delta \rho) (1+\epsilon_b)~,
\nonumber \\
x_b &\equiv& \frac{g_{bV}}{g_{bA}} =
\frac{ 1-\frac{4}{3} \sin^2 \theta^l_{eff} + \epsilon_b}
{1+\epsilon_b}~.
\end{eqnarray}
of which asymptotic contribution is given by
$\epsilon_b \approx -G_F m_t^2/4 \pi^2 \sqrt{2}$.
In this expression, $ \sin^2 \theta^l_{eff}$ denotes
the effective Weinberg angle including the SM loop corrections
to the lepton sector.
However $\epsilon_b$ in Eq. (4) cannot be
the most general deviations from the Standard Model
of $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex and is not suitable
for incorporating new physics effects.
We introduce another parameter to describe the additional
right--handed current interaction effects.
Firstly we define $\Delta \rho_b$ by a deviation
from the axial coupling of lepton sector:
\begin{equation}
g_{bA} = g_{A} (1+\Delta \rho_b)
= -\frac{1}{2} \left( 1+\frac{1}{2} \Delta \rho \right)
(1+\Delta \rho_b) ~.
\end{equation}
Next we introduce another correction term $\Delta k_b$
analogous to the lepton sector as
\begin{equation}
\sin^2 \theta^b_{eff} = \sin^2 \theta^l_{eff} (1+\Delta k_b)
= s_0^2 (1+\Delta k) (1+\Delta k_b)~,
\end{equation}
which leads to
\begin{equation}
x_b \equiv \frac{g_{bV}}{g_{bA}}
= 1-\frac{4}{3} \sin^2 \theta^b_{eff}
= \frac{1-\frac{4}{3} \sin^2 \theta^l_{eff} - \Delta k_b}
{1 - \Delta k_b}~.
\end{equation}
The correction terms $\Delta \rho_b$ and
$\Delta k_b$ are defined in accord with those of lepton sector.
To avoid being masked by the electroweak radiative corrections
of the SM, we define the new epsilon parameters by the relations
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_b \equiv \Delta \rho_b,~~~~~~~~
\epsilon'_b \equiv \frac{2}{3} s_0^2 (\Delta \rho_b + \Delta k_b),
\end{equation}
with canceling $\Delta^{SM}_b(m_t^2)$ in $\epsilon'_b$.
In the SM limit, $ \Delta \rho_b =-\Delta k_b = \Delta_b^{SM}(m_t^2) $
and consequently $\epsilon'_b = 0$.
Hence $\epsilon_b$ goes to the original definition
in the SM limit while $\epsilon'_b$ purely measures the
anomalous right-handed current interaction and goes to 0
in the SM limit.
The parameters $\epsilon_b$ and $\epsilon'_b$ are extracted
from the observables of the inclusive decay width $\Gamma_b$
and forward-backward asymmetry of $b \bar{b}$ production $A_{FB}^b$.
In consequence, the four parameters
$\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_3$, $\epsilon_b$, and $\epsilon'_b$
are set to be one to one correspondent to the observables
$\Gamma_l$, $A_{FB}^l$, $\Gamma_b$, and $A_{FB}^b$.
The quadratic $m_t$ dependences of the SM electroweak radiative
corrections appear in $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_b$
while the $m_t$ dependence of $\epsilon_3$ is logarithmic.
The parameter $\epsilon'_b$ is identical to the anomalous
right-handed current interactions in $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
and expected to be sensitive to the new physics.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=fig2.eps,height=12cm,width=13cm}
\caption{ Available region in $\epsilon_b$ - $\epsilon'_b$ plain
obtained from experiment.
}
\end{figure}
We have the modification of the linearized relations
between the observables $\Gamma_b$, $A_{FB}^b$
and the epsilon parameters as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_b &=& \Gamma_b |_B (1 + 1.42 \epsilon_1 - 0.54 \epsilon_3
+2.29 \epsilon_b - 1.89 \epsilon'_b)
\nonumber \\
A_{FB}^b &=& A_{FB}^b |_B (1 + 17.5 \epsilon_1 - 22.75 \epsilon_3
+0.157 \epsilon_b - 1.02 \epsilon'_b)
\end{eqnarray}
while the relations of $\Gamma_l$ and $A_{FB}^l$
remains intact as Eq. (123) of Ref. \cite{altarelli2}.
$\Gamma_b |_B$ and $ A_{FB}^b |_B $ are
the Born approximation values which are defined by the tree level
results including pure QED and pure QCD corrections and
consequently depend upon the values of $\alpha_s(m_{_Z}^2)$
and $\alpha(m_{_Z}^2)$.
The QCD corrections to the forward-backward asymmetries
of $b$ quark pair in $Z$ decays are given in the Ref. \cite{abbaneo}.
We obtain
$ \Gamma_b |_B = 379.8$ MeV, and $A_{FB}^b |_B = 0.1041$
with the values $\alpha_s(m_{_Z}^2) = 0.119$
and $\alpha(m_{_Z}^2) =1/128.90$.
We show the allowed region of $\epsilon_b$ and
$\epsilon'_b$ at 95 $\%$ C.L.
from the recent LEP$+$SLD data in Fig. 2.
The values of $m_t = 175$ GeV and $m_H=100$ GeV are used.
We obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_b &=& (1.8 - 5.4) \times 10^{-2},
\nonumber \\
\epsilon'_b &=& (2.7 - 7.0) \times 10^{-2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Nonuniversal contact interactions}
Models with nonuniversal contact interactions are
mainly motivated by the idea that mass of the top quark
is of order of the weak scale and so the top quark
could be responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking.
In general we have several contact terms which are $d>4$ at
a high energy scale in those models.
We find a general list of contact terms in Refs. \cite{hill2,hill3}.
As a minimal contents of the model,
left-handed SU(2) doublet for the third generation and the right handed
singlet $t_R$ are coupled in a new gauge interaction.
The relevant term of the effective lagrangian is written by
\begin{equation}
L_{eff} = - \frac{1}{\Lambda} \bar{b} \gamma_{\mu} b
\bar{t} \gamma_{\mu} (f_V - f_A \gamma_5) t + ...~,
\end{equation}
where $f_V$ and $f_A$ are model parameters and
$\Lambda$ is the new physics scale.
Following the Ref. \cite{hill1,hill3} for normalizations,
we define $f_A \sim 4\pi(0.11)$.
The effective corrections to $Z \to b \bar{b}$ decay as represented
in Eq. (1) are generated via the top quark loops given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta_b^{L,R} = \frac{N_c}{4 \pi^2} f_A \frac{m_t^2}{\Lambda^2}
\ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{m_t^2}~,
\end{equation}
where $N_c = 3$.
Since $ \Delta_b^{L} = \Delta_b^{R}$, no additional contributions to
$\epsilon_b $ and $\epsilon'_b = \Delta_b^R$.
From the Fig. 2, we find that
$\epsilon'_b = (0 \sim -5) \times 10^{-3}$
when $\epsilon_b = \epsilon_b^{SM}$,
which yields the new physics scale
$\Lambda > 1.7$ TeV.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=7cm}
\caption{ Vertex corrections to $Z \to b \bar{b}$ decay
with the contact term.
}
\end{center}
\vskip 1cm
\end{figure}
\section{SU(2)$_L \times$SU(2)$_R \times$U(1) model}
If indeed the anomalous right-handed current exists
in $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex, it demands to find an origin
of such an anomaly as a next task.
Here we consider the left-right model (LR model) based on the
extended gauge group SU(2)$_L \times$SU(2)$_R \times$ U(1)
as a possible candidate.
We assume a general model without imposing the parity
on th lagrangian where the value of $g_R$ need not be equal to $g_L$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsfig{file=fig4.eps,height=9cm,width=13cm}
\caption{
Allowed parameter sets of $(\epsilon_b,\epsilon'_b)$ in LR model
}
\vskip 0.5cm
\end{figure}
In this model we have two kinds of additional contributions
to the neutral current sector with right-handed current,
one is the interaction to extra neutral gauge boson $Z'$
and the other is the interaction to the ordinary $Z$ boson
suppressed by the mixing angle $\xi$.
Since the $e^+ e^-$ collisions of LEP experiment
arise at the $Z$--peak energy,
the latter is relevant for our analysis,
which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{NC} &=& \frac{e}{s_W c_W} Z^\mu \bar{b} \gamma_\mu
\left[ \left( T_3^L - s_W^2 Q + \xi t_R s_W ( T_3^L-Q) \right) P_L
\right.
\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~+ \left. \left( - s_W^2 Q
+ \xi (s_W (t_R+\frac{1}{t_R}) T_3^R - t_R s_W Q) \right) P_R
\right] b~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_R = \tan \theta_R$, $s_W = \sin \theta_W$,
$c_W = \cos \theta_W$, and $Q$ is the electric charge.
$\xi$ is the neutral mixing angle between $Z$ and $Z'$.
The definitions of mixing angles follow the notation
of Ref. \cite{chay}.
Since we do not impose a discrete L-R symmetry,
the additional parameter $\theta_R$ have to come into the model
besides $\xi$ and $m_{Z'}$.
The correction terms defined in Eq. (1) are expressed
in terms of the model parameters:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^L_b &=& \Delta^{SM}_b (m_t^2) - \frac{1}{6} \xi t_R s_W
\nonumber \\
\Delta^R_b &=& - \frac{1}{6} \xi t_R s_W
\left( 1+\frac{3}{t_R^2} \right)~.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the mass of extra $Z'$ boson does not enter the analysis
for LEP I data since the LEP I experiment is performed
at the $Z$ peak energy.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsfig{file=fig5.eps,height=11cm,width=13cm}
\caption{ The LR model predictions of $R_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$
with the constrained values of $\epsilon$'s.
The inner ellipse denotes the experimental data at 1-$\sigma$ level
and the outer ellipse at 95 $\%$ C.L..
}
\vskip 0.5cm
\end{figure}
When we consider the LR model,
the anomalous right-handed couplings to $Z$ boson
also appear in other fermion sectors.
Thus we have the heavy constraints on the mixing angle
$\xi$ depending on $\theta_R$ from the lepton sectors
\cite{chay,langacker,barenboim}.
In the analysis of the neutral sector of the general LR model
in Ref. \cite{chay},
the constraints on $(\xi, \theta_R)$ are obtained
from the $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_3$ parameters using LEP data.
With these constraints on $\xi$ and Eq. (9),
$\epsilon_b$ and $\epsilon'_b$ are also heavily constrained
as shown in Fig. 4.
Actually extremely small region out of the ellipse in the
$(\epsilon_b,\epsilon'_b)$ plain shown in Fig. 2
is consistent with the allowed $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3)$ values
in this model.
With these values of $\epsilon$'s,
the predictions of $A_{FB}^b$ and $R_b$ from the Eq. (9)
are presented in Fig. 5 together with the experimental data.
We find that there exist parameter sets with which the recent data
can be consistent with the LR model predictions at 95 $\%$ C.L..
\section{Concluding Remarks}
We consider the anomalous couplings of $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
to explain the discrepancy in $A_{FB}^b$
as a manifestation of new physics effects.
Since there is no right--handed electroweak radiative corrections
to the $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex in the large $m_t$ limit of the SM,
the anomalous right--handed currents of $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
may be a sensitive probe to the new physics beyond the SM.
Among the LEP observables, $A_{FB}^b$ is one of the best
window to explore the anomalous right--handed currents
since it is sensitive to the ratio of the right-handed coupling
to the left-handed coupling.
The electroweak precision variables are used
to extract the new physics effects.
Any new physics effects in $Z l^+l^-$ vertex
are included in the $\Delta \rho$ and $\Delta k$
and consequently in $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_3$.
Thus the corresponding relations of $\Gamma_l$, $A_{FB}^l$
are unchanged with the new physics effects.
Including the observable $A_{FB}^b$, we introduce a new variable
$\epsilon'_b$ to probe the anomalous right-handed current
interactions in $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex.
Hence the new physics effects in $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
are encoded in $\epsilon_b$ and $\epsilon'_b$ likewise.
From the experimental data we obtain the model independent bound
on $\epsilon_b$ and $\epsilon'_b$.
Note that the allowed parameter set
$(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3)$ should be altered
when we consider another set of observables.
However we find that the change is slight here
since we introduce $A_{FB}^b$ and
exclude $m_{_W}$ and their error pull is
of the same order.
We consider the nonuniversal contact interactions and
the LR model as underlying physics of
such an anomalous right-handed current.
The lower bound of the new physics scale
at which the higher dimensional operators arise
is estimated through the $\epsilon$ analysis.
The LR model provides shifts of $Z l^+ l^-$ couplings
as well as those of $Z b \bar{b}$ vertex
and they are closely related.
Thus the allowed region for $(\epsilon_b,\epsilon'_b)$ set
is constrained by the $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3)$ constraints
obtained from the precise measurements
of the leptonic current interactions.
The large amount of deviation in $A_{FB}^b$
prefers much shift of couplings
while the data of lepton sectors are rather closer
to the SM predictions.
Therefore the combined analysis may present a strong constraint
on the neutral mixing angles of LR model
if the improved analyses of $A_{FB}^b$ would be performed.
\begin{ack}
This work is supported
by the Korea Science and Engineering
Foundation through the SRC program of Center for
Theoretical Physics at Seoul National University.
\end{ack}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Crossed squares were introduced by Loday and Guin-Walery in \cite{wl}. They
arose in various problems of relative algebraic K-theory. Loday later showed
in \cite{loday} that these quite simple algebraic gadgets modelled all
homotopy 3-types. More generally his notion of cat$^n$-group and the related
crossed $n$-cubes of Ellis and Steiner were shown by Loday to model all
connected $(n+1)$-types. The possibilities of calculation with these models was
enhanced by the development with R.Brown of a van Kampen type theorem for
these structures \cite{bl1}.
A link between simplicial groups and crossed $n$-cubes was used by Porter,
\cite{porter} to give an algebraic form of Loday's result and in particular to
give a functor from the category of simplicial groups to that of crossed
$n$-cubes realising the equivalence.
In 1993, Ellis \cite{ellis2} introduced a notion of free crossed square and
showed how to assign a free crossed square to a CW-complex. As there was an
established notion of free simplicial group, it seemed important to
investigate the extent to which the two notions of freeness are related. That
was the initial motivation for this paper. The two notions were intimately
related and moreover combining this with Ellis' alternative description of free crossed
squares in terms of the Brown-Loday non-abelian tensor product of groups and
coproducts of crossed modules, gives a new purely algebraic derivation of Brown
and Loday's result describing the homotopy 3-type of the suspension of an
Eilenberg-Mac Lane space. This success raises our hopes that this method of
attack can yield new results in higher dimensions.
\section{Preliminaries }
In this paper we will concentrate on the reduced case
and hence on simplicial groups rather than simplicial groupoids. This is for
ease of exposition only and all the results do go through for simplicially
enriched groupoids.
\textbf{Notation:} If $X$ is a set, $F(X)$ will denote the free group on $X$.
If $Y$ is a subset of $F(X)$, $\langle Y \rangle $ will denote the normal
subgroup generated by $Y$ within $F(X)$.
\subsection{Simplicial groups and groupoids}
Denoting the usual category of finite ordinals by $\Delta,$ we obtain for each
$k\geq 0$, a subcategory $\Delta_{\leq k}$ determined by the objects $[j]$ of $\Delta$
with $j\leq k.$ A simplicial group is a functor from the opposite category
$\Delta^{op}$ to $\mathfrak{Grp};$ a $k$-truncated simplicial group is a functor
from $\Delta^{op}_{\leq k}$ to $\mathfrak{Grp}.$ We will denote the category of simplicial
groups by $\mathfrak{SimpGrp}$ and the category of k-truncated
simplicial groups by ${\mathfrak{Tr_kSimpGrp}}$. By a {\em k-truncation of a simplicial group}, we mean
a $k$-truncated simplicial group $\mathfrak{tr_k}{\bf G}$ obtained by forgetting dimensions of
order $>k$ in a simplicial group {\bf G}, that is restricting {\bf G} to $\Delta^{op}_{\leq k}$. This gives a truncation functor
$
\mathfrak{tr_k}:{\mathfrak{SimpGrp}}\longrightarrow {\mathfrak{Tr_kSimpGrp}}
$
which admits a right adjoint
$
\mathfrak{ cosk_k}:\mathfrak{Tr_kSimpGrp}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{SimpGrp}
$
called the {\em k-coskeleton functor}, and a left adjoint
$
\mathfrak{sk_k}:\mathfrak{Tr_kSimpGrp}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{SimpGrp,}
$
called the {\em k-skeleton functor}. For explicit constructions of these see
\cite{duskin}. We will say that a simplicial group $G$ is \emph{k-skeletal} if
the natural morphism $\mathfrak{sk_k}G\rightarrow G$ is an isomorphism.
Recall that given a simplicial group {\bf G}, {\em the Moore complex} $(%
{ NG},\partial )$ {\em of} {\bf G} is the normal chain complex defined by
$$
({ NG})_n=\bigcap_{i=0}^{n-1}\mbox{\rm Ker}d_i^n
$$
with $\partial _n:NG_n\rightarrow NG_{n-1}$ induced from $d_n^n$ by
restriction. There is an alternative form of Moore complex given by the
convention of taking $$\bigcap^n_{i=1} \mbox{\rm Ker}d_i^n $$ and using $d_0$
instead of $d_n$ as the boundary. One convention is used by Curtis
\cite{curtis} (the $d_0$ convention) and the other by May \cite{may} (the $d_n$
convention). They lead to equivalent theories.
The {\em n$^{th}$ homotopy group} $\pi _n$({\bf G}) of {\bf G} is the $n
^{th}$ homology of the Moore complex of {\bf G}, i.e.
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\pi _n({\bf G}) & \cong & H_n(
{NG},\partial ) \\ & = & \bigcap\limits_{i=0}^n\mbox{\rm Ker}%
d_i^n/d_{n+1}^{n+1}(\bigcap\limits_{i=0}^n\mbox{\rm Ker}d_i^{n+1}).
\end{array}
$$
We say that the Moore complex {\bf NG} of a simplicial group is of {\em length}
$k$ if $NG_n=1$ for all $n\geq k+1$, so that a Moore complex of length $k$ is also
of length $l$ for $l\geq k.$ For example, if ${\bf G}$ has Moore complex of length
1, then $(NG_1,NG_0,\partial_1)$ is a crossed module and conversely. If $NG$
is of length 2, the corresponding Moore complex gives a 2-crossed module in
the sense of Conduch\'e, \cite{conduche}, cf. the companion
paper to this, \cite{mp3}
\subsection{Free Simplicial Groups}
Recall from \cite{curtis} and \cite{kan2} the definitions of free simplicial
group and of a $CW-basis$ for a free simplicial group.
{\bf Definition}
A simplicial group {\bf F} is called \emph{free} if\\
(a)\qquad $F_n$ is a free group with a given basis, for every integer $n\geq 0,$\\
(b)\qquad The bases are stable under all degeneracy operators, i.e., for every pair
of integers $(i,n)$ with $0\leq i\leq n$ and every basic generator $x\in F_n$ the
element $s_i(x)$ is a basic generator of $F_{n+1}.$
{\bf Definition}
Let ${\bf F}$ be a free simplicial group (as above). A subset $\mathfrak{F}\subset {\bf F}$
will be called a $CW-basis$ of ${\bf F}$ if \\
(a)\qquad $\mathfrak{F_n} = \mathfrak{F}\cap F_n$ freely generates
$F_n$ for all $n\geq 0,$\\
(b)\qquad $\mathfrak{F}$ is closed under degeneracies, i.e. $x\in \mathfrak{F_n}$
implies $s_i(x)\in \mathfrak{F_{n+1}}$ for all $0\leq i\leq n,$\\
(c)\qquad if $x\in\mathfrak{F_n}$ is non-degenerate, then $d_i(x) = e_{n-1},$ the
identity element of $F_n$, for all $0\leq i< n$.
As explained earlier, we have restricted attention so far to simplicial groups
and hence to connected homotopy types. This is traditional but a bit
unnatural as all the results and definitions so far extend with little or no
trouble to simplicial groupoids in the sense of Dwyer and Kan \cite{D&K} and
hence to non-connected homotopy types. It should be noted that such
simplicial groupoids have a fixed and constant simplicial set of objects and
so are not merely simplicial objects in the category of groupoids. In this
context if $\mathbf{G}$ is a simplicial groupoid with set of objects $O$, the
natural form of the Moore complex $\mathbf{NG}$ is given by the same formula
as in the reduced case, interpreting Ker$ d^n_i$ as being the subgroupoid of
elements in $G_n$ whose $i^{th}$ face is an identity of $G_{n-1}$.
Of course if $n \geq 1$, the resulting $NG_n$ is a disjoint union of groups,
so $\mathbf{NG}$ is a disjoint union of the Moore complexes of the vertex
simplicial groups of $\mathbf{G}$ together with the groupoid $G_0$ providing
elements that allow conjugation between (some of) these vertex complexes
(cf. Ehlers and Porter \cite{ep}).
Crossed modules of, or over, groupoids are well known from the work of Brown
and Higgins. The only changes from the definition for groups (cf.
\cite{loday}) is that one has to handle the conjugation operation slightly
more carefully:
A \emph{crossed module} is a morphism of groupoids $\partial :
M\longrightarrow N$ where $N$ is a groupoid with object set $O$ say and
$M$ is a family of groups, $M = \{M(a) : a \in O\}$, together with an action of
$N$ on $M$ satisfying (i) if $m \in M(a)$ and $n \in N(a,b) $ for $a,b,\in O$,
the result of $n$ acting on $m$ is ${}^nm \in M(b)$;
(ii) $\partial({}^nm)=n\partial(m)n^{-1}$ and (iii)
${}^{\partial(m)}{m'}=m{m'}m^{-1}$ for all $m,{m'}\in M$, $\ n\in N.$ For the
weaker notion in which condition (iii) is not required, the models are
called \emph{precrossed modules}.
The definition of a CW-basis likewise generalises with each $\mathfrak{F}$ a
subgraph of the corresponding free simplicial groupoid.
\section{Crossed Squares and Simplicial Groups}
Although we will be mainly concerned with crossed squares in this paper, many
of the arguments either clearly apply or would seem to apply in the more
general case of crossed $n$-cubes and $n$-cube complexes. We therefore give
some background in this more general setting.
Again although we give the definitions and results for groups, the
adaptation to handle groupoids over a fixed base is routine.
The following definition is due to Ellis and Steiner \cite{es}. Let $<n>$
denote the set $\{1,...,n\}.$
{\bf Definition}
A \emph{crossed $n$-cube} of groups is a family $ \{ \mathfrak{M}_A : A\subseteq <n>\}$
of groups, together with homomorphisms $\mu _i:\mathfrak{M}_A\longrightarrow
\mathfrak{M}_{A\setminus\{i\}}$ for $i\in <n>$
and functions
$$h:\mathfrak{M}_A\times \mathfrak{M}_B\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}_{A\cup B}$$for $A,B\subseteq <n>,$ such that if ${}^{a}b$ denotes $h(a,b)b$ for $a \in
\mathfrak{M}_{A}$ and $b \in \mathfrak{M}_{B}$
with $A\subseteq B,$ then for all $a,{a'} \in \mathfrak{M}_{A}$ and $b,{b'} \in
\mathfrak{M}_{B}, c \in \mathfrak{M}_{C}$ and
$i,j \in <n>,$ the following hold:
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
1) & \mu _ia = a\ \quad
\text{{\rm if}}\ i\not \in A, \\
2) & \mu _i\mu _ja = \mu _j\mu _ia, \\
3) & \mu _ih(a, ~b) = h(\mu _ia, ~\mu _ib), \\
4) & h(a, ~b) = h(\mu _ia, ~b)=h(a, ~\mu _ib) \hfill
\text{{\rm if}}\ i\in A\cap B, \\
5) & h(a, ~a^{\prime }) =\lbrack a,{~}a^{\prime }
\rbrack, \\
6) & h(a, ~b) = h{(b, ~a)}^{-1}, \\
7) & h(a, ~b)=1 \hfill\text{if $a = 1$ ~~\text{or}~~ $b = 1,$}\\
8) & h(aa^{\prime }, ~b)={}^{a} h(a^{\prime }, ~b)h(a, ~b), \\
9) & h(a,~bb^{\prime })= h(a,~b){~}{}^{b}h(a, ~b^{\prime }), \\
10) & {}^{a}h(b, ~c)=
h({}^{a}b,{~}{}^{a}c) \hfill \text{{\rm if }} A \subseteq B\cap C,\\
11)&{}^{a}h(h(a^{-1}, ~b), ~c)~{}^{c}h(h(c^{-1}, ~a), ~b)~{}^{b}h(h(b^{-1}, ~c), ~a) = 1. \\
\end{array}
$$
{\em A morphism of crossed n-cubes} is defined in the obvious way: It is a
family of group homomorphisms, for $A\subseteq <n>,$
$
f_A:\mathfrak{M}_A\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}_{A}^\prime
$
commuting with the $\mu _i$'s and $h$'s. We thus obtain a category of
crossed $n$-cubes which will be denoted by $\mathfrak{Crs^n},$ cf. Ellis and Steiner
\cite{es}. Again there is an obvious variant of this definition for groupoids
over a fixed set of objects, $O$.
{\bf Remark:} Crossed squares, that is the case $n = 2$, were introduced by
Loday and Guin-Walery, \cite{wl}, but with an apparently different definition.
The two notions are however equivalent.
{\noindent{\bf Example 1:}}
For $n=1,$ a crossed 1-cube is the same as a crossed module.
For $n=2,$ one
has a crossed 2-cube is a crossed square:
$$
\diagram
\mathfrak{M}_{<2>} \dto_{\mu_1} \rto^{\mu_2} & \mathfrak{M}_{\{1\}} \dto^{\mu_1} \\
\mathfrak{M}_{\{2\}} \rto_{\mu_2} & \mathfrak{M}_{\emptyset}.
\enddiagram
$$
Each $\mu _i$ is a crossed module, as is $\mu _1\mu _2$. The $h$-functions give
actions and a function
$$
h:\mathfrak{M}_{\{1\}}\times \mathfrak{M}_{\{2\}}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}_{<2>}.
$$
The maps $\mu _2$ also define a map of crossed modules from
$(\mathfrak{M}_{<2>},\mathfrak{M}_{\{2\}} ,\mu_1)$ to $(\mathfrak{M}_{<1>},\mathfrak{M}_{\emptyset},\mu_1)$. In
fact a crossed square can be thought of as a crossed module in the category
of crossed modules.
{\noindent\bf Example 2:}
Let ${N_1}, {N_2}$ be normal subgroups of a group $G$.
The commutative square
diagram of inclusions;
$$
\diagram
{N_1} \cap {N_2}\dto_{~~~~~~~~~inc.} \rto^{inc.} & {N_2}
\dto^{inc.} \\
{N_1} \rto_{inc.} & G
\enddiagram
$$
naturally comes together with actions of ${G}$ on ${N_1},{N_2}$ and
${N_1}\cap {N_2}$ given by
conjugation and functions
$$
\begin{array}{cccc}
h: & {N_A}\times {N_B}& \longrightarrow & {N_A}\cap {N_B} = N_{A\cup B} \\
& (n_1,n_2) & \longmapsto & \lbrack n_1,~n_2\rbrack.
\end{array}
$$
That this is a crossed square is easily checked.
The following proposition is noted by the second author in \cite{porter}.
\begin{prop}\label{alti} \cite{porter}
Let ${\bf G}$ be a simplicial group with simplicial normal subgroups
${\bf N_1}$ and ${\bf N_2}.$ Then the square%
$$
\diagram
{\bf N_1}\cap {\bf N_2}\dto \rto &{\bf N_2} \dto \\
{\bf N_1} \rto &{\bf G}
\enddiagram
$$
induces a crossed square
$$
\diagram
\pi_0({\bf N_1}\cap {\bf N_2}) \dto \rto &\pi_0({\bf N_2})
\dto \\
\pi_0({\bf N_1})\rto &\pi_0({\bf G}).
\enddiagram
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The $h$-function
$$
h:\pi _0({\bf {N}_1})\times \pi _0({\bf {N}_2})\longrightarrow
\pi _0({\bf {N}_1}\cap {\bf N_2})
$$
is given by
$$
h({\overline{n_1}},~{\overline{n_2}})= {\overline{[n_1,~n_2]}}
$$
for all $ {\overline{n_1}} \in \pi _0({\bf {N}_1}),\,{\overline{n_2}} \in
\pi _0({\bf {N}_2}).$ It is then simple, cf. \cite{porter}, to see that the
second diagram above is a
crossed square. {~}\end{pf}\\
In fact up to isomorphism all crossed squares arise in this way,
cf. \cite{loday} and \cite{porter}.
{\bf Example 3:}\label{z}
Let {\bf G} be a simplicial group. Let $\mathfrak{{M}}({\bf G},2)$ denote the
following diagram
$$
\diagram
NG_2/\partial_3NG_3 \dto_{~~~~~\partial_2 '} \rto^{\qquad \partial_2} & NG_1\dto^{\mu} \\
\overline{NG_1} \rto_{~~~\mu'} & G_1
\enddiagram
$$
Then this is the underlying square of a crossed square. The extra structure is given as follows: $NG_1=${\rm Ker}$d_0^1$ and $\overline{NG}_1=${\rm
Ker}$d_1^1$.
Since $G_1$ acts on $NG_2/\partial _3NG_3,\ \overline{NG}_1$ and $NG_1,$
there are actions of $\overline{NG}_1$ on $NG_2/\partial _3NG_3$ and $NG_1$
via ${\mu'},$ and $NG_1$ acts on $NG_2/\partial _3NG_3$ and $\overline{NG}
_1$ via $\mu.$ Both $\mu $ and ${\mu'}$ are
inclusions, and all actions are given by conjugation. The $h$-map is
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
NG_1\times \overline{NG}_1 & \longrightarrow & NG_2/\partial _3NG_3 \\
(x,\overline{y}) & \longmapsto & h(x,~y)= \lbrack s_1x,~s_1ys_0{y}^{-1} \rbrack
\partial_3NG_3.
\end{array}
$$
Here $x$ and $y$ are in $NG_1$ as there is a
bijection between $NG_1$ and $\overline{NG}_1.$ We leave the verification of
the axioms of a crossed square to the reader.\\
This example is clearly functorial and we denote by
$$
\diagram
\mathfrak{M}( - ,2)~:~\mathfrak{SimpGrp} \rto & \mathfrak{Crs^2},
\enddiagram
$$
the resulting functor. This is the case $n = 2$ of a general construction
of a crossed $n$-cube from a simplicial group given by the second author in
\cite{porter} based on some ideas of Loday.
{\noindent{\bf Examples 2 and 3 revisited:}}
Let $G$ be a group with normal subgroups ${N}_1, \ldots ,{N}_n$ of $G$. Let
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathfrak{M}_A=\bigcap \{{N}_i:i\in A\} & \text{and} & \mathfrak{M}_\emptyset =${G}$
\end{array}
$$
with $A\subseteq <n>.$ For $i\in <n>,$ $\mathfrak{M}_A$ is a normal
subgroup of $\mathfrak{M}_{A-\{i\}}$. Define
$$
\mu _i:\mathfrak{M}_A\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}_{A-\{i\}}
$$
to be the inclusion. If $A,B\subseteq <n>$, then $\mathfrak{M}_{A\cup B}=\mathfrak{M}_A\cap \mathfrak{M}_B,$
let
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
h: & \mathfrak{M}_A\times\mathfrak{M}_B & \longrightarrow & \mathfrak{M}_{A\cup B} \\
& (a,b) & \longmapsto & [{~}a,{~}b{~}]
\end{array}
$$
as $[\mathfrak{M}_A, \mathfrak{M}_B] \subseteq \mathfrak{M}_A\cap \mathfrak{M}_B,$
where $a\in \mathfrak{M}_A,\ b\in \mathfrak{M}_B.$ Then
$$
\{\mathfrak{M}_A:\ A\subseteq <n>,\ \mu _i,\ h\}
$$
is a crossed $n$-cube, called the {\em inclusion crossed n-cube} given by the
normal $n$-ad of groups $(G;\ {N}_1, \ldots, {N}_n).$
\begin{prop}\label{y}
Let $({\bf G};\ {N}_1, \ldots, {N}_n)$ be a simplicial normal $n$-ad of
subgroups of groups and define for $A\subseteq <n>$%
$$
\mathfrak{M}_A=\pi _0(\bigcap\limits_{i\in A}{N}_i)
$$
with homomorphisms $\mu _i:\mathfrak{M}_A\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}_{A-\{i\}}$ and h-maps induced by
the corresponding maps in the simplicial inclusion crossed $n$-cube,
constructed by applying the previous example to each level. Then $\{\mathfrak{M}_A:\
A\subseteq <n>,\ \mu _i,\ h\}$ is a crossed $n$-cube.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf} See \cite{porter}.
\end{pf}\\
This describes a functor, \cite{porter}, from the category of
simplicial groups to that of crossed $n$-cubes of groups.
\begin{thm}\label{t1}
If {\bf G} is a simplicial group, then the crossed $n$-cube $\mathfrak{M}${\rm (}%
{\bf G},$n${\rm )} is determined by:
(i) for $A\subseteq <n>,$%
$$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_A=\frac{\bigcap_{j\in A}\text{{\rm Ker}} d_{j-1}^n}{
d_{n+1}^{n+1}(\text{{\rm Ker}} d_0^{n+1}\cap \{\bigcap_{j\in A}\text{{\rm Ker}
} d_j^{n+1}\})};
$$
(ii) the inclusion
$$
\bigcap_{j\in A}\text{{\rm Ker}} d_{j-1}^n\longrightarrow \bigcap_{j\in
A-\{i\}}\text{{\rm Ker}} d_{j-1}^n
$$
induces the morphism
$$
\mu _i:\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_A\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_{A-\{i\}};
$$
(iii) the functions, for $A,B\subseteq <n>,$
$$
h:\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_A\times \mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_B\longrightarrow
\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_{A\cup B}
$$
are given by
$$
h(\bar x,\bar y) = \overline{[x,~y]},
$$
where an element of $\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_A$ is denoted by $\bar{x}$ with $x\in
\bigcap_{j\in A}${\rm Ker}$d_{j-1}^n.$
\end{thm}\hfill$\Box$
Some simplification is possible, again see \cite{porter} for the details.
\begin{prop}\label{w}
If {\bf G} is a simplicial group, then
i) for $A\subseteq <n>,\ A\neq <n>,$
$$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_A\cong \bigcap_{i\in A}\text{{\rm Ker}}d_{i-1}^{n-1}
$$
so that in particular, $\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_\emptyset \cong G_{n-1}$; in every
case the isomorphism is induced by $d_0,$
ii) if $A\neq <n>$ and $i\in <n>,$
$$
\mu _i:\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_A\longrightarrow \mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_{A\setminus \{i\}}
$$
is the inclusion of a normal simplicial subgroup,
iii) for $j\in <n>,$
$$
\mu _j:\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},n)_{<n>}\longrightarrow \bigcap_{i\neq j}\text{{\rm Ker}}%
d_i^{n+1}
$$
is induced by $d_n.$
\end{prop}\hfill$\Box$
Expanding this data out for low values of $n$ gives:\\
\noindent 1) For $n=0$,
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},0) & = & G_0/d_1(
\text{{\rm Ker}}d_0,) \\ & \cong & \pi _0(
{\bf G}), \\ & = & H_0(N{\bf G).}
\end{array}
$$
2) For $n=1,$ $\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},1)$ is the crossed module
$$
\mu_1 :\text{{\rm Ker}}d_0^1/d_2^2(NG_2)\longrightarrow G_1/d_2^2(\text{{\rm Ker}}d_0^2).
$$
3) For $n=2,$ $\mathfrak{M}({\bf G},2)$ is
$$
\diagram
\mbox{\rm Ker}d^{2}_{0} \cap \mbox{\rm Ker}d^{2}_{1} /
d^{3}_{3} (\mbox{ \rm Ker}d^{3}_{0}
\cap \mbox{\rm Ker}d^{3}_{1} \cap \mbox{\rm Ker}d^{3}_{2})\dto_{\quad\mu_1}
\rto^{\qquad\quad \mu_2} & \mbox{\rm Ker}d^{2}_{0} / d^{3}_{3}(\mbox{\rm Ker}d^{3}_{0}
\cap \mbox{\rm Ker}d^{3}_{1}) \dto^{\mu_1} \\
\mbox{\rm Ker}d^{2}_{1} / d^{3}_{3}(\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{3}_{0}
\cap \mbox{\rm Ker}d^{3}_{2}) \rto_{~~~~~\mu_2} & G_2 / d^{3}_{3}
(\mbox{\rm Ker}d^{3}_{0}).
\enddiagram
$$
By Proposition \ref{w}, this is isomorphic to
$$
\diagram
NG_2 / d^{3}_{3} (NG_3 ) \dto_{\mu_1} \rto^{\quad\mu_2} & \mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{0} \dto^{\mu_1} \\
\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{1} \rto_{\mu_2} & G_1,
\enddiagram
$$
that is
$$
\mathfrak{M}(\mathbf{G}, 2) \cong
\left ( \diagram
NG_2 / \partial_3 (NG_3 ) \dto \rto & \mbox{ Ker }d_{0}
\dto \\
\mbox{ Ker }d_{1} \rto & G_1
\enddiagram \right)
$$
is a crossed square. Here the $h$-map is
$$h: \mbox{Ker}d_0^1\times\mbox{Ker}d_1^1\longrightarrow NG_2/d_3^3(NG_3)$$
given by $h(x,y) = [s_1x, ~s_1ys_0y^{-1}]~\partial_3NG_3$, as before.
Note if we consider the above crossed square as a vertical morphism
of crossed modules, we can take its kernel and cokernel within the category of crossed
modules. In the above, the morphisms in the top left hand corner are
induced from $d_2$ so
$$
\mbox{Ker}\left (
\mu_1 : \frac{NG_2}{\partial_3NG_3}\longrightarrow \mbox{Ker}d_1
\right) = \frac{NG_2\cap \mbox{Ker}d_2}{\partial_3NG_3}
\cong \pi_2({\bf G})
$$
whilst the other map labelled $\mu_1$ is an inclusion so has trivial kernel.
Hence the kernel of this morphism of crossed modules is
$$
\pi_2({\bf G})\longrightarrow 1.
$$
The image of $\mu_2$ is closed and normal in both the groups
on the bottom line and as $\mbox{Ker}d_0 =NG_1$ with the corresponding $\mbox{Im}\mu_1$
being $d_2NG_2,$ the cokernel is $NG_1/\partial_2NG_2,$ whilst
$G_1/\mbox{Ker}d_0\cong G_0,$ i.e., the cokernel of $\mu_1$ is
$\mathfrak{M}({\bf G}, 1).$
In fact of course $\mu_1$ is not only a morphism of crossed modules, it is
a crossed module. This means that $\pi_2({\bf G})\longrightarrow 1$ is in
some sense a $\mathfrak{M}({\bf G}, 1)$-module and that
$\mathfrak{M}({\bf G}, 2)$ can be thought of as a crossed extension of
$\mathfrak{M}({\bf G}, 1)$ by $\pi_2({\bf G}).$
\section{Free Crossed Squares}
\subsection{Definitions}
G. Ellis, \cite{ellis2}, in 1993 presented the notion of a free crossed
square. In this section, we recall his definition and give a construction of free
crossed squares by using the second dimensional Peiffer elements and the $2$-skeleton of a
`step-by-step' construction of a free simplicial group with given $CW$-basis.
We firstly recall the definition of a free crossed square on a pair of
functions $(f_2,f_3)$, as given by Ellis. We will call these crossed squares
\emph{totally free}.
Let ${\bf B_1}, \ {\bf B_2}$ and ${\bf B_3}$ be sets. Take $F({\bf B_1})$ to
be the free group on ${\bf B_1}.$
Suppose given a function $f_2:{\bf B_2\longrightarrow }F({\bf B_1}).$
Let $\partial : M\longrightarrow F({\bf B_1})$ be the free pre-crossed
module on $f_2.$ Using the action of $F({\bf B_1})$ on $M$ we can form the
semi-direct product $M\rtimes F({\bf B_1}).$ The canonical inclusion $\mu: M
\longrightarrow M\rtimes F({\bf B_1})$ given by $m\mapsto(m,1)$
allows us to consider $M$ as a normal subgroup of $M\rtimes F({\bf B_1}).$
(Recall that any normal inclusion is a crossed module with action given by conjugation.)
There is a second normal subgroup of $M\rtimes F({\bf B_1})$ arising from $M,$ namely
$$
N = \{(m,\partial m^{-1}): m\in M\}\subset M\rtimes F({\bf B_1})
$$
with inclusion denoted ${\mu'} : N\longrightarrow M\rtimes F({\bf B_1}).$
For $m\in M$, we let ${m'}$ denote the element $(m^{-1},~\partial m)$ in $N.$
Assume given a function $f_3: {\bf B_3}\longrightarrow M,$ whose image lies in the kernel of the
homomorphism $\partial:M\longrightarrow F({\bf B_1}).$ There is then a corresponding function
${f_3'} : {\bf B_3}\longrightarrow N$ given by $y \mapsto (f_3(y), 1).$
{\bf Definition} \cite{ellis2}
A crossed square,
$$\xymatrix{L\ar[r]^{\partial_2}\ar[d]_{\partial_2^\prime}& M\ar[d]^\mu \\
N\ar[r]_{\mu^\prime\hspace{5mm}}& M\rtimes F({\bf B_1}),}$$
is totally free on the pair of functions $(f_2, f_3)$ if \\
(i) $(M,F({\bf B_1}), \partial)$ is the free pre-crossed module on $f_2$;\\
(ii)$\quad {\bf B_3}$ is a subset of $L$ with $f_3$ and ${f_3'}$ the
restrictions of $\partial_2$ and ${\partial_2'}$ respectively; \\
(iii) for any crossed square$$\xymatrix{L^{\prime}\ar[r]^{\tau}\ar[d]_{\tau^\prime}& M\ar[d]^\mu \\
N\ar[r]_{\mu^\prime\hspace{5mm}}& M\rtimes F({\bf B_1}),}$$
and any function $\nu :{\bf B_3}\longrightarrow {L'}$ satisfying ${\tau}\nu = f_3,$
there is a unique morphism $\Phi= (\phi, 1, 1, 1)$ of crossed squares:
$$
\diagram
L \ddto_{\partial_2'} \drto^{\phi} \rrto^{\partial_2} && {M} \xto'[1,0]_{\mu}[2,0] \drto^{=} \\
&{{L'}} \ddto\save\go[0,0];[1,0]:(0.5,-0.15)\drop{\tau^\prime}\restore \rrto^{\qquad\tau} && {M} \ddto^{\mu} \\
N \drto_{=} \xline'[0,1]^{\mu'}[0,2]|>\tip && M \rtimes {F({\bf B_1})} \drto^{=} \\
&N \rrto^{\mu'} && M \rtimes F({\bf B_1})\\
\enddiagram
$$
such that $\phi{\nu'} =\nu,$ where ${\nu'}:{\bf B_3} \longrightarrow L$ is the
inclusion.
We denote such a totally free crossed square by $(L,M,N,M\rtimes
{F({\bf B_1})})$ omitting the structural morphisms from the notation when
there is no danger of confusion.
We know the free pre-crossed module on $f_2: {\bf B_2} \longrightarrow F({\bf B_1})$ is $\partial : \langle{\bf B_2}\rangle \longrightarrow F({\bf B_1})$, where $\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle$ denotes the normal closure of ${\bf B_2}$ in the free
group $F({\bf B_2}\cup s_0({\bf B_1}))$,
so the function $f_3 : {\bf B_3}\longrightarrow M ~~( =\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle )$
is precisely the data $({\bf B_3}, f_3)$ for 2-dimensional construction data in the simplicial context, cf. \cite{mp2}. We thus need to recall the $2$-dimensional construction for a free simplicial group. This $2$-dimensional form
can be summarised by the diagram
$${\bf \mathbb{F}}^{(2)}:
\diagram
...{~}F(s_1s_0({\bf B_1})\cup s_0({\bf B_2})
\cup s_1({\bf B_2})\cup {\bf B_3})
\rto<0.25ex> \rto<1ex> \rto<1.75ex>^{\qquad\qquad\quad d_0 ,d_1 ,d_2 } &
F(s_0({\bf B_1})\cup {\bf B_2}) \lto<0.75ex> \lto<1.50ex>^{\qquad\qquad\quad s_1,s_0}
\rto<0.25ex> \rto<1ex>^{\qquad d_1, d_0} & F({\bf B_1}) \lto<0.75ex>^{\qquad s_0}
\enddiagram $$
with the simplicial morphisms given as in \cite{mp2}.
\subsection{Free crossed squares exist.}
\begin{thm}
A totally free crossed square $(L, M, N, M\rtimes {F({\bf B_1})})$ exists on the 2-dimensional construction data and is given by $\mathfrak{M}(\bf{F}^{(2)},2)$
where $\bf{F}^{(2)}$ is the 2-skeletal free simplicial group defined by the construction data.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
Suppose given the 2-dimensional construction data for a free simplicial
group, $\mathbf{F},$ which we will take as above as the data for a totally free crossed square. We will not assume detailed knowledge of \cite{mp2} so we start with $F({\bf B_1})$ and $f_2:{\bf B_2}\longrightarrow
F({\bf B_1})$ and form $M=\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle.$ This gives $\partial_1:
\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle \longrightarrow F(X_0)$ as the free pre-crossed module on $f_2.$ The semidirect product gives
$$
F(s_0({\bf B_1})\cup {\bf B_2})\cong M\rtimes F({\bf B_1})
$$
and we can identify this with $\bf{F}_1^{(2)}.$ This identification also
makes
$$
M\cong \mbox{Ker}d_0^1
$$
for the $d_0^1$ of $\mathbf{F}^{(2)}.$
Next form $N =\{ (m,\partial m^{-1})\in M\rtimes F({\bf B_1}): m \in
M\}$. As $m\in\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle$, it is a product of conjugates of
elements of ${\bf B_2}$ and their inverses, so writing $m=\prod(m_{\alpha_i}) y_{\alpha_i}^{\varepsilon_i}(m_{\alpha_i})^{-1}$
for indices $\alpha_i$, and $\varepsilon_i =\pm
1$, we get $\partial m = \prod m_{\alpha_i}
t_{\alpha_i}^{\varepsilon_i}m_{\alpha}^{-1}$
where $t_i =f_2(y_i)$, which is also $ d_0^1(y_i)$. Thus we can identify $N$ with $\langle \{ys_1d_0^1(y)^{-1}: y \in {\bf B_2}\}\rangle$, which is exactly Ker$d_1^1$.
Now
$f_3:{\bf B_3}\rightarrow \mbox{\rm Ker}\partial_1 = \mbox{\rm Ker}
(\partial : NF^{(2)}_1\rightarrow NF^{(2)}_0)\subset \langle {\bf B_2}\rangle.$
We know that this allows us to construct ${\bf F}_2^{(2)}$
and hence ${\bf F}_n^{(2)}$ for ~$n\geq 3$,
and in addition that taking
$$L=NF^{(2)}_{2}/\partial _3(NF^{(2)}_3),$$
gives a crossed square
$$
\diagram
L\dto_{\partial'}\rto^{\partial} & {M}\dto^{\mu}\\
N\rto_{\mu'} & F^{(2)}_1
\enddiagram
$$
which is $\mathfrak{M}({\mathbf{F}}^{(2)}, 2).$ We claim this is the totally free crossed square on the construction data.
At this stage it is worth noting that there seems to be no simple adjointness
statement between $\mathfrak{M}(-,2)$ and some functor that would give a quick proof of freeness. The problem is that $\mathfrak{M}(-,2)$
seems to be an adjoint only up to some sort of coherent homotopy. To
avoid this difficulty we use a more combinatorial approach involving the higher dimension Peiffer elements and the explicit description
of $L$.
In \cite{mp1}, we analysed in general the structure of groups of boundaries
such as $\partial _3 (NF_3^{(2)})$. There we showed that $ NF_3^{(2)}$ is normally generated by elements of
the following forms:-\\
(i) For all $x\in NF^{(2)}_1,~y\in NF^{(2)}_2,$
$$
\begin{array}{lcl}
f_{(1,0)(2)}(x , y) & = & [s_1s_0(x) , s_2(y)] [s_2(y) , s_2s_{0}(x)], \\
f_{(2,0)(1)}(x , y) & = & [s_2s_0(x) , s_1(y)] [s_1(y) , s_2s_1(x)]
[s_2s_1(x) ,s_2(y)] [s_2(y) , s_2s_0(x)] ;
\end{array}
$$
(ii) for all $ y \in NF^{(2)}_{2} , x \in NF^{(2)}_{1},$
$$
\begin{array}{lcl}
f_{(0)(2,1)}(x , y) & = & [s_0(x) , s_2s_1(y)] [s_2s_1(y) , s_1(x)]
[s_2(x) , s_2s_1(y)],
\end{array}
$$
and (iii) for all $x , y \in NF^{(2)}_2$,
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
f_{(0)(1)}(x , y) & = & [s_0(x) , s_1(y)] [s_1(y) , s_1(x)] [s_2(x) ,s_2(y)], \\
f_{(0)(2)}(x , y) & = & [s_0(x) , s_2(y)], \\
f_{(1)(2)}(x , y) & = & [s_1(x) , s_2(y)] [s_2(y) , s_2(x)].
\end{array}
$$
Given our description of $NF^{(2)}$ in low dimensions, it is routine to
calculate normal generators of the various groups involved here in terms of
${\bf B_1}$ and ${\bf B_2}$. We set $$Z=\{s_1(y)^{-1}s_0(y): y\in{\bf B_2}\}.$$
The above diagram can then be realised as
$$
\diagram
{J}\dto_{\partial_2'} \rto^{\partial_2} &{\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle} \dto^{\mu} & \\
\langle Z\rangle\rto_{{\mu'}\qquad} & \langle{\bf B_2}\rangle\rtimes F({\bf B_1})
\enddiagram .$$
Here $J$ is $(\langle s_1({\bf B_2})\cup {\bf B_3}\rangle \cap \langle
Z\cup{\bf B_3}\rangle )/P_2$, $P_2$ being the second dimensional Peiffer normal subgroup, which is in fact
just $\partial _3 (NF_3^{(2)})$, and which is a subgroup of
$\langle s_1({\bf B_2})\cup {\bf B_3}\rangle \cap\langle Z\cup{\bf
B_3}\rangle$.
Given any crossed square $({L'},M, N, M\rtimes {F({\bf B_1})})$ and a function
$\nu: {\bf B_3}\longrightarrow {L'},$ there then exists a unique morphism
$$
\phi :(L,M,N,M\rtimes {F({\bf B_1})})\longrightarrow ({L'},M,N,
M\rtimes {F({\bf B_1})})
$$
given by%
$$
\phi ({y_i'}P_2)=\nu ({y_i'})
$$
such that $\phi{\nu'} =\nu.$ The existence of $\phi$ follows by using the
freeness property of the group $NF_2^{(2)}$ and then restricting to $\langle s_1({\bf B_2})\cup {\bf B_3}\rangle \cap\langle Z\cup{\bf
B_3}\rangle$. The normal generating
elements of $P_2$ are then easily shown to have trivial image in $L'$ as that
group is part of the second crossed square.
Thus the diagram is the desired totally free crossed square on the
2-dimensional construction data. The crossed square properties of
$(L,M,N,M\rtimes {F({\bf B_1})}$ may be easily verified or derived from the fact that this is exactly $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)}, 2)$.
\end{pf}
\medskip
{\bf Remark:}
At this stage, it is important to note that nowhere in the argument was use
made of the freeness of the 1-skeleton. If $G$ is any 1-skeletal simplicial
group and we form a new simplicial group
$H$ by adding in a set ${\bf B_3}$ of new generators in dimension 2, so that for
instance, $H_2 = G_2 * F({\bf B_3})$, then we can use $M = NG_1 = {\rm Ker
}d_0^{G,1}$ as before even though it need not be free. The corresponding
$N$ is then isomorphic to ${\rm Ker }d_1^{G,1}$ with the bottom right hand
corner being $G_1$. The `construction data' is now replaced by data for
killing some elements of $\pi_1(G)$, specified by $f_3 :{\bf B_3} \rightarrow
M$. Although slightly at variance with the terminology used by Ellis,
\cite{ellis2}, we felt it sensible to introduce
the term ``totally free crossed square'' for the type of free crossed square
constructed in the above theorem, using ``free crossed square'' for the more
general situation in which $(M,G,\partial)$ and $f_3$ are specified and no
requirement on
$(M,G,\partial)$ to be a free precrossed module is made.
\subsection{The $n$-type of the $k$-skeleton}
As in the other papers in this series, we will use the `step-by-step'
construction of a free simplicial group to observe the way in which the models
react to the various steps of the construction.
In a `step-by-step' construction of a free simplicial group, there are
simplicial inclusions
$$
{\bf{F}}^{(0)}\subseteq {\bf{F}}^{(1)}\subseteq
{\bf{F}}^{(2)}\ldots
$$
In general, considering the functor, $\mathfrak{M}(\quad ,n)$, from the category
of simplicial groups to that of crossed $n$-cubes, gives the corresponding morphisms
$$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)},\ n) \rightarrow \mathfrak{M}({\bf
\bf{F}}^{(1)},\ n)
\rightarrow \mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)},\ n)\rightarrow ... \rightarrow \mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}},\ n).
$$
We will investigate ${\bf \mathfrak{M}(\bf{F}}^{(i)}{\bf ,\ }n{\bf )}$,
for $n=0,1,2, $ and varying $i$.
Firstly look at $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)}{\bf ,\ }n{\bf ),\ }$ where the 0-skeleton ${\bf{F}}^{(0)}\,$ can be thought of as simplifying to
$$\begin{array}{lccc}
{\bf{F}}^{(0)}: & \cdots \longrightarrow {F({\bf B_1})}\longrightarrow
{F({\bf B_1})}\longrightarrow {F({\bf B_1})}
\end{array}
$$
with the $d_i^n=s_j^n=\ $identity homomorphism on ${F({\bf B_1})}$.
For $n=0,\,$ there is an equality
$$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)}{\bf ,\ }0{\bf )=}F_0^{(0)}/d_1
(\text{Ker}d_0)= {F({\bf B_1})},
$$
and so $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)}{\bf ,\ }0)$ is just the free group
of 0-simplices of $\bf{F}$.
For $n=1$, $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)}{\bf ,}1{\bf )}$ is
$
NF_1^{(0)}/\partial _2NF_2^{(0)}\longrightarrow F_0.
$
It is easy to show that $NF_1^{(0)}/\partial _2NF_2^{(0)}$ is trivial and hence
$$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)}{\bf ,\ }1{\bf )\cong (}1\longrightarrow
{F({\bf B_1})}).
$$
For $n=2$, \ $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(0)}{\bf ,\ }2{\bf )}$ is the trivial
crossed square
$$
\diagram
NF_2 / d^{3}_{3} (NF_3 )\ddto\rrto&&\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{0}\ddto
&&1 \ddto\rrto&& 1\ddto \\
&&& = \\
\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{1}\rrto&&F_1&&1\rrto&&F({\bf B_1}).
\enddiagram
$$
Next look at $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(1)}{\bf ,\ }n{\bf )}$ and recall that the
1-skeleton{~} $\bf{F}^{(1)}$ is
$$
\diagram
{\bf{F}}^{(1)} :\hspace{.5cm}
...{~}{F(s_1s_0({\bf B_1})\cup s_0({\bf B_2})\cup s_1({\bf B_2}))}
\rto<0.25ex> \rto<1ex>
\rto<1.75ex>^{\hspace{2.3cm} d_0 ,d_1 ,d_2 } & {F(s_0({\bf B_1})\cup {\bf B_2})}
\lto<0.75ex> \lto<1.50ex>^{\hspace{2.4cm} s_1,s_0}
\rto<0.25ex>\rto<1ex>^{\qquad d_1, d_0} & {F({\bf B_1})}
\lto<0.75ex>^{\qquad s_0}.
\enddiagram
$$
For $n=0$, $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(1)},\ 0)$
is
$
F_0^{(1)}/d_1(\text{Ker}d_0)\cong {F({\bf B_1})}/{\partial_1 NF_1},
$
which is $\pi _0({\bf{F}}^{(1)})\cong \pi _0(\bf{F}).$
For $n=1$, we have that
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathfrak{M}({\bf\bf{F}}^{(1)}{\bf ,\ }1{\bf )}
& = & (NF_1/\partial _2NF_2\longrightarrow
F_0), \\
& = &
\langle{\bf B_2}\rangle/P_1\longrightarrow {F({\bf B_1})},
\end{array}
$$
which is a free crossed module. In fact this is the free crossed module on the
(generalised) presentation $({\bf B_1};{\bf B_2}, f_2)$. As pointed out in
\cite{bh}, it is often convenient to generalise the notion of a presentation
$({\bf X}, {\bf R})$ with $${\bf R}\subset F(X)$$ to one with the map ${\bf
R} \rightarrow F(X)$ specified and not necessarily monic. Thus if $f_2$ is
injective, this is just a presentation $\cal P$ of $\pi_1({\bf\bf{F}})$.
The kernel of this crossed module is then the module of identities of $\cal
P$, again see \cite{bh}.
For $n=2$, $NF_2^{(1)} =\langle s_1({\bf B_2})\rangle \cap\langle Z\rangle$,
so $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(1)}{\bf ,\ }2{\bf )\ }$
simplifies to give (up to isomorphism),
$$
\diagram
NF_2 / d^{3}_{3} (NF_3 )\ddto\rto&\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{0}\ddto
&&J\ddto\rto&
\langle {\bf B_2}\rangle \ddto \\
&& = \\
\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{1}\rto&G_1&& \langle Z\rangle \rto&
F(s_0({\bf B_1})\cup {\bf B_2})
\enddiagram
$$
which is a crossed square with $J =
(\langle s_1({\bf B_2})\rangle \cap\langle Z\rangle )/P_2.$
Next look at $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)}{\bf ,\ }n{\bf ).\ }$
Recall the 2-skeleton ${\bf{F}}^{(2)}$ is
$$
\diagram
{ \bf{F}}^{(2)}:\hspace{.5cm}
... {F(s_1s_0({\bf B_1})\cup s_0({\bf B_2})\cup s_1({\bf B_2})\cup{\bf B_3})} \rto<0.25ex> \rto<1ex>
\rto<1.75ex>^{\qquad\hspace{1.8cm} d_0 ,d_1 ,d_2} & {F(s_0({\bf B_1})\cup {\bf B_2})}
\lto<0.75ex> \lto<1.50ex>^{\qquad\hspace{1.8cm} s_1,s_0}
\rto<0.25ex> \rto<1ex>^{\qquad d_1, d_0} & {F({\bf B_1})}
\lto<0.75ex>^{\qquad s_0}.
\enddiagram
$$
The following can be easily obtained by direct calculation :
for $n=0,$
$$
\mathfrak{M}({ \bf{F}}^{(2)},0) = F_0/d_1(\text{Ker}d_0)\cong \pi _0({\bf{F}}^{(2)})= \mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(1)},0);
$$
for $n=1,$
$$
\mathfrak{M}( \bf{F}^{(2)} ,1) \cong \langle {\bf B_2}\rangle /P_1\longrightarrow {F({\bf B_1})}.
$$
Finally, let $n=2.$ By an earlier result of this section, $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)}{\bf ,}2{\bf )\ }$ corresponds to the free crossed square,
$$
\diagram
NF_2 / d^{3}_{3} (NF_3 ) \ddto\rto &\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{0}\ddto
&&J\ddto\rto &
\langle {\bf B_2}\rangle \ddto \\
&& = \\
\mbox{\rm Ker }d^{1}_{1}\rto&F_1&& \langle Z_2\rangle \rto
& F(s_0({\bf B_1})\cup {\bf B_2})
\enddiagram
$$
where $J$ is now $(\langle s_1({\bf B_2})\cup{\bf B_3}\rangle \cap\langle
Z\cup{\bf B_3}\rangle )/P_2$ and $\langle Z_2\rangle $ is $\langle Z\cup{\bf
B_3}\rangle$, so this reduces to the earlier case if ${\bf B_3}$ is empty.
Thus we have the following relations
$$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)}{\bf ,\ }0{\bf )}=\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(1)}{\bf ,\ }
0),
\qquad \mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)}{\bf ,\ }1{\bf )}=\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(1)}
{\bf ,\ }1{\bf )}
$$
but
$
\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(2)}, 2)$ and $\mathfrak{M}({\bf{F}}^{(3)}, 2) $ need not be the same due to the additional influence of ${\bf B_3}$.
Of course it is clear that, in general:
$$
\begin{array}{ccccc}
{\mathfrak{M}}({\bf{F}}^{(i)},\ n) & = &
{\mathfrak{M}}({\bf{F}}^{(i+1)},\ n) & \text{if} & i\geq n+1.
\end{array}
$$
\section{Squared Complexes}
The authors and Z. Arvasi have defined $n$-crossed complexes in \cite{zat}.
In this paper, we will only need the case $n= 2$, which had already been
defined by Ellis in \cite{ellis2}. We shall follow him in calling these
{\em squared complexes}. A squared complex consists of a diagram of group homomorphisms
$$
\diagram
& & & & N\drto^{\mu'}\\
\ldots \rto& C_4\rto^{\partial_4}&C_3\rto^{\partial_3}&
L\urto^{\lambda'}\drto_{\lambda}&& P\\
& & & &M\urto_{\mu}
\enddiagram
$$
together with actions of $P$ on $L, N, M$ and $C_i$ for $i\geq 3,$ and a function
$h : M\times N\longrightarrow L.$ The following axioms need to be satisfied.\\
(i) The square $\left(\spreaddiagramrows{-1.2pc} \spreaddiagramcolumns{-1.2pc}
\def\ssize} \def\labelstyle{\ssize{\ssize} \def\labelstyle{\ssize}
\diagram
L \dto_{{\lambda'}} \rto^{\lambda} & N \dto^{\mu} \\
{M} \rto_{\mu'}& P
\enddiagram\right)$ is a crossed square; \\
(ii) The group $C_n$ is abelian for $n \geq 3$; \\
(iii) The boundary homomorphisms satisfy $\partial_n\partial_{n+1} = 1$ for
$n \geq 3,$ and $\partial_3(C_3)$ lies in the intersection
$\mbox{ker}\lambda\cap \mbox{ker}{\lambda'};$\\
(iv) The action of $P$ on $C_n$ for $n \geq 3$ is such that ${\mu}{M}$ and
${\mu'}N$ act trivially. Thus each $C_n$ is a $\pi_0$-module with $\pi_0 =
P/{\mu}{M}{\mu'}N$; \\
(v) The homomorphisms $\partial_n$ are $\pi_0$-module homomorphisms for $n \geq 3.$
This last condition does make sense since the axioms for crossed squares imply that
$\mbox{ker}{\mu'}\cap \mbox{ker}{\mu}$ is a $\pi_0$-module.
A morphism of squared complexes $$\Phi: (C_\ast,\left(\spreaddiagramrows{-1.2pc}
\spreaddiagramcolumns{-1.2pc}
\def\ssize} \def\labelstyle{\ssize{\ssize} \def\labelstyle{\ssize}
\diagram
L \dto_{{\lambda'}} \rto^{\lambda} & N \dto^{\mu} \\
{M} \rto_{\mu'}& P
\enddiagram\right) )\longrightarrow ({C_\ast'},\left(\spreaddiagramrows{-1.2pc}
\spreaddiagramcolumns{-1.2pc}
\def\ssize} \def\labelstyle{\ssize{\ssize} \def\labelstyle{\ssize}
\diagram
{L'} \dto_{{\lambda'}} \rto^{\lambda} & {N'} \dto^{\mu} \\
{M'} \rto_{\mu'}& {P'}
\enddiagram\right))$$
consists of a morphism of crossed squares $(\Phi_{L},
\Phi_{N}, \Phi_{M}, \Phi_{P})$, together with a family of equivariant homomorphisms $\Phi_n$ for $n \geq 3$ satisfying
$\Phi_{L}\partial_3 = {\partial'}_3\Phi_{L}$ and
$\Phi_{n-1}\partial_n = {\partial'}_n\Phi_n$ for $n \geq 4.$
There is clearly a category $\mathfrak{SqComp}$ of squared complexes. This
exists in both group and groupoid based versions.
By a {\em (totally) free squared complex}, we will mean one in which the crossed square
is (totally) free, and in which each $C_n$ is free as a $\pi_0$-module for $i\geq 3.$
\begin{prop}
There is a functor
$${\mathcal C}(\quad ,2)
: \mathfrak{SimpGrp}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{SqComp}
$$
such that free simplicial groups are sent to totally free squared complexes.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Let ${\bf G}$ be a simplicial group or groupoid. We will define a squared
complex ${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)$ by specifying ${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)_A$ for each
$A\subseteq <2>$ and for $n \geq 3$, ${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)_n$. As usual, (cf. the
other papers in this series, \cite{mp, mp1, mp2,mp3}), we will
denote by $D_n$ the subgroup or subgroupoid of $NG_n$ generated by the
degenerate elements.
For $A\subset <2>,$ we define
$${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)_A =
\mathfrak{M}(\mathfrak{sk_{2}}{\bf G,}2)_A = \frac{\cap\{\mbox{Ker}d_{i}^{2} : i \in A
\}}{d_3(\mbox{Ker}d^3_0 \cap \bigcap\{\mbox{Ker}d_{i+1}^{3} : i \in A \}
\cap D_3)}.
$$
We do not need to define $\mu_i$ and the $h$-maps relative to these groups as they
are already defined in the crossed square $\mathfrak{M}(\mathfrak{sk_{2}}{\bf
G,}2)$.
For $n \geq 3$, we set $${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)_n = \frac{NG_n}{(NG_n\cap
D_n)d_{n+1}(NG_{n+1}\cap D_{n+1})}.$$
As this is part of the crossed complex associated to ${\bf G}$, we can take the
structure maps to be those of that crossed complex, cf. \cite{ep,mp2}. The terms are all modules
over the corresponding $\pi_0$ as is easily checked. The final missing piece,
$\partial_3$, of the structure is induced by the differential $\partial_3$ of $NG$.
The axioms for a squared complex can now be verified using the known results
for crossed squares and for crossed complexes with a direct verification of
those axioms relating to the interaction of the two parts of the structure,
much as in \cite{ep} and \cite{mp2}.
Now suppose the simplicial group is free. The proof above of the freeness of
$\mathfrak{M}(\mathfrak{sk_{2}}{\bf G,}2)$ together with the freeness of the
crossed complex of a free simplicial group, \cite{mp2}, now completes the proof.
\end{pf}
\medskip
Suppose that $\rho$ is a general squared complex.
The {\em homotopy~groups} $\pi_{n}(\rho),$ $n\geq 0$ of $\rho$ are defined cf. \cite{ellis2}, to be the
homology groups of the complex
$$
\diagram
\ldots\rto^{\partial_5~}&C_4\rto^{\partial_4~~}&C_3\rto^{\partial_2~}&L\rto^{\partial_2~\quad}
&M\rtimes N\rto^{\quad\partial_1}&P\rto&1
\enddiagram
$$
with $\partial_2(l)=({\lambda'}l^{-1}, \lambda l)$ and $\partial_1(m,n) = \mu(m){\mu'}(n).$
The axioms of a crossed square guarantee that $\partial_2$ and $\partial_1$ are homomorphisms with
$\partial_3(C_3)$ normal in $\mbox{Ker}(\partial_2),~ \partial_2(L)$ normal
in $\mbox{Ker}(\partial_1),$ and $\partial_1(M\rtimes N)$ normal in $P$.
\begin{prop}
The homotopy groups of ${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)$ are isomorphic to those of
${\bf G}$ itself.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Again this is a consequence of well-known results on the two parts of the structure.
\end{pf}
\section{Alternative Descriptions of Freeness.}
In the context of CW-complexes, Ellis, \cite{ellis2} gave a neat description
of the top group $L$ in a (totally) free crossed square derived from that data. A
simplicial group with a given CW-basis is the algebraic analogue of a
CW-complex so one would expect a similar result to hold in that setting.
Ellis uses the generalised van Kampen theorem of Brown and Loday, \cite{bl1}.
In the algebraic setting no such tool is available, but in fact its use is not
needed.
Ellis' description is in terms of tensor products and coproducts. For
completeness we recall the background definitions of these constructions.
\subsection{Tensor Products}
Suppose that $\mu: M\to P$ and $\nu: N\to P$ are crossed modules over $P.$ The groups
$M$ and $N$ act on each other, and themselves, via the action of $P.$ The tensor product
$M\otimes N$ is the group generated by the symbols $m\otimes n$ for $m\in M$, $n\in N$ subject to
the relations
$$mm'\otimes n = ({}^{m}{m'}\otimes {}^{m}n)(m\otimes n),$$
$$m\otimes n{n'} = (m\otimes n)({}^{n}{m}\otimes {}^{n}{n'}),$$
for $m,{m'}\in M, \ n,{n'}\in N.$ There are homomorphisms $\lambda: M\otimes N \to M, \
{\lambda'}: M\otimes N \to N$ defined on generators by $\lambda(m\otimes n)= m({}^{n}m)^{-1}$
and ${\lambda'}(m\otimes n)= ({}^{m}n)n^{-1}.$ The group $P$ acts on $M\otimes N$ by
${}^{p}(m\otimes n) = ({}^{p}m\otimes {}^{p}n),$ and there is a function $h: M\times N
\to M\otimes N,$ $(m,n)\longmapsto m\otimes n.$ In \cite{bl1}, it is verified that this structure
gives a crossed square
$$
\diagram
M\otimes N \rto^{\lambda} \dto_{\lambda'} & N\dto^{\nu} \\
M \rto_{\mu} & P \\
\enddiagram
$$
with the universal property of extending the corner $$
\diagram
& N\dto^{\nu} \\
M \rto_{\mu} & P \\
\enddiagram.
$$
\subsection{Coproducts}
Let $(M, P,\partial_1), (N,P,\partial_2)$ be $P$-crossed modules. Then $N$ acts on $M,$ and $M$
acts on $N,$ via the given actions of $P.$ Let $M\rtimes N$ denote the semidirect product with
the multiplication given by
$$
(m,n)({m'},{n'})=(m{m'},{~} {}^{m'}n{n'})
$$
and injections
$$
\begin{array}{cc}
{i'}: M\to M\rtimes N \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad {j'} : N\to M\rtimes N \\
\quad m\longmapsto (m,1)\qquad{~}\qquad\qquad\qquad n\longmapsto(1,n).
\end{array}
$$
We define the pre-crossed module
$$
\begin{array}{cc}
\underline{\delta}: M\rtimes N\to P \\
(m,n) \longmapsto \partial_1(m)\partial_2(n).
\end{array}
$$
Let $\{M, N\}$ be the subgroup of $M\rtimes N$ generated by the elements of the form
$$
(m{}^nm^{-1},n{}^mn^{-1})
$$
for all $m\in M$, $n\in N$, thus we are able to form the quotient group
$M\rtimes N/\{M,N\}$ and obtain an induced morphism
$$
\partial: M\rtimes N/\{M,N\}\to P
$$
given by
$$
\partial(m,n)\{M,N\} = \partial_1(m)\partial_2(n).
$$
Let $q: M\rtimes N\to M\rtimes N/\{M,N\}$ be projection and let $i = q{i'}, \ j= q{j'}.$ Then
$M\circ N = (M\rtimes N)/\{M,N\}$ with the morphisms $i,j,$ is {\em a
coproduct} of $(M,P,\partial_1)$ and $(N,P,\partial_2)$
in the category of $P$-crossed modules.
\begin{prop}~\cite{ellis2}
Let $(L, M, \bar{M}, M\rtimes F)$ be a (totally) free crossed square on the
$2$-dimensional construction data or on functions $(f_2, f_3)$ as described above. Let $\partial: C\to M\rtimes F$ be the free crossed module on the function ${\bf B_3}\to M\rtimes F$
given by $y\longmapsto (f_3y, 1).$ From the crossed module $M\otimes \bar{M} \to
M\rtimes F$, then $L$ is isomorphic to the coproduct
$(M\otimes \bar{M})\circ C$
factored by the relations
$$
\begin{array}{cc}
1)\quad i(\partial c\otimes\bar{m}) = j(c)j({}^{\bar{m}}c^{-1}) \\
2)\quad i(m\otimes\partial c) = j({}^{m}c)j(c^{-1})
\end{array}
$$
for $c \in C, \ m\in M ~\mbox{and}~ \bar{m}\in\bar{M}.$
The homomorphisms $L\to M$, $ L\to \bar{M}$ are given by the homomorphisms
$$
\lambda:M\otimes \bar{M}\to M\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad {\lambda'}: M\otimes \bar{M}\to \bar{M}
$$
and $\partial : C\to M\cap\bar{M}.$
The $h$-map of the crossed square is given by
$$
h(m, \bar{n}) = i(m\otimes\bar{n})
$$
for $m, n \in M.$
\end{prop}
\begin{pf} This comes by direct verification using the universal properties
of tensors and coproducts. \end{pf}
\medskip
\textbf{Remark: } For future applications it is again important to note that the result
is not dependent on the crossed square being \emph{totally} free, although
this is the form proved and used by Ellis, \cite{ellis2}. If $M\rightarrow
F$ is any pre-crossed module, one can form the `corner'
$$
\diagram
& M\dto \\
\bar{M} \rto & M\rtimes F, \\
\enddiagram$$
complete it to a crossed square via $M\otimes \bar{M}$ and then add in ${\bf
B_3}\to M$. Nowhere does this use freeness of $M\rightarrow
F$.
\begin{cor}
Let $\bf{G}^{(1)}$ be the $1$-skeleton of a simplicial group.
Then in the free crossed square $\mathfrak{M}(\bf{G}^{(1)}, 2)$ described above,
$$
NG_2^{(1)}/\partial_3NG_3^{(1)}\cong \mbox{Ker}d_1^{1}\otimes\mbox{Ker}d_0^{1}.
$$
\end{cor}
\begin{pf}
This is clear from the previous proposition.
\end{pf}
\medskip
\textbf{Remark: }
If we set $M = \mbox{Ker}d^1_0 = NG^{(1)}_1$, then the identification given by the Corollary gives
$$NG^{(1)}_2/\partial_3NG^{(1)}_3 \cong M\otimes \bar{M}.$$ This uses the fact
that $\mbox{Ker}d^1_0 $ and $\mbox{Ker}d^1_1$ are linked via the map sending
$m$ to $ms_0d_1m^{-1}$ for $m \in \mbox{Ker}d^1_0 $. The $h$-map $h : M \times \bar{M} \rightarrow
NG^{(1)}_2/d^3_3NG^{(1)}_3$ is $h(x,y) = [s_1x,s_1ys_0y^{-
1}]d^3_3NG^{(1)}_3$, but this is also $h(x,y) = x\otimes y$. Thus
$$x\otimes y = [s_1x,s_1ys_0y^{-1}]d^3_3NG^{(1)}_3$$
under the identification via the isomorphism of 5.2.
This explains the `mysterious' formula of \cite{mp} in the discussion
before Proposition 4.6 of that paper.
\subsection{Applications to 2-crossed complexes.}
Of course there are similar results for free squared complexes. What
is less obvious is the way in which these results can be applied to the
situation that we studied in our earlier paper, \cite{mp3}. There we
considered the alternative model for 3-types given by Conduch\'e's 2-crossed
modules and also looked at the corresponding 2-crossed complexes. We will
not repeat all that discussion here but note the definition:
{\bf Definition:}\\
A 2-crossed complex of group(oid)s is a sequence of group(oid)s
$$C:\hspace{1cm} \ldots \rightarrow C_n
\stackrel{\partial_n}{\rightarrow}C_{n-1}\rightarrow\ldots C_2
\stackrel{\partial_2}{\rightarrow}C_1\stackrel{\partial_1}{\rightarrow}C_0$$
in which\\
(i) ~$C_n$ is abelian for $n\geq 3$;\\
(ii)~$C_0$ acts on $C_n$, $n\geq 1$, the action of $\partial C_1$ being
trivial on $C_n$ for $n\geq 3$;\\
(iii)~ each $\partial_n$ is a $C_0$-group(oid) homomorphism and
$\partial_i\partial_{i+1} =1$ for all $i\geq 1$;\\
and\\
(iv)~ $C_2
\stackrel{\partial_2}{\rightarrow}C_1\stackrel{\partial_1}{\rightarrow}C_0$
is a 2-crossed module.
\medskip
We refer the reader to \cite{conduche} or \cite{mp3} for the exact meaning of
2-crossed module.
Given a simplicial group or groupoid, ${\bf G}$, define
$$C_n = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
NG_n & \mbox{ \rm for } n = 0,1\\
NG_2/d_3(NG_3 \cap D_3)& \mbox{ \rm for } n = 2\\
NG_n/(NG_n \cap D_n)d_{n+1}(NG_{n+1} \cap D_{n+1})&
\mbox{ \rm for } n \geq 3
\end{array}\right.
$$
with $\partial_n$ induced by the differential of $\bf{NG}$. Note that the
bottom three terms (for $n = $ 0, 1, and 2) form a 2-crossed module
considered in \cite{conduche} or \cite{mp3} and that for $ n \geq 3$, the groups are all $ \pi_0(G)$-modules, since in these dimensions $C_n$ is
the same as the corresponding crossed complex term (cf. Ehlers and
Porter \cite{ep} for instance).
\begin{prop}\cite{mp3}
With the above structure $(C_n, \partial_n)$ is a 2-crossed
complex, which will be denoted $C(\mathbf{G})$.\hfill$\Box$
\end{prop}
Here we note in particular that the term $C_2$ is $ NG_2/d_3(NG_3 \cap D_3)$
and so is the same as ${\mathcal C}({\bf G},2)_{<2>}$. Thus
if ${\bf G}$ is a simplicial group, we obtain {\em gratis}:
\begin{cor}
Let $\bf{G}^{(1)}$ be the $1$-skeleton of a simplicial group.
The 2-crossed complex of $\bf{G}^{(1)}$ satisfies $$C(\mathbf{G}^{(1)})_2\cong
\mbox{Ker}d_1^{1}\otimes\mbox{Ker}d_0^{1}.
$$\hfill$\Box$
\end{cor}
We also get in general a description of $C(\bf{G}^{(2)})_2$ as a quotient
of the form $( \mbox{Ker}d_1^{1} \otimes\mbox{Ker}d_0^{1}\circ C)/\sim$ where as in
Proposition 5.1, this $C$ is a free crossed module on the `new cells' in
dimension 2.
\subsection{The suspension of a $K(\pi,1)$.}
As was mentioned in \cite{mp2}, Brown and Loday used their
generalised van Kampen Theorem, \cite{bl1}, to calculate
$\pi_3\Sigma K(\pi,1)$ for $\pi$ a group, as the kernel of the commutator
map from $\pi \otimes \pi$ to $\pi$. Jie Wu, (\cite{wu} Theorem 5.9),
for any group $\pi$ and set of generators $\{x_\alpha |
\alpha \in J\}$ for $\pi$, gives a presentation of
$\pi_n\Sigma K(\pi,1)$ in terms of higher commutators, but does not
manage to get the Brown-Loday result explicitly although his result is
clearly linked to theirs.
Wu's methods use a study of simplicial groups and a construction he
ascribes to Carlsson, \cite{carlsson}. This gives a simplicial group
$F^\pi(S^1)$ that has $\pi_{n+2}\Sigma K(\pi,1)\cong \Omega \Sigma K(\pi,1) \cong \pi^{n+1}
F^\pi(S^1)$. As we pointed out in \cite{mp}, $F^\pi(S^1)$ is a
pointed analogue of the `tensorisation' of $K(\pi,0)$, the constant
simplicial group on $\pi$, with the simplicial circle $S^1$. In general
if $G$ is a simplicial group and $K$ a pointed simplicial set,
$G\bar{\wedge}K$ will denote the simplicial group with group of $n$-
simplices given by
$$
\coprod\limits_{x\in K_n}(G_n)_{x}/(G_n)_{\ast}.
$$
If $x \in K_n$, we denote the $x$-indexed copy of $g \in G_n$ within $(G\bar{\wedge}K)_n$
by $g\bar{\wedge} x$. The face and degeneracy maps of $G\bar{\wedge}K$ are
induced by the componentwise application of the corresponding morphisms of $G$
and $K$
$$d_i(g\bar{\wedge}x) = d_i^Gg\bar{\wedge}d_i^Kx,$$
$$s_i(g\bar{\wedge}x) = s_i^Gg\bar{\wedge}s_i^Kx.$$
Of course if $d_i^Kx = \ast$ then $d_i(g\bar{\wedge}x) = 1$.
The case of interest to us is $G = K(\pi,0)$, $K = S^1$ and we will adopt the
notation for simplices in $S^1$ used by us in \cite{mp}. We write $S^1_0 = \{
\ast\}$ and will take $\ast$ to denote the corresponding degenerate
$n$-simplex basing $S^1_n$ in all dimensions; $S^1_1 = \{\sigma, \ast\}$,
$S^1_2 = \{x_0, x_1, \ast\}$, where $x_0 = s_1\sigma$, $x_1 = s_0\sigma$ and
in general $S_{n+1}^1 = \{x_0, \ldots, x_n, \ast\}$, where $x_i = s_n\ldots
s_{i+1}s_{i-1} \ldots s_0\sigma$, $0\leq i \leq n$.
We write $G = K(\pi,0)$ for simplicity and will usually make no distinction
between simplices in different dimensions unless confusion might arise. We
have
$(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_0 = 1$, \quad the trivial group,
$(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_1 \cong \pi,$
$(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_2 \cong \pi \ast \pi$, \qquad the free product of two copies
of $\pi$, and so on. \\
The group $(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_n$ is a free product of
$n$-copies of $\pi$, $\coprod\{(\pi)_x : x \in S^1_n\setminus \{\ast\}\}$, and
writing as above $g\bar{\wedge}x$ for the $x$-indexed copy of $g\in \pi$ in
this, we note that $(g\bar{\wedge}x)(g^\prime\bar{\wedge}x) =
(gg^\prime\bar{\wedge}x)$ for $g$, $g^\prime \in \pi$.
As $g\bar{\wedge}x_i^{(n+1)} = s_n(g\bar{\wedge}x_i^{(n)})$ holds in all
dimensions, $n\geq 2$ and for all $0 \leq i \leq n$, it is clear that
$N(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_n = D_n$, that is, it is generated by degenerate elements
in all dimensions $n \geq 2$, we can therefore apply Corollary 5.2. As $N(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_0$ is trivial, $\mbox{Ker}d_0^1 = \mbox{Ker}d_1^1 =(G\bar{\wedge}S^1)_1 \cong \pi$, so we get:
For $H = G\bar{\wedge}S^1$,$$NH_2/\partial_3NH_3 \cong \pi \otimes \pi.$$
We have by \cite{porter} that the algebraic 2-type of $H$ is completely
modelled by the crossed square $\mathfrak{M}(H,2)$, that is by
$$
\diagram
\pi\otimes\pi \rto^{\mu_2}\dto_{\mu_1}&\pi\dto^=\\
\pi\rto_=&\pi,
\enddiagram
$$
where $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are the commutator maps.
As a consequence we have:
\begin{cor}
The 3-type of $\Sigma K(\pi,1)$ is completely specified by the above crossed
square. In particular there is an isomorphism
$$\pi_3(\Sigma K(\pi,1)) \cong \mbox{Ker}(\mu : \pi \otimes \pi \rightarrow
\pi).$$
\hfill$\Box$
\end{cor}
This result was first found by Brown and Loday \cite{bl1}. Their proof was an
illustration of the use of their generalised van Kampen Theorem. Jie Wu,
\cite{wu}, gives some methods that shed light on the higher homotopy groups,
but although they yield a description of $\pi_4$, they do not analyse the
4-type itself.
The model $G\bar{\wedge}S^1$ is 1-skeletal and one might expect that a triple
tensor $\pi \otimes\pi \otimes\pi$ may be involved in any model of its 4-type.
Of course $\mathfrak{M}(H,3)$
gives a complete model, but the individual terms involved in that model are
not as easy to analyse as in $\mathfrak{M}(H,2)$. An amalgam of Wu's methods and
the methods developed in the earlier papers of this series,
\cite{mp,mp1,mp2,mp3}, might provide insight into this. This problem
is not of itself that important, but it does seem to provide an excellent
testbed for the development of methods to aid in calculation with low
dimensional algebraic models of homotopy types.
|
\section{Introduction}
Neutrino oscillations~\cite{pon} play a central role in neutrino
physics. The most important condition for this phenomenon is given by
neutrino mixing which is described by
$\nu_{L\alpha} = \sum_j U_{\alpha j} \nu_{Lj}$
with $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau, \ldots$ and $j = 1,2,3, \ldots$
labelling neutrino flavours (types) and mass eigenfields,
respectively. All neutrino oscillation experiments are evaluated with
the formula \cite{pon}
\begin{equation}
P_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta} (L/E_\nu) =
\left| \sum_j U_{\beta j} U^*_{\alpha j}
\exp \left( -i \frac{m^2_j L}{2E_\nu} \right) \right|^2 \,,
\label{P}
\end{equation}
where $U$ denotes the unitary mixing matrix, $L$ the distance between
source and detector and $E_\nu$ the neutrino energy. The neutrino masses
$m_j$ are associated with the mass eigenfields $\nu_j$.
It has been indicated in several publications that the standard derivation
of Eq.~(\ref{P}) raises a number of conceptual questions
(see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{rich} for a clear exposition). Some of these
questions are solved by the wave packet approach~\cite{kayser}
(see also the review~\cite{zralek} where a list of references can be
found), however, the size and form of the wave packet is not determined in
this approach and remains a subject to reasonable estimates.
The idea has been put forward to include the neutrino production and
detection processes into the consideration of neutrino
oscillations.~\cite{rich} Such an approach can be realized with
\emph{quantum mechanics} --
in which case the neutrinos with definite mass are
unobserved intermediate states between the source and detection
processes~\cite{rich} -- or with \emph{quantum field theory} where the
massive neutrinos are represented by inner lines in a big Feynman
diagram depicting the combined source -- detection
process.~\cite{GS96,GSM99} In the following we will discuss the
field-theoretical treatment. The aims and hopes of such an approach
are the following: 1. The elimination of the arbitrariness associated
with the wave packet approach, 2. the description of neutrino
oscillations by means of the particles in neutrino production and detection
which are really manipulated in an experiment, 3. a more complete and
realistic description in order to find possible limitations of formula
(\ref{P}) in specific experimental situations.
Considering laboratory experiments, there are two typical situations
for neutrino oscillation experiments. The first one is \emph{decay at
rest} (DAR) of the neutrino source. Its corresponding Feyman diagram
is depicted in Fig.~\ref{DAR}. The wave functions of the source and
detector particles are localized (peaked) at $\vec{x}_S$ and
$\vec{x}_D$, respectively. The other situation is \emph{decay in
flight} (DIF) of the neutrino source as represented in
Fig.~\ref{DIF} where it is assumed that a proton hits a target
localized at $\vec{x}_T$. The detector particle sits again at
$\vec{x}_D$ but the source is not localized. In both situations the
distance between source and detection is given by
$L = |\vec{x}_D-\vec{x}_S|$. Note that in the Feynman diagrams of
Figs.~\ref{DAR} and \ref{DIF} the neutrinos with definite mass occur
as inner lines. In the spirit of our approach, neutrino oscillation
probabilities are proportional to the cross sections derived from the
amplitudes represented by these diagrams.
\section{Assumptions and the resulting amplitude}
The further discussion is based on the following assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\Roman{enumi}.}
\item The wave function $\phi_D$ of the detector particle does not spread
with time which amounts to
\begin{equation}
\phi(\vec{x},t) = \psi_D(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_D)\, e^{-i E_{DP}t} \,,
\end{equation}
where $E_{DP}$ is the sharp energy of the detector particle and
$\psi_D(\vec{y})$ is peaked at $\vec{y}=\vec{0}$.
\item The detector is sensitive to momenta (energies) and possibly to
observables commuting with momenta (charges, spin).
\item The usual prescription for the calcuation of the cross section is
valid.
\end{enumerate}
With the amplitudes symbolized by Figs.~\ref{DAR} and \ref{DIF} the
oscillation probabilities are obtained by
\begin{equation}\label{Pav}
\left\langle
P_{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}{\nu}_{\hskip-3pt \alpha}
\to \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}{\nu}_{\hskip-3pt \beta}}
\right\rangle_\mathcal{P} \propto
\int dP_S \int_\mathcal{P} \frac{d^3 p'_{D1}}{2E'_{D1}} \cdots
\frac{d^3 p'_{D{n_D}}}{2E'_{D{n_D}}} \: \left|
\mathcal{A}_{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}{\nu}_{\hskip-3pt \alpha}
\to \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}{\nu}_{\hskip-3pt \beta}}
\right|^ 2 \,.
\end{equation}
In this equation we have indicated the average over some region $\mathcal{P}$
in the phase space of the final particle of the detection process. If no final
particle of the neutrino production process is measured then one has to
integrate over the total phase space of these final states. By definition, at
the source (detector) a neutrino
$\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}{\nu}_{\hskip-3pt \alpha}$
($\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}{\nu}_{\hskip-3pt \beta}$)
is produced (detected) if there is a charged lepton $\alpha^{\pm}$
($\beta^{\pm}$) among the final states.
In perturbation theory with respect to weak interactions, according to the
Feynman diagrams Figs.~\ref{DAR} and \ref{DIF} one has to perform integrations
$\int d^4 x_1$, $\int d^4 x_2$ and $\int d^4 q$ corresponding to the
Hamiltonian densities for neutrino production and detection and the propagators
of the mass eigenfields, respectively.
These integrations are non-trivial because $\psi_D$
and the source (target) wave functions are not plane waves, but are localized
at $\vec{x}_D$ and $\vec{x}_S$ ($\vec{x}_T$), respectively. After having
performed the integrations over $x_{1,2}$ and $q^0$, in the asymptotic limit
$L \to \infty$ only the neutrinos on mass shell contribute to the
amplitude~\cite{GS96} which can be written as~\cite{GS96,GSM99}
\begin{equation}\label{ampinfty}
\mathcal{A}^\infty_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta} =
\sum_j \mathcal{A}^S_j \mathcal{A}^D_j
U_{\beta j}U^*_{\alpha j} e^{i q_j L}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{kin}
E_D = \sum_{b=1}^{n_D} E'_{Db} - E_{DP} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
q_j = \sqrt{E_D^2 - m^2_j} \,.
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{A}^S_j$ and $\mathcal{A}^D_j$ denote the amplitudes for
production and detection, respectively, of a
neutrino with mass $m_j$. Note that $E_D$ is the energy on the neutrino line
in Figs.~\ref{DAR} and \ref{DIF} and it is independent of $m_j$. This is an
immediate consequence of the assumptions in this section. Furthermore,
due to the above-mentioned integrations and the asymptotic limit we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{AD}
\mathcal{A}^D_j \propto \widetilde{\psi}_D(-q_j \vec{\ell} + \vec{p}\,'_D)
\quad \mbox{with} \quad \vec{\ell} = (\vec{x}_D-\vec{x}_S)/L
\quad \mbox{and} \quad \vec{p}\,'_D = \sum_{b=1}^{n_D} \vec{p}\,'_{Db} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\psi}_D$ is the Fourier transform of $\psi_D$.
\section{Results}
The preceding discussion leads us to the conclusion that with the assumptions
stated in Section 2 the neutrino mass eigenstates are characterized by the
energy $E_\nu \equiv E_D$ and momenta $q_j$ (\ref{kin}).
Thus they have all the same energy determined by the detection process, but the
momenta are different.
The summation over $E_D$ is incoherent, i.e., it occurs in the cross section
(see Eq.~(\ref{Pav})), not in the amplitude (\ref{ampinfty}). In this sense
there are no neutrino wave packets in experiments conforming with our
assumptions. Note that it has been
pointed out in~\cite{KNW96} that a coherent or incoherent neutrino energy
spread cannot be distinguished in neutrino oscillation experiments.
Since the neutrino energy can in principle be determined
with arbitrary precision the coherence length can theoretically be increased
solely by detector manipulations.~\cite{KNW96,GK98}
From Eq.~(\ref{AD}) it follows that with $\Delta m^2 \equiv |m^2_j-m^2_k|$
the condition
\begin{equation}\label{ACC}
|q_j-q_k| \simeq \frac{\Delta m^ 2}{2E_D}
\lesssim \sigma_D \quad \mbox{or} \quad
\sigma_{xD} \lesssim \frac{1}{4\pi} L^\mathrm{osc}
\end{equation}
is necessary for neutrino oscillations,
where $\sigma_D$ and $\sigma_{xD}$ are the widths of the wave function of the
detector particle in momentum and coordinate space, respectively, and
$L^\mathrm{osc}$ is the oscillation length.~\cite{kayser,rich,GS96} In
realistic experiments condition (\ref{ACC}) holds because $\sigma_{xD}$
is a microscopic whereas $L^\mathrm{osc}$ a
macroscopic quantity. For DAR an analoguous condition exists for the width of
the neutrino source wave function.
For more details of the field-theoretical approach to neutrino oscillations,
for a consideration of the finite lifetime of the neutrino source in the case
of DAR and for an application of the results to the LSND and KARMEN
experiments we refer the reader to~\cite{GS96,GSM99}. We have shown that in
these experiments effects of the finite liftetime can be neglected.
For a discussion of DIF see~\cite{campagne}. Thus in the framework discussed
here all corrections to
Eq.~(\ref{P}) are negligible. Note that we have not taken into account or
discussed the
interaction of the final state particles in the source with the environment
(``interruption of neutrino emission''), a possible intermediate range of the
asymptotic limit $L \to \infty$ as found in~\cite{ioan} and the possibility
that in some cases (e.g., the KARMEN experiment) it is not realistic to
use the conventional procedure to calculate the cross section (\ref{Pav}) by
taking the asymptotic limit of the final time to infinity.
|
\section{Introduction}
A Forcing Axiom ${\bf FA}_\kappa({\mathbb P})$ for a forcing notion ${\mathbb P}$ is a statement
guaranteeing existence of directed subsets of ${\mathbb P}$ that meet any member of
a pregiven family of size $\kappa$ of dense subsets of ${\mathbb P}$. As an axiom,
${\bf FA}_\kappa({\mathbb P})$ is a powerful combinatorial tool that allows one to get
some of the properties of forcing extensions. Even more interesting are
axioms demanding ${\bf FA}_\kappa({\mathbb P})$ for all forcing notions in a fixed family
${\mathcal K}$. Here the most popular are Martin's Axiom {{\bf MA}} postulating
${\bf FA}_\kappa({\mathbb P})$ for each ccc partial order ${\mathbb P}$ and any cardinal
$\kappa<\con$ and (capturing more forcing notions) Proper Forcing Axiom {\bf
PFA} postulating ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ for all proper forcing notions. The
quest for giving the largest possible class of forcing notions ${\mathbb P}$ for
which the axiom ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ may (simultaneously) hold was
successfully accomplished by Foreman, Magidor and Shelah \cite{FMSh:240},
\cite{FMSh:252}, who introduced Martin's Maximum.
In the present paper we want to start investigations in the opposite
directions, looking in some sense for the {\em minimal} version of the
standard Martin's Axiom. That is, we would like to have a model in which
$\neg {\bf CH} + {\bf MA}$ holds but ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ fails for as many
(necessarily not-ccc) forcing notions as possible. Our attention
concentrates on forcing notions built according to the scheme of {\em norms
on possibilities} of Ros{\l}anowski and Shelah \cite{RoSh:470}.
(Unfortunately, some familiarity with that paper has to be assumed. In
particular, for all definitions related to norms on possibilities we have to
refer the reader to \cite{RoSh:470}.)
These lines of investigations have some history already. Steprans proved
that $\neg {\bf CH} + {\bf MA}$ is consistent with the negation of the forcing
axiom for the Silver forcing notion (see \cite[\S 2]{CRSW93}). Next, Judah,
Miller and Shelah \cite{JMSh:372}, and Velickovic \cite{Vel91Pos},
showed that $\neg {\bf CH} + {\bf MA}$ does not
imply the forcing axiom for the Sacks forcing notion. It has been a common
believe that the arguments of \cite{JMSh:372} can be repeated for a number
of forcing notions in which conditions are finitely branching trees. For
example, Brendle wrote in the proof of \cite[Proposition 5.1(c)]{Br96a}
(about the method of \cite{JMSh:372}): ``it is easy to see that this
argument works for any forcing notion with compact trees which doesn't have
splitting going on every level''. It seems that \cite{RoSh:470} has provided
the right formalism for specifying which forcing notions can be taken care
of in this context. However, one would like to cover all of
$\baire$--bounding forcing notions from \cite{RoSh:470} (so avoid the
limitations on splittings which in the language of \cite{RoSh:470} would
restrict us to t--omittory trees) and get the failure of ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}$
for all these forcing notions simultaneously. As remarked by Brendle, the
obvious modifications of the method of \cite{JMSh:372} seem to be not
applicable here. Therefore, we rather follow the Steprans way slightly
generalizing it to be able to deal with a number of forcing notions in the
same model.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Notation}\quad Our notation is rather standard and compatible
with that of classical textbooks on Set Theory (like Bartoszynski and
Judah \cite{BaJu95}). However in forcing we keep the older convention that
{\em a stronger condition is the larger one}.
\begin{notation}
\label{notacja}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For two sequences $\eta,\nu$ we write $\nu\vartriangleleft\eta$ whenever
$\nu$ is a proper initial segment of $\eta$, and $\nu\trianglelefteq\eta$ when
either $\nu\vartriangleleft\eta$ or $\nu=\eta$. The length of a sequence
$\eta$ is denoted by $\lh(\eta)$.
\item The cardinality of the continuum is denoted by $\con$.
\item For a forcing notion ${\mathbb P}$, $\Gamma_{\mathbb P}$ stands for the canonical
${\mathbb P}$--name for the generic filter in ${\mathbb P}$. With this one exception, all
${\mathbb P}$--names for objects in the extension via ${\mathbb P}$ will be denoted with a dot
above (e.g.~$\dot{s}$, $\dot{f}$).
\item Ordinal numbers are denoted by $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,
\varepsilon, \xi,\zeta$ (with possible indexes); cardinals will be called
$\kappa,\mu$. The first infinite ordinal is $\omega$. The letters $u,v,\eta,
\nu,\rho$ will stand for finite sequences.
\end{enumerate}
\end{notation}
\noindent{\bf Where are the respective definitions in \cite{RoSh:470}?}\quad
As we stated before, we have to assume that the reader is familiar with
\cite{RoSh:470}. (Otherwise we would have to give the list of all needed
definitions and it could be longer than the rest of the paper.) However, for
reader's convenience we list below exact pointers to the descriptions of
the cases of norms on possibilities that are used here.
\begin{itemize}
\item Weak creatures and weak creating pairs: \cite[\S 1.1]{RoSh:470}, in
particular \cite[Definitions 1.1.1, 1.1.3]{RoSh:470}.
\item Creatures and creating pairs: \cite[\S 1.2]{RoSh:470}, in particular
\cite[Definitions 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.4, 1.2.5]{RoSh:470} (as in
\cite{RoSh:470}, we assume here that all creating pairs are nice and
smooth).
\item Forcing notions ${\mathbb Q}^*_f(K,\Sigma)$, ${\mathbb Q}^*_{{\rm w}\infty}$:
\cite[Definitions 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.10]{RoSh:470}.
\item Tree--creatures and tree--creating pairs: \cite[\S 1.3]{RoSh:470}, in
particular \cite[Definitions 1.3.1, 1.3.3]{RoSh:470}.
\item Forcing notions ${\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_0(K,\Sigma)$, ${\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_1(K,\Sigma)$:
\cite[Def.\ 1.3.5]{RoSh:470}.
\item Creating pairs which capture singletons: \cite[Def.\ 2.1.10,
1.2.5(3)]{RoSh:470}.
\item $\bar{2}$--big (tree) creating pairs: \cite[Def.\ 2.2.1,
2.3.2]{RoSh:470}.
\item Halving Property: \cite[Def.\ 2.2.7]{RoSh:470}.
\item ${\bf H}$--fast function $f$: \cite[Def.\ 1.1.12]{RoSh:470}.
\item Simple creating pairs, gluing creating pairs: \cite[Def.\
2.1.7]{RoSh:470}.
\item t--omittory tree--creating pairs: \cite[Def.\ 2.3.4]{RoSh:470}.
\item Strongly finitary creating pairs / tree--creating pairs: \cite[Def.\
1.1.3 + 3.3.4]{RoSh:470}.
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\bf The forcing notions we want to take care of.}\quad Here we
specify the family of forcing notions for which we want to get the failure
of ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}$ (with keeping ${\bf MA}$).
\begin{definition}
Let $(K,\Sigma)$ be a weak creating pair for ${\bf H}$. We say that it is {\em
typical} if for each $t\in K$ such that $(\exists u\in{\bf basis}(t))(|{\rm pos}(u,t)|
=1)$ we have $\nor[t]\leq 1$.
\end{definition}
The reason for the above definition is the following.
\begin{proposition}
\label{divide}
Suppose that $(K,\Sigma)$ is a 2-big creating pair (tree--creating pair,
respectively), $t\in K$ is such that $\nor[t]\geq 4$. Let $u\in{\bf basis}(t)$.
Then there are creatures (tree--creatures, resp.) $s_0,s_1\in\Sigma(t)$ such
that $\nor[s_0],\nor[s_1]\geq \nor[t]-2$ and ${\rm pos}(u,s_0)\cap{\rm pos}(u,s_1)=
\emptyset$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Choose a set $A\subseteq {\rm pos}(u,t)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item there is $s^*\in\Sigma(t)$ with ${\rm pos}(u,s^*)\subseteq A$ and
$\nor[s^*]\geq\nor[t]-1$, but
\item for each $a\in A$ and $s\in\Sigma(t)$, if ${\rm pos}(u,s)\subseteq A
\setminus\{a\}$ then $\nor[s]<\nor[t]-1$.
\end{itemize}
Clearly it is possible; necessarily $|A|\geq 2$ (remember that $(K,\Sigma)$
is typical). Fix $a\in A$. Applying bigness to $s^*$ we get $s_0\in
\Sigma(s^*)\subseteq\Sigma(t)$ such that $\nor[s_0]\geq\nor[t]-2$ and
${\rm pos}(u,s_0)\subseteq A\setminus\{a\}$. On the other hand, by the choice of
the set $A$ (and bigness) we find $s_1\in\Sigma(t)$ such that $\nor[s_1]\geq
\nor[t]-1$ and ${\rm pos}(u,s_1)\subseteq {\rm pos}(u,t)\setminus (A\setminus\{a\})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{classK}
Let ${\mathcal K}$ be the family of all non-trivial forcing notions of one of the
following types:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_1(K,\Sigma)$, where $(K,\Sigma)\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$
is a strongly finitary 2-big typical tree--creating pair for a function
${\bf H}\in{\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$;
\item ${\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_1(K,\Sigma)$, where $(K,\Sigma)\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$
is a strongly finitary typical t-omittory tree--creating pair for a function
${\bf H}\in{\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$ (note that in this case ${\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_1(K,
\Sigma)$ is a dense subforcing of ${\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_0(K,\Sigma)$, see
\cite[2.3.5]{RoSh:470});
\item ${\mathbb Q}^*_f(K,\Sigma)$, where $(K,\Sigma)\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$ is a
strongly finitary typical creating pair for ${\bf H}\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$,
$f:\omega\times\omega\longrightarrow\omega$ is an ${\bf H}$-fast function, $(K,
\Sigma)$ is $\bar{2}$-big, has the Halving Property and is either simple or
gluing;
\item ${\mathbb Q}^*_{{\rm w}\infty}(K,\Sigma)$, where $(K,\Sigma)\in {\mathcal
H}(\aleph_1)$ is a strongly finitary typical creating pair for
${\bf H}\in{\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$, $(K,\Sigma)$ captures singletons.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
[See {\cite[\S 2.3]{RoSh:470}}]
All forcing notions in the class ${\mathcal K}$ are proper and $\baire$--bounding.
\end{theorem}
Now we may state the main result of this paper.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main}
Assume $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}$. Then there is a ccc forcing notion ${\mathbb P}$
of size $\kappa$ such that in $\bV^{{\mathbb P}}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\con=\kappa$ and ${\bf MA}$ holds true, but
\item ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb Q})$ fails for every forcing notion ${\mathbb Q}\in{\mathcal K}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The class ${\mathcal K}$ includes all $\baire$--bounding forcing
notions presented in \cite{RoSh:470} (modulo the demand that they are
additionally required to be in ${\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$). In particular, the
following forcing notions are in ${\mathcal K}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sacks-like forcings. Let $\{I_n: n \in \omega\}$ be a sequence
of finite sets. Every perfect set $P \subseteq \prod_n I_n$
corresponds to a tree $T$. Consider the forcing notion ${\mathbf P}$
which consists of trees $T$ such that
$$ \forall s \in T \ \exists t \supseteq s \ \suc(t)=I_{|t|},$$ ordered by
inclusion.
If $I_n=2$ for all $n$ we get the Sacks forcing $\mathbf S$. If
$I_n=k$ ($n \in \omega $) then we get forcing notions ${\mathbb D}_k$ (for
$k<\omega$) of Newelski and
Ros{\l}anowski \cite{NeRo93}. Finally, if $I_n=h(n)$ then we get the
Shelah forcing ${\mathbf Q}_h$ of \cite{GJS92}.
\item Silver-like forcings.
For $h \in \omega^\omega$ let ${\mathbf P}_h=\{f: \omega \setminus \dom(f)\in
[\omega]^\omega, \ \forall n \ (n \in \dom(f) \rightarrow f(n)\leq
h(n))\}$. For $f,g \in
{\mathbf P}_h$, $f \geq g$ if $g \subseteq f$.
If $h(n)=2$ ($ n \in \omega $) then ${\mathbf P}_h$ is Silver forcing
and for $h(n)=n$ we get Miller forcing from \cite{Mil81Som}.
\item forcing notion ${\mathbb Q}_{f,g}$ from \cite{BJSh:368} its siblings from
\cite{CiSh:653} and \cite{GoShMan93}. Suppose that $f \in
\omega^\omega$ and $g \in \omega^{\omega \times
\omega}$ are two functions such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f(n) > \prod_{j<n} f(j)$ for $ n \in \omega$,
\item $g(n,j+1) > f(n) \cdot g(n,j)$ for $n,j \in \omega$, and
\item $\min\left\{j \in \omega: g(n,j) > f(n+1)\right\}
\stackrel{n \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} \infty$.
\end{enumerate}
Define
$Seq^{f} = \{s \in \omega^{<\omega}: \forall j < |s|\ s(j)\leq f(j)\}$
and let
$T \in {\mathbf {PT}}_{f,g}$ if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T$ is a perfect subtree of $Seq^{f}$, and
\item there exists a function $r \in \omega^{\omega}$, $\lim_{n
\rightarrow \infty} r(n)=\infty$ such that
$$\forall s \in T \ (stem(T) \subseteq s \rightarrow
|\suc_{T}(s)| \geq g(|s|,r(|s|))).$$
\end{enumerate}
\item Forcing $\operatorname{{\mathbf {S}}}_{g, g^\star}$ from \cite{BaJu95}.
Let $g, g^\star \in \omega^\omega$ be two strictly increasing functions
such that $g(0)=0$, $g^\star(0)=1$ and
$g(n) << g^\star(n) << g(n+1)$ for all $n>0$.
For $n \in
\omega$ let $$P_n = \left\{a \subseteq g(n+1):
|a|=\frac{g(n+1)}{2^n}\right\}.$$
For a set $A \subseteq P_n$ define
$$\nor(A)=\min\{|X|: \forall a \in A \ X \not \subseteq a\}.$$
Let
$$\operatorname{{\mathbf {S}}}_{g, g^\star}=\left\{\<t_n: n \in \omega\>: \forall n \ t_n \in P_n\ \&\
\forall k\
\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\nor(t_n)}{g^\star(n+1)^k}=\infty\right\}.$$
For $p=\<t^0_n: n \in \omega\>$ and $q=\<t^1_n: n \in \omega\>$ we
define $p \geq q$ if $t^0_n \subseteq t^1_n$ for all $n$.
\item More complicated forcing notions from \cite{FrSh:406} and
\cite{BaSh607}.
\end{enumerate}
\section{${\mathcal S}$--families of good graphs}
In this section we introduce a property of families of graphs that will be
one of our main tools later.
\begin{definition}
\label{goodgraph}
Let ${\mathcal U}$ be a countable basis of a topology on a set $X$, $A\subseteq
X\times\omega_1$. A triple ${\mathcal G}=(A,{\mathcal U},E)$ is a {\em good graph} if the
following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $E\subseteq [A]^{\textstyle 2}$, and
\item[(b)] if $(x_0,\alpha_0), (x_1,\alpha_1)\in A$ are distinct then
$x_0\neq x_1$, and
\item[(c)] if $(x_0,\alpha_0), (x_1,\alpha_1)\in A$, $x_0\neq x_1$ and
$\{(x_0,\alpha_0),(x_1,\alpha_1)\}\notin E$ then there are disjoint
$U_0,U_1\in{\mathcal U}$ such that $x_0\in U_0$, $x_1\in U_1$ and
\[(\forall (x_0',\alpha_0'), (x_1',\alpha_1')\in A)(x_0'\in U_0\ \&\ x_1'\in
U_1\quad\Rightarrow\quad\{(x_0',\alpha_0'), (x_1',\alpha_1')\}\notin E).\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{Sfamily}
Suppose that ${\mathcal F}=\{{\mathcal G}_\zeta:\zeta<\xi\}$ is a family of good graphs,
${\mathcal G}_\zeta=(A_\zeta,U_\zeta,E_\zeta)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $0<m<\omega$. An $m$--selector for ${\mathcal F}$ is a set $S\subseteq
(\bigcup\limits_{\zeta<\xi}A_\zeta)^{\textstyle m}$ such that for some
(not necessarily distinct) $\zeta_0,\ldots,\zeta_{m-1}<\xi$ we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\alpha)$] if $\nu\in S$, $\ell<m$ then $\nu(\ell)\in A_{\zeta_\ell}$,
\item[$(\beta)$] if $\nu,\rho\in S$ are distinct, then for some $\ell<m$ we
have $\{\nu(\ell),\rho(\ell)\}\in E_{\zeta_\ell}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item ${\mathcal F}$ is called an {\em ${\mathcal S}$--$m$-family} if there is no uncountable
$m$--selector for ${\mathcal F}$.
\item ${\mathcal F}$ is an {\em ${\mathcal S}$--family} (of good graphs) if it is an
${\mathcal S}$--$m$-family for each $m<\omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Let us show how we are going to use ${\mathcal S}$--families of good graphs.
\begin{definition}
\label{represent}
Let ${\mathbb P}=({\mathbb P},\leq)$ be a forcing notion and let ${\mathcal G}=(A,{\mathcal U},E)$ be a good
graph (with $A\subseteq X\times\omega_1$, ${\mathcal U}$ a countable basis of a
topology on $X$). We say that ${\mathcal G}$ is {\em densely representable by
$\bot_{{\mathbb P}}$} if there is a one-to-one mapping $\pi:A\longrightarrow {\mathbb P}$
such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] for each $\alpha<\omega_1$, the set $\{\pi(x,\alpha):
(x,\alpha)\in A\}$ is dense in ${\mathbb P}$, and
\item[(b)] if $(x_0,\alpha_0),(x_1,\alpha_1)\in A$ are distinct, $\{(x_0,
\alpha_0),(x_1,\alpha_1)\}\notin E$ then the conditions $\pi(x_0,\alpha_0)$,
$\pi(x_1,\alpha_1)$ are incompatible (in ${\mathbb P}$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{notFAP}
Let ${\mathcal F}$ be an ${\mathcal S}$--$1$--family of good graphs. Suppose that ${\mathbb P}$ is a
forcing notion such that some ${\mathcal G}\in{\mathcal F}$ is densely representable by
$\bot_{{\mathbb P}}$. Then ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ fails.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let ${\mathcal G}=(A,{\mathcal U},E)$ and let $\pi:A\longrightarrow{\mathbb P}$ witness that ${\mathcal G}$ is
densely representable by $\bot_{{\mathbb P}}$. Let $H_\xi=\{\pi(x,\xi):(x, \xi)\in
A\}$ (for $\xi<\omega_1$). Then the sets $H_\xi$ are dense in ${\mathbb P}$ by
\ref{represent}(a). We claim that they witness the failure of
${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$. So suppose that $G\subseteq{\mathbb P}$ is a directed set
which meets each $H_\xi$. For every $\xi<\omega_1$ choose $(x_\xi,\xi)\in A$
such that $\pi(x_\xi,\xi)\in G\cap H_\xi$. Look at the set $S=\{\langle(
x_\xi,\xi)\rangle:\xi<\omega_1\}$ --- it is an uncountable 1--selector from
${\mathcal F}$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
One of problems that we will have to take care of when building the forcing
notion needed for \ref{main} is preserving ``being an ${\mathcal S}$--family''. A
part of this difficulty will be dealt with by ``killing the ccc of bad
forcing notions''.
\begin{proposition}
\label{notccc}
Let ${\mathcal F}$ be an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs. Suppose that ${\mathbb P}$ is a ccc
forcing notion such that
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}}\mbox{`` ${\mathcal F}$ is not an ${\mathcal S}$--family''.}\]
Then there is a ccc forcing notion ${\mathbb P}^{{\mathcal F}}$ (of size $\aleph_1$) such
that \[\forces_{{\mathbb P}^{{\mathcal F}}}\mbox{`` ${\mathbb P}$ is not ccc and ${\mathcal F}$ is an
${\mathcal S}$--family''.}\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let ${\mathcal F}=\{{\mathcal G}_\zeta:\zeta<\xi\}$, ${\mathcal G}_\zeta=(A_\zeta,{\mathcal U}_\zeta,E_\zeta)$,
${\mathcal U}_\zeta$ a basis of a topology on $X_\zeta$, $A_\zeta\subseteq X_\zeta
\times\omega_1$. Assume that some condition in ${\mathbb P}$ forces that ${\mathcal F}$ is
not an ${\mathcal S}$--family. Then we find $m<\omega$, $\zeta_0,\ldots,\zeta_{m-1}<
\xi$, $p\in{\mathbb P}$ and ${\mathbb P}$--names $\dot{\nu}_\alpha$ for elements of
$(\bigcup\limits_{\ell<m}A_{\zeta_\ell})^{\textstyle m}$ (for $\alpha<
\omega_1$) such that
\[\begin{array}{ll}
p\forces_{{\mathbb P}}&\mbox{`` } (\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(\dot{\nu}_\alpha
\neq \dot{\nu}_\beta)\quad\&\quad (\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall\ell<m)
(\dot{\nu}_\alpha(\ell)\in A_{\zeta_\ell})\quad\&\\
\ &\ \ (\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(\exists\ell<m)(\{\dot{\nu}_\alpha(
\ell),\dot{\nu}_\beta(\ell)\}\in E_{\zeta_\ell})\mbox{ ''.}
\end{array}\]
For each $\alpha<\omega_1$ choose a sequence $\nu_\alpha\in
(\bigcup\limits_{\ell<m}A_{\zeta_\ell})^{\textstyle m}$ and a condition
$p_\alpha\geq p$ such that $p_\alpha\forces\mbox{``} \dot{\nu}_\alpha=
\nu_\alpha$''. (So necessarily $(\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall\ell<m)
(\nu(\ell)\in A_{\zeta_\ell})$.) Let ${\mathbb Q}$ be the following forcing notion:
\smallskip
{\bf a condition} in ${\mathbb Q}$ is a finite set $q\subseteq\omega_1$ such that
\[(\forall\{\alpha,\beta\}\in [q]^{\textstyle 2})(\forall
\ell<m)(\{\nu_\alpha(\ell),\nu_\beta(\ell)\}\notin E_{\zeta_\ell});\]
{\bf the order} is the inclusion (i.e., $q_1\leq q_2$ if and only if
$q_1\subseteq q_2$).
\smallskip
\noindent Note that if $\alpha,\beta\in q\in{\mathbb Q}$, $\alpha\neq\beta$ then the
conditions $p_\alpha,p_\beta$ are incompatible (we will use it in
\ref{Pnotccc}).
\begin{claim}
\label{trick}
Assume $\{q_\varepsilon:\varepsilon<\omega_1\}\subseteq{\mathbb Q}$, $q_\varepsilon
=\{\alpha^\varepsilon_i:i<k\}$ (the increasing enumeration; $k<\omega$).
Then there is $Y\in [\omega_1]^{\textstyle \aleph_1}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\otimes)_Y$] for each $\varepsilon,\delta\in Y$, if $q_\varepsilon,
q_\delta$ are incompatible in ${\mathbb Q}$ then there are $i<k$ and $\ell<m$ such
that $\{\nu_{\alpha^\delta_i}(\ell), \nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell)\}\in
E_{\zeta_\ell}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim]
For each $\varepsilon<\omega_1$, $\ell<m$ and distinct $i,j<k$ choose
$U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell\in {\mathcal U}_{\zeta_\ell}\cup\{*\}$ such that if
$\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell)=\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_j}(\ell)$ then
$U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell= *$, otherwise $U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell,
U^{\varepsilon,j,i}\in {\mathcal U}_{\zeta_\ell}$ are such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\circledast_1)$] $\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell)\in
U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell\times\omega_1$,\quad $\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_j}(
\ell)\in U^{\varepsilon,j,i}_\ell\times\omega_1$,\quad $U^{\varepsilon,i,
j}_\ell\cap U^{\varepsilon,j,i}_\ell=\emptyset$, \quad and for all $(x_0,
\alpha_0),(x_1,\alpha_1)\in A_{\zeta_\ell}$,
\[x_0\in U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell\ \&\ x_1\in U^{\varepsilon,j,i}_\ell\quad
\Rightarrow\quad \{(x_0,\alpha_0),(x_1,\alpha_1)\}\notin E_{\zeta_\ell}.\]
\end{enumerate}
(Why possible? Remember the definition of ${\mathbb Q}$ and \ref{goodgraph}(c).)
Each ${\mathcal U}_{\zeta_\ell}$ is countable, so there are $U^{i,j}_\ell\in
{\mathcal U}_{\zeta_\ell}\cup\{*\}$ and an uncountable set $Y\subseteq\omega_1$ such
that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\circledast_2)$] $(\forall\varepsilon\in Y)(\forall i,j<k, i\neq j)(
\forall\ell<m)(U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell=U^{i,j}_\ell)$.
\end{enumerate}
Suppose that $\varepsilon,\delta\in Y$ and the conditions $q_\varepsilon,
q_\delta$ are incompatible. It means that there are $i,j<k$ and $\ell<m$
such that $\{\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell),\nu_{\alpha^\delta_j}(\ell)\}
\in E_{\zeta_\ell}$. We are going to show that we may demand $i=j$ (what
will finish the proof of the claim). So suppose that $i\neq j$. If
$\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell)\neq\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_j}(\ell)$, then
(by $(\circledast_2)$) $\nu_{\alpha^\delta_i}(\ell)\neq\nu_{\alpha^\delta_j}
(\ell)$ and (by $(\circledast_1)+(\circledast_2)$) $\nu_{\alpha^\delta_j}(
\ell)\in U^{\delta,i,j}_\ell\times\omega_1=U^{\varepsilon,i,j}_\ell\times
\omega_1$. But applying the last part of $(\circledast_1)$ we may conclude
now that $\{\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell),\nu_{\alpha^\delta_j}(\ell)\}
\notin E_{\zeta_\ell}$, a contradiction. So $\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(
\ell)=\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_j}(\ell)$. But then $\nu_{\alpha^\delta_i}(
\ell)=\nu_{\alpha^\delta_j}(\ell)$ and thus $\{\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(
\ell),\nu_{\alpha^\delta_i}(\ell)\}\in E_{\zeta_\ell}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{Qccc}
${\mathbb Q}$ is a ccc forcing notion.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim] Suppose that $\{q_\xi:\xi<\omega_1\}
\subseteq{\mathbb Q}$ is an antichain in ${\mathbb Q}$. We may assume that, for some
$k<\omega$, $|q_\xi|=k$ for all $\xi<\omega_1$. Let $q_\xi=\{\alpha^\xi_0,
\alpha^\xi_1,\ldots,\alpha^\xi_{k-1}\}$ be the increasing enumeration. Using
\ref{trick} we may find an uncountable $Y\subseteq\omega_1$ such that for
each distinct $\varepsilon,\delta\in Y$ there are $i_{\varepsilon,\delta}<k$
and $\ell_{\varepsilon,\delta}<m$ with $\{\nu_{\alpha^\delta_{i_{\varepsilon,
\delta}}}(\ell_{i_{\varepsilon,\delta}}),\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_{i_{
\varepsilon,\delta}}}(\ell_{i_{\varepsilon,\delta}})\}\in E_{\zeta_\ell}$.
For each $\varepsilon\in Y$ let $\eta_\varepsilon$ be a sequence of length
$k\cdot m$ such that
\[\eta_\varepsilon(n)=\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell)\quad\mbox{ whenever }
n=i\cdot m+\ell,\ i<k,\ \ell<m.\]
Look at the set $\{\eta_\varepsilon:\varepsilon\in Y\}\subseteq
(\bigcup\limits_{\zeta<\xi} A_\zeta)^{\textstyle k\cdot m}$. It should be
clear that it is an uncountable $k\cdot m$--selector for ${\mathcal F}$ (the clause
$(\beta)$ of \ref{Sfamily}(1) for $\varepsilon,\delta\in Y$ is witnessed by
$i_{\varepsilon,\delta}\cdot m+ \ell_{\varepsilon,\delta}$). A contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{Qgood}
$\forces_{{\mathbb Q}}$ `` ${\mathcal F}$ is an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs ''.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim]
The only bad thing that could happen after forcing with ${\mathbb Q}$ is that an
uncountable $m^*$--selector was added (for some $m^*<\omega$). If so, then
we have $m^*<\omega$, ${\mathbb Q}$--names $\dot{\eta}_\varepsilon$ (for
$\varepsilon<\omega_1$) and a condition $q\in{\mathbb Q}$ such that
\[q\forces_{{\mathbb Q}}\mbox{`` }\{\dot{\eta}_\varepsilon:\varepsilon<\omega_1\}
\mbox{ is an $m^*$--selector for ${\mathcal F}$,\ \ $\dot{\eta}_\varepsilon$'s are
pairwise distinct ''.}\]
Clearly we may require that for some $\zeta_0,\ldots,\zeta_{m^*-1}$, for each
$\varepsilon<\omega_1$ the condition $q$ forces that $\dot{\eta}_\varepsilon
(\ell)\in A_{\zeta_\ell}$ (for all $\ell<m^*$). For each $\varepsilon<
\omega_1$ pick a sequence $\eta_\varepsilon$ and a condition $q_\varepsilon
\geq q$ such that $q_\varepsilon\forces_{\mathbb Q}$``$\dot{\eta}_\varepsilon=
\eta_\varepsilon$''. Next, choose an uncountable set $Y\subseteq\omega_1$
and $k<\omega$ such that for $\varepsilon\in Y$, $q_\varepsilon=
\{\alpha^\epsilon_i:i<k\}$ (the increasing enumeration) and $(\otimes)_Y$ of
\ref{trick} holds (possible by \ref{trick}). Let $\rho_\varepsilon$ (for
$\varepsilon\in Y$) be sequences of length $k\cdot m+m^*$ defined by
\[\rho_\varepsilon(n)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell)&\mbox{if }n=i\cdot m+\ell,\ i<k,\ \ell<m,\\
\eta_\varepsilon(\ell) &\mbox{if }n=k\cdot m+\ell,\ \ell<m^*.
\end{array}\right.\]
Note that for distinct $\varepsilon,\delta\in Y$ we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\boxtimes_1)$] if $q_\varepsilon,q_\delta$ are compatible in ${\mathbb Q}$,
$\varepsilon<\delta<\omega_1$, then for some $\ell<m^*$ we have
$\{\rho_\varepsilon(km+\ell),\rho_\delta(km+\ell)\}=\{\eta_\varepsilon(\ell),
\eta_\delta(\ell)\}\in E_{\zeta_\ell}$;
\item[$(\boxtimes)_2$] if $q_\varepsilon,q_\delta$ are incompatible in ${\mathbb Q}$
then there are $i<k$ and $\ell<m$ so that $\{\rho_\varepsilon(im+\ell),
\rho_\delta(im+\ell)\}=\{\nu_{\alpha^\varepsilon_i}(\ell),\nu_{
\alpha^\delta_i}(\ell)\}\in E_{\zeta_\ell}$.
\end{enumerate}
(Why? $(\boxtimes_1)$ follows from the choice of $\dot{\eta}_\varepsilon$,
$q_\varepsilon$, $(\boxtimes_2)$ is a consequence of $(\otimes)_Y$.) Hence,
$\{\rho_\varepsilon:\varepsilon\in Y\}$ is an uncountable $km+m^*$--selector
from ${\mathcal F}$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{Pnotccc}
For some $q\in{\mathbb Q}$ we have
\[q\forces_{{\mathbb Q}}\mbox{ `` ${\mathbb P}$ does not satisfy the ccc ''.}\]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim]
As we stated before, if $q\in{\mathbb Q}$ and $\alpha,\beta\in q$ are distinct then
the conditions $p_\alpha,p_\beta$ are incompatible in ${\mathbb P}$. Since, by
\ref{Qccc}, the forcing notion ${\mathbb Q}$ is ccc, there is a condition $q\in{\mathbb Q}$
such that
\[q\forces_{{\mathbb Q}}\mbox{`` }\{\alpha<\omega_1: \{\alpha\}\in\Gamma_{\mathbb Q}\}\mbox{
is uncountable ''}.\]
It should be clear now that the condition $q$ forces (in ${\mathbb Q}$) that ${\mathbb P}$
fails the ccc.
\end{proof}
Let $q\in{\mathbb Q}$ be as guaranteed by \ref{Pnotccc} and let ${\mathbb P}^{\mathcal F}$ be the
${\mathbb Q}$ restricted to elements stronger than that $q$. It should be clear that
${\mathbb P}^{\mathcal F}$ is as required in the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
If ${\mathcal F}$ is an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs and ${\mathbb P}$ is a forcing notion
with the Knaster property, then
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}}\mbox{`` ${\mathcal F}$ is an ${\mathcal S}$--family ''.}\]
\end{conclusion}
\section{Where are our ${\mathcal S}$--families from?}
It follows from \ref{notFAP} that to make sure that ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$
fails for all ${\mathbb P}\in {\mathcal K}$ it is enough to have an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good
graphs such that for every ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$ some ${\mathcal G}\in{\mathcal F}$ is densely
representable by $\bot_{{\mathbb P}}$. In this section we will (almost) show how the
respective ${\mathcal S}$--family is created in our model. Basically, it will come
from Cohen reals, but interpreted in a special way.
Let ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$ and let $p$ be a condition in ${\mathbb P}$. Considering all
possible cases (of \ref{classK}) we define a countable basis ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ of a
topology on $X({\mathbb P})\stackrel{\rm def}{=}{\mathbb P}$, a set $E({\mathbb P})\subseteq
[X({\mathbb P})\times\omega_1]^{\textstyle 2}$ and a forcing notion
${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$. (In the last case we will assume additionally that the
condition $p$ has some special form, which will restrict us to a dense
subset of ${\mathbb P}$.)
\medskip
\noindent{\sc Case 1}:\quad ${\mathbb P}={\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_1(K,\Sigma)$, where
$(K,\Sigma)\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$ is a strongly finitary 2-big typical
tree--creating pair for a function ${\bf H}\in{\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$.
\noindent For $q=\langle t^q_\eta:\eta\in T^q\rangle\in{\mathbb P}$ and $N<\omega$
let $U(q,N)$ be the family of all $q'\in{\mathbb P}$ such that
\[\mrot(q')=\mrot(q)\quad\mbox{ and }\quad (\forall\eta\in T^{q'})\big(\lh
(\eta)<N\quad\Rightarrow\quad (\eta\in T^q\ \&\ t^q_\eta=t^{q'}_\eta)
\big).\]
Let ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ consist of all nonempty sets $U(q,N)$ (for $q\in {\mathbb P}$,
$N<\omega$). Clearly ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ is a countable basis of a topology on ${\mathbb P}$
(which is the natural product topology). Next we define
\[\begin{array}{ll}
E({\mathbb P})=\{\{(q_0,\alpha_0),(q_1,\alpha_1)\}\in [{\mathbb P}\!\times\!\omega_1]^{
\textstyle 2}:& \mbox{for each }N<\omega\\
\ &{\rm dcl}(T^{q_0})\cap \prod\limits_{i<N}{\bf H}(i)\cap{\rm dcl}(T^{q_1})\neq\emptyset\}
\end{array}\]
(where ${\rm dcl}(T)$ is the downward closure of a quasi tree $T$; see
\cite[Def.\ 1.3.1]{RoSh:470}). The forcing notion ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined as
follows:
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf a condition $r$ in ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is a finite system $r=
\langle s^r_\eta: \eta\in \hat{S^r}\rangle$ such that $S^r\subseteq T^p$ is
a (finite) quasi tree, $\mrot(S^r)=\mrot(T^p)$,
\[(\forall\eta\in \hat{S^r})(s^r_\eta\in\Sigma(t^p_\eta)\ \&\
\nor[s^r_\eta]\geq\nor[t^p_\eta]-2\ \&\ {\rm pos}(s^r_\eta)=\suc_{S^r}(\eta)),\]
and if $\nor[t^p_\eta]\leq 4$, $\eta\in \hat{S^r}$ then $s^r_\eta=t^p_\eta$;
\noindent{\bf the order of ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is the end extension, i.e., $r_0\leq
r_1$ if and only if $S^{r_0}\subseteq S^{r_1}$ and $(\forall\eta\in
\hat{S^{r_0}})(s^{r_0}_\eta=s^{r_1}_\eta)$.
\smallskip
\noindent It should be clear that ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is a countable atomless
(remember \ref{divide}) forcing notion, so it is equivalent to the Cohen
forcing. Moreover, the forcing with ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ adds a condition
$\dot{p}^*=\bigcup\Gamma_{{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)}\in{\mathbb P}$ stronger than $p$.
\medskip
\noindent{\sc Case 2}:\quad ${\mathbb P}={\mathbb Q}^{\rm tree}_1(K,\Sigma)$, where $(K,\Sigma)
\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$ is a strongly finitary typical t-omittory
tree--creating pair for a function ${\bf H}\in{\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$.
\noindent ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ and $E({\mathbb P})$ are defined like in the Case 1. The forcing
notion ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined similarly too, though we now make an
advantage from ``t--omittory'':
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf a condition $r$ in ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is a finite system $r=
\langle s^r_\eta: \eta\in \hat{S^r}\rangle$ such that $S^r\subseteq T^p$ is
a quasi tree, $\mrot(S^r)=\mrot(T^p)$, and for each $\eta\in \hat{S^r}$
\begin{itemize}
\item there is a (finite) quasi tree $T^*_\eta\subseteq T^p$ such that
$\mrot(T^*_\eta)= \eta$ and $s^r_\eta\in\Sigma(t^p_\nu:\nu\in\hat{T^*_\eta
})$,
\item $\nor[s^r_\eta]\geq\min\{\nor[t^p_\nu]-2:\nu\in T^*_\eta\}$,
\end{itemize}
and if $\nor[t^p_\eta]\leq 4$, $\eta\in \hat{S^r}$ then $s^r_\eta=t^p_\eta$;
\noindent{\bf the order of ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is the end extension, so $r_0\leq
r_1$ if and only if $S^{r_0}\subseteq S^{r_1}$ and $(\forall\eta\in
\hat{S^{r_0}})(s^{r_0}_\eta=s^{r_1}_\eta)$.
\smallskip
\noindent Again, ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is a countable atomless forcing notion. The
forcing with ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ adds a condition $\dot{p}^*=\bigcup\Gamma_{{\mathbb C}(
{\mathbb P},p)}\in{\mathbb P}$ stronger than $p$.
\medskip
\noindent{\sc Case 3}:\quad ${\mathbb P}={\mathbb Q}^*_f(K,\Sigma)$, where $(K,\Sigma)\in
{\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$ is a strongly finitary typical creating pair for
${\bf H}\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$, $f:\omega\times\omega\longrightarrow\omega$
is an ${\bf H}$-fast function, $(K,\Sigma)$ is $\bar{2}$-big, has the Halving
Property and is either simple or gluing.
\noindent For a condition $q=(w^q,t^q_0,t^q_1,\ldots)\in{\mathbb P}$ and $N<\omega$
we let $U(q,N)$ be the collection of all conditions $q'\in{\mathbb P}$ such that
$w^q=w^{q'}$ and $t^q_n=t^{q'}_n$ for all $n<N$. Next, ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ is the
family of all non-empty sets $U(q,N)$ (for $q\in{\mathbb P}$ and $N<\omega$). Like
before, ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ is a countable basis of the standard (product) topology
on ${\mathbb P}$. We define
\[\begin{array}{ll}
E({\mathbb P})&=\{\{(q_0,\alpha_0),(q_1,\alpha_1)\}\in [{\mathbb P}\times\omega_1]^{
\textstyle 2}: \mbox{ for each } N<\omega\\
\ &\ \ {\rm dcl}({\rm pos}(w^{q_0},t^{q_0}_0,\ldots,t^{q_0}_N))\cap \prod\limits_{i<N}
{\bf H}(i)\cap{\rm dcl}({\rm pos}(w^{q_1},t^{q_1}_0,\ldots,t^{q_1}_N))\neq\emptyset\}.
\end{array}
\]
The forcing notion ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined so that
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf a condition $r$ in ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is a finite sequence $r=(w^r,
s^r_0,\ldots,s^r_{n_r})\in{\rm FC}(K,\Sigma)$ such that $w^r=w^p$, $s^r_k\in
\Sigma(t^p_k)$, and
\begin{itemize}
\item if $\nor[t^p_k]>f(n,m^{t^p_k}_{\rm dn})$, $n\geq 4$ then $\nor[s^r_k]>
f(n-2,m^{s^r_k}_{\rm dn})$,
\item if $\nor[t^p_k]\leq f(4,m^{t^p_k}_{\rm dn})$ then $s^r_k=t^p_k$;
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\bf the order of ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is the extension, i.e., $r_0\leq
r_1$ if and only if $n_{r_0}\leq n_{r_1}$ and $s^{r_0}_k=s^{r_1}_k$ for all
$k\leq n_{r_0}$.
\smallskip
\noindent Clearly ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is countable and atomless (remember
\ref{divide}). It adds a condition $\dot{p}^*=\bigcup\Gamma_{{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)}\in
{\mathbb P}$ stronger than $p$.
\medskip
\noindent{\sc Case 4}:\quad ${\mathbb P}={\mathbb Q}^*_{{\rm w}\infty}(K,\Sigma)$,
where $(K,\Sigma)\in {\mathcal H}(\aleph_1)$ is a strongly finitary typical
creating pair for ${\bf H}\in{\mathcal H} (\aleph_1)$, $(K,\Sigma)$ captures
singletons.
\noindent Both ${\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ and $E({\mathbb P})$ are defined like in Case 3. As we
said before, here we will require that $p$ is of special form. Namely, we
demand that $p=(w^p,t^p_0,t^p_2,\ldots)\in{\mathbb P}$ is such that for some
strictly increasing sequence $\langle m_k:k<\omega\rangle\subseteq\omega$,
$m_0=0$ and for each $k\in\omega$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\nor[t^p_{m_k}]\geq 4+k$, and
\item if $m_k+1<m_{k+1}$ then for some (equivalently: all) $u\in{\rm pos}(w^p,
t^p_0,\ldots,t^p_{m_k})$ we have $|{\rm pos}(u,t^p_{m_k+1},\ldots, t^p_{m_{k+1}
-1})|=1$.
\end{itemize}
(Since $(K,\Sigma)$ captures singletons the conditions of this form are
dense in ${\mathbb P}$.) Now, the forcing notion ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined so that
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf a condition $r$ in ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is a finite sequence $r=(w^r,
s^r_0,\ldots,s^r_{n_r})\in{\rm FC}(K,\Sigma)$ such that $w^r=w^p$, $s^r_\ell\in
\Sigma(t^p_\ell)$, and
\[(\forall k<\omega)(m_{2k}\leq n_r\ \Rightarrow\ \nor[s^r_{m_{2k}}]\geq
\nor[t^p_{m_{2k}}]-2;\]
\noindent{\bf the order of ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$} is the extension, i.e., $r_0\leq
r_1$ if and only if $n_{r_0}\leq n_{r_1}$ and $s^{r_0}_k=s^{r_1}_k$ for all
$k\leq n_{r_0}$.
\smallskip
\noindent Again, ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is countable and atomless, and it adds a
condition $\dot{p}^*=\bigcup\Gamma_{{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)}\in{\mathbb P}$ stronger than $p$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{oneforce}
Suppose ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$ and $p\in{\mathbb P}$ is such that ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined. Let
$r\in{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$. Then there are two conditions $r_0,r_1\in{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$
stronger than $r$ and basic open sets $U_0,U_1,U\in {\mathcal U}({\mathbb P})$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $U_0\cap U_1=\emptyset$, $p\in U$,
\item if $p'\in U$ and ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p')$ is defined then $r,r_0,r_1\in{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},
p')$, $r_0,r_1$ are stronger than $r$ (in ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p')$) and
$r_0\forces_{{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p')}\dot{p}^*\in U_0$, $r_1\forces_{{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p')}
\dot{p}^*\in U_1$,
\item $(\forall q_0\in U_0)(\forall q_1\in U_1)(\forall\alpha_0,\alpha_1<
\omega_1)(\{(q_0,\alpha_0),(q_1,\alpha_1)\}\notin E({\mathbb P}))$.
\end{itemize}
(Note that these formulas are absolute.)
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In Cases 1 and 3 (of \ref{classK}) use \ref{divide}; in other cases use
directly the assumption that $(K,\Sigma)$ is typical.
\end{proof}
The ${\mathcal S}$--families in our model will be created by choosing sets
$A\subseteq X({\mathbb P})\times \omega_1$ (for each ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$) so that in each
pair $(q,\alpha)\in A$ the first coordinate $q$ is added generically by the
forcing notion ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ (for some condition $p\in{\mathbb P}$). For this we will
use the finite support product of $\aleph_1$ copies of ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$, denoted
by ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)=\prod\limits_{\delta<\omega_1}{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ (so
a condition in ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)$ is a finite function $c:\dom(c)
\longrightarrow{\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ and the order is the natural one). The forcing
with ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)$ adds the set
\[\dot{Z}^{\mathbb P}_p=\big\{(q,\alpha):\alpha<\omega_1\ \&\ q=\bigcup\{r:
(\alpha,r)\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)}\}\big\}.\]
(Sets of these form will be used to build a good graph ${\mathcal G}$ densely
representable by $\bot_{{\mathbb P}}$.)
\begin{definition}
\label{isomorph}
Suppose that ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$, $p\in{\mathbb P}$ and ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined. We say that
two conditions $\bar{c}_0,\bar{c}_1\in{\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)$ are {\em
isomorphic\/} (and then we write $\bar{c}_0\sim \bar{c}_1$) if $|\dom(
\bar{c}_0)|=|\dom(\bar{c}_1)|$ and if $H:\dom(\bar{c}_0)\longrightarrow
\dom(\bar{c}_1)$ is the order preserving bijection then $\bar{c}_1(H(\alpha
))=\bar{c}_0(\alpha)$ for each $\alpha\in\dom(\bar{c}_0)$.
\end{definition}
\noindent (Note that there are countably many isomorphism types of
conditions in ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)$.)
The main technical advantage of using the forcing notions ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}
({\mathbb P},p)$ to create our ${\mathcal S}$--families is presented by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{maintech}
Let ${\mathbb P}^0,\ldots,{\mathbb P}^k\in{\mathcal K}$. Suppose that $\langle {\mathbb P}_\xi,\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi:
\xi<\gamma\rangle$ is a finite support iteration of ccc forcing
notions, $\gamma$ is a limit ordinal. Furthermore assume that for some
disjoint sets $I_0,\ldots,I_k\subseteq\gamma$ we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\alpha)$] if $\xi\in I_\ell$ then $\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\xi}$``
$\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi={\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P}^\ell,p^\xi)$ for some $\dot{p}^\xi\in
{\mathbb P}^\ell$'',
\item[$(\beta)$] for $\zeta\leq\gamma$, $\dot{A}^\ell_\zeta$ is the
${\mathbb P}_\zeta$--name for the set $\bigcup\{\dot{Z}^{{\mathbb P}^\ell}_{\dot{p}^\xi}:\xi
\in I_\ell\cap\zeta\}\subseteq{\mathbb P}^\ell\times \omega_1$,
\item[$(\gamma)$] for each $\zeta<\gamma$
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\zeta}\mbox{`` }\{(\dot{A}^\ell_\zeta, {\mathcal U}({\mathbb P}^\ell),
E({\mathbb P}^\ell)\cap [\dot{A}^\ell_\zeta]^{\textstyle 2}): \ell\leq k\}\mbox{ is
an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs ''.}\]
\end{enumerate}
Then
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\gamma}\mbox{`` }\{(\dot{A}^\ell_\gamma, {\mathcal U}({\mathbb P}^\ell),
E({\mathbb P}^\ell)\cap [\dot{A}^\ell_\gamma]^{\textstyle 2}): \ell\leq k\}\mbox{
is an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs. ''}\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a condition $q_0\in{\mathbb P}_\gamma$ we may find a stronger condition $q\in
{\mathbb P}_\gamma$ with the following property
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(*)_q$] for each $\xi\in I_\ell\cap\dom(q)$, $\ell\leq k$ there
are $\bar{c}(q,\xi)$, $\bar{c}_0(q,\xi)$, $\bar{c}_1(q,\xi)$, and
$U(q,\xi)$, $\bar{U}_0(q,\xi)$, $\bar{U}_1(q,\xi)$ (objects, not names) such
that the condition $q{\restriction}\xi$ forces the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item $U(q,\xi)\in{\mathcal U}({\mathbb P}^\ell)$, $\dot{p}_\xi\in U(q,\xi)$, $q(\xi)=
\bar{c}(q,\xi)\in{\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P}^\ell,\dot{p}_\xi)$,
\item $\bar{U}_0(q,\xi),\bar{U}_1(q,\xi):\dom(\bar{c}(q,\xi))\longrightarrow
{\mathcal U}({\mathbb P}^\ell)$, $\bar{U}_0(q,\xi)(\varepsilon)\cap\bar{U}_1(q,\xi)(
\varepsilon)=\emptyset$ for each $\varepsilon\in\dom(\bar{c}(q,\xi))$,
\item for each $p'\in U(q,\xi)$ such that ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P}^\ell,p')$ is defined:
$\bar{c}(q,\xi),\bar{c}_0(q,\xi),\bar{c}_1(q,\xi)$ are in ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}(
{\mathbb P}^\ell,p')$, the conditions $\bar{c}_0(q,\xi),\bar{c}_1(q,\xi)$ are stronger
than $\bar{c}(q,\xi)$ and $\dom(\bar{c}_0(q,\xi))=\dom(\bar{c}_1(q,\xi))=
\dom(\bar{c}(q,\xi))$, and
if $i<2$, $\varepsilon\in\dom(\bar{c}(q,\xi))$, and $\dot{p}^*_\varepsilon$
is the ${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P}^\ell,p')$--name for the $\varepsilon^{\rm th}$
generic real (i.e., $\bigcup\{r:(\alpha,r)\in\Gamma_{{\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}(
{\mathbb P}^\ell,p')}\}$) then
\[\bar{c}_i(q,\xi)\forces_{{\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p')}\mbox{`` }
\dot{p}^*_\varepsilon\in \bar{U}_i(q,\xi)(\varepsilon)\mbox{ '',}\]
\item for each $\varepsilon\in\dom(\bar{c}(q,\xi))$ and $q_0\in\bar{U}_0(q,
\xi)(\varepsilon)$, $q_1\in\bar{U}_1(q,\xi)(\varepsilon)$ we have
\[(\forall\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1<\omega_1)(\{(q_0,\varepsilon_0),(q_1,
\varepsilon_1)\}\notin E({\mathbb P}^\ell)).\]
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
[Why? Just apply \ref{oneforce} (and remember that supports are finite).]
>From now on we will restrict ourselves to conditions $q\in{\mathbb P}_\gamma$ with
the property $(*)_q$ (what is allowed as they are dense in ${\mathbb P}_\gamma$). So
we will assume that for each condition $q$ under considerations and $\xi\in
I_\ell\cap\dom(q)$, $\ell\leq k$, the objects (not names!) $\bar{c}(q,\xi)$,
$\bar{c}_0(q,\xi)$, $\bar{c}_1(q,\xi)$, $U(q,\xi)$, $\bar{U}_0(q,\xi)$,
$\bar{U}_1(q,\xi)$ are defined and have the respective properties.
Note that, in $\bV^{{\mathbb P}_\gamma}$, if $\ell\leq k$, $\xi_0,\xi_\ell\in
I_\ell$, $(q,\alpha_0)\in \dot{Z}^{{\mathbb P}^\ell}_{\dot{p}^{\xi_0}}$ and $(q,
\alpha_1)\in\dot{Z}^{{\mathbb P}^\ell}_{\dot{p}^{\xi_1}}$ then $\alpha_0=\alpha_1$
and $\xi_0=\xi_1$ (remember \ref{oneforce}). Therefore, we may label
elements of $\dot{A}^\ell_\gamma$ by pairs from $I_\ell\times\omega_1$ and
allow ourselves small abuse of notation identifying $(\xi,\alpha)\in
I_\ell\times\omega_1$ with the respective $(q,\alpha)\in
\dot{Z}^{{\mathbb P}^\ell}_{\dot{p}^\xi}$. Next let $E_\ell=E({\mathbb P}^\ell)\cap
[\dot{A}^\ell_\gamma]^{\textstyle 2}$.
Now, suppose that some condition $q'\in{\mathbb P}_\gamma$ forces that
\[\{(\dot{A}^\ell_\gamma, {\mathcal U}({\mathbb P}^\ell),E_\ell): \ell\leq k\}\mbox{ is not an
${\mathcal S}$--family.}\]
Then we may find a condition $q\in{\mathbb P}_\gamma$, an integer $m<\omega$,
$\ell_0,\ldots,\ell_{m-1}\leq k$ (not necessarily distinct) and
${\mathbb P}_\gamma$--names $\dot{\nu}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha<\omega_1$) of sequences
of length $m$ such that
\[\begin{array}{ll}
q\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\gamma}&\mbox{`` }(\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(
\dot{\nu}_\alpha\neq\dot{\nu}_\beta)\ \&\ (\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall i<
m)(\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i)\in I_{\ell_i}\times\omega_1)\\
\ &\ \ (\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(\exists i<m)(\{\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i),
\dot{\nu}_\beta(i)\}\in E_{\ell_i})\mbox{ ''.}
\end{array}\]
For each $\alpha<\omega_1$ choose a condition $q_\alpha\in{\mathbb P}_\gamma$
(satisfying $(*)_{q_\alpha}$ and) stronger than $q$ and a sequence
$\nu_\alpha\in\prod\limits_{i<m}(I_{\ell_i}\times\omega_1)$ such that
$q_\alpha\forces\dot{\nu}_\alpha=\nu_\alpha$ and
\[(\forall i<m)(\nu_\alpha(i)=(\xi,\varepsilon)\ \Rightarrow\
\xi\in\dom(q_\alpha)\ \&\ \varepsilon\in\dom(q_\alpha(\xi))).\]
Now we consider two cases.
\smallskip
\noindent{\sc Case A:}\qquad $\cf(\gamma)\neq\omega_1$.\\
Then for some $\zeta<\gamma$, for uncountably many $\alpha<\omega_1$,
$\dom(q_\alpha)\subseteq\zeta$. Let $G\subseteq{\mathbb P}_\gamma$ be a generic over
$\bV$ and work in $\bV[G\cap{\mathbb P}_\zeta]$. Because of the ccc of ${\mathbb P}_\zeta$,
the set $\{\alpha<\omega_1: q_\alpha\in G\cap{\mathbb P}_\zeta\}$ is uncountable, so
we get an uncountable $m$--selector from $\{(\dot{A}^\ell_\zeta,
{\mathcal U}({\mathbb P}^\ell), E({\mathbb P}^\ell)\cap [\dot{A}^\ell_\zeta]^{\textstyle 2})^{G\cap
{\mathbb P}_\zeta}:\ell\leq k\}$ (in $\bV[G\cap{\mathbb P}_\zeta]$), contradicting the
assumption $(\gamma)$.
\medskip
\noindent{\sc Case B:}\qquad $\cf(\gamma)=\omega_1$.\\
If for some $\zeta<\gamma$ the set $\{\alpha<\omega_1:\dom(q_\alpha)
\subseteq \zeta\}$ is uncountable then we may repeat the arguments of Case
A. So assume that $\{\alpha<\omega_1:\dom(q_\alpha)\subseteq\zeta\}$ is
countable for each $\zeta<\gamma$.
Applying ``standard cleaning procedure'' and passing to an uncountable
subsequence (and possibly increasing our conditions) we may assume that
$|\dom(q_\alpha)|=N$ for each $\alpha<\omega_1$ and, letting
$\{\xi^\alpha_0,\ldots,\xi^\alpha_{N-1}\}$ be the increasing enumeration of
$\dom(q_\alpha)$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{\dom(q_\alpha):\alpha<\omega_1\}$ forms a $\Delta$--system with
heart $u^*$,
\item for some $n^*<N$ and $\zeta^*<\gamma$, we have
$(\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall j<n^*)(\xi^\alpha_j<\zeta^*)$ and
$(\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(\zeta^*<\xi^\alpha_{n^*}\leq\xi^\alpha_{N-1}
<\xi^\beta_{n^*})$ (so necessarily $u^*\subseteq\zeta^*$),
\item $\sup\{\xi^\alpha_{n^*}:\alpha<\omega_1\}=\gamma$,
\item $(\forall\alpha,\beta<\omega_1)(\forall\ell\leq k)(\forall j<N)(
\xi^\alpha_j\in I_\ell\ \Leftrightarrow\ \xi^\beta_j\in I_\ell)$,
\item if $\alpha,\beta<\omega_1$, $\ell\leq k$, $j<N$ and $\xi^\alpha_j\in
I_\ell$ then $U(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)=U(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j)$,
$\bar{c}(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)\sim \bar{c}(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j)$,
$\bar{c}_0(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)\sim \bar{c}_0(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j)$,
$\bar{c}_1(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)\sim \bar{c}_1(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j)$ (see
\ref{isomorph}), and
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(*)$] if $H:\dom(\bar{c}(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j))\longrightarrow\dom
(\bar{c}(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j))$ is the order preserving bijection then $H$
is the identity on $\dom(\bar{c}(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j))\cap\dom(\bar{c}(
q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j))$ and for each $\varepsilon\in\bar{c}(q_\alpha,
\xi^\alpha_j)$
\[\begin{array}{l}
\bar{U}_0(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)(\varepsilon)=\bar{U}_0(q_\beta,
\xi^\beta_j)(H(\varepsilon)),\quad \bar{U}_1(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)(
\varepsilon)=\bar{U}_1(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j)(H(\varepsilon))\quad\mbox{ and}\\
(\forall i<m)(\nu_\alpha(i)=(\xi^\alpha_j,\varepsilon)\ \Leftrightarrow\
\nu_\beta(i)=(\xi^\beta_j,H(\varepsilon))).
\end{array}\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
Let $w^*$ be the set of these $i<m$ that for some (equivalently: all)
$\alpha<\omega_1$ we have $\nu_\alpha(i)\in\zeta^*\times\omega_1$.
\begin{claim}
\label{clx1}
There are $q^*\in{\mathbb P}_{\zeta^*}$ and $\alpha<\beta<\omega_1$ such that $q^*$
is stronger than both $q_\alpha{\restriction}\zeta^*$ and $q_\beta{\restriction}\zeta^*$ and
$(\forall i\in w^*)(\{\nu_\alpha(i),\nu_\beta(i)\}\notin E_{\ell_i})$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim]
Let $G_{\zeta^*}\subseteq{\mathbb P}_{\zeta^*}$ be a generic filter over $\bV$. Work
in $\bV[G_{\zeta^*}]$. By the ccc of ${\mathbb P}_{\zeta^*}$, the set $\{\alpha<
\omega_1:q_\alpha{\restriction}\zeta^*\in G_{\zeta^*}\}$ is uncountable. Look at the
sequence $\langle\nu_\alpha{\restriction} w^*:q_\alpha{\restriction}\zeta^*\in G_{\zeta^*}
\rangle$. By assumption $(\gamma)$ of the lemma, it cannot be a
$|w^*|$--selector, so there are $\alpha<\beta<\omega_1$ such that
\[q_\alpha{\restriction}\zeta^*\quad\&\quad q_\beta{\restriction}\zeta^*\quad\&\quad (\forall
i\in w^*)(\{\nu_\alpha(i),\nu_\beta(i)\}\notin E_{\ell_i}).\]
Now, going back to $\bV$, we easily find a condition $q^*\in{\mathbb P}_{\zeta^*}$
such that $q^*,\alpha,\beta$ are as required.
\end{proof}
Let $q^*,\alpha,\beta$ be as guaranteed by \ref{clx1}. For $j<N$ such that
$\xi^\alpha_j\in I_\ell$, $\ell\leq k$, let $H_j:\dom(\bar{c}(q_\alpha,
\xi^\alpha_j))\longrightarrow\dom(\bar{c}(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j))$ be the
order preserving bijection (see clause (5) above). We define a condition
$q^+\in{\mathbb P}_{\gamma}$ as follows:\\
$\dom(q^+)=\dom(q^*)\cup\dom(q_\alpha)\cup\dom(q_\beta)$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item $q^+{\restriction} \zeta^*=q^*$,
\item if $\xi^\alpha_j\in I_\ell$, $n^*\leq j<N$, $\ell\leq k$ then
\[q^+(\xi^\alpha_j)=\bar{c}_0(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
q^+(\xi^\beta_j)=\bar{c}_0(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j),\]
\item if $n^*\leq j<N$, $\xi^\alpha_j\notin\bigcup\limits_{\ell\leq k}
I_\ell$ then $q^+(\xi^\alpha_j)=q_\alpha(\xi^\alpha_j)$, $q^+(\xi^\beta_j)=
q_\beta(\xi^\beta_j)$.
\end{itemize}
It should be clear that $q^+\in{\mathbb P}_\gamma$ is a condition stronger than both
$q_\alpha$ and $q_\beta$. If $i<m$ and $\varepsilon<\omega_1$ then
\[\nu_\alpha(i)=(\xi^\alpha_j,\varepsilon)\ \Leftrightarrow\ \nu_\beta(i)=
(\xi^\beta_j,H_j(\varepsilon)).\]
If $i\in m\setminus w^*$, $\nu_\alpha(i)=(\xi^\alpha_j,\varepsilon)$,
$n^*\leq j<N$ and $\dot{p}^*_{\varepsilon,\xi^\alpha_j}$,
$\dot{p}^*_{H(\varepsilon),\xi^\beta_j}$ are the names for $\varepsilon^{\rm
th}$ ($H(\varepsilon)^{\rm th}$ respectively) generic reals added by
$\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_{\xi^\alpha_j}$ ($\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_{\xi^\beta_j}$, resp.) then
\[\begin{array}{ll}
q^+\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\gamma}&\mbox{`` }\dot{p}^*_{\varepsilon,\xi^\alpha_j}\in
\bar{U}_0(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)(\varepsilon)=\bar{U}_0(q_\beta,\xi^\beta_j)
(H(\varepsilon))\quad\mbox{ and}\\
\ &\ \ \dot{p}^*_{H(\varepsilon),\xi^\beta_j}\in\bar{U}_1(q_\beta,
\xi^\beta_j)(H(\varepsilon))=\bar{U}_1(q_\alpha,\xi^\alpha_j)(\varepsilon)
\mbox{ ''.}
\end{array}\]
If $i\in w^*$ then look at the choice of $q^*,\alpha,\beta$ (see \ref{clx1}).
Putting everything together we conclude that
\[q^+\forces\mbox{`` }(\forall i<m)(\{\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i),\dot{\nu}_\beta(i)
\}\notin E_{\ell_i})\mbox{ ''},\]
a contradiction
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}
Let $\kappa$ be regular cardinal such that $\kappa=\kappa^{<\kappa}\geq
\aleph_2$. By induction on $\xi\leq\kappa$ we build a finite support
iteration $\langle{\mathbb P}_\xi,\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi:\xi<\kappa\rangle$ and sequences
$\langle\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi,I_\xi:\xi<\kappa\rangle$, $\langle\dot{A}^\xi_\zeta:
\xi<\zeta\leq\kappa\rangle$ and $\langle\dot{p}^\zeta:\zeta\in I_\xi\rangle$
such that for each $\xi,\xi_0,\xi_1<\kappa$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi$ is a ${\mathbb P}_\xi$--name for a ccc forcing notion
on a bounded subset of $\kappa$,
\item[(ii)] $I_\xi\in [\{2\cdot\alpha:\xi<\alpha<\kappa\}]^{\textstyle
\kappa}$, $\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi$ is a ${\mathbb P}_\xi$--name for an element of ${\mathcal K}$, and
if $\xi_0\neq\xi_1$ then $I_{\xi_0}\cap I_{\xi_1}=\emptyset$,
\item[(iii)] for $\zeta\in I_\xi$, $\dot{p}^\zeta$ is a ${\mathbb P}_\zeta$--name for
a condition in $\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi$ for which ${\mathbb C}(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi,\dot{p}^\zeta)$
is defined,
\item[(iv)] if $\zeta\in I_\xi$ then $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\zeta$ is (equivalent to)
${\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi,\dot{p}^\zeta)$,
\item[(v)] if $\xi<\zeta\leq\kappa$ then $\dot{A}^\xi_\zeta$ is the
${\mathbb P}_\zeta$--name for the set $\bigcup\{\dot{Z}^{\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi}_{
\dot{p}^\varepsilon}:\varepsilon\in I_\xi\cap\zeta\}\subseteq\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi
\times\omega_1$ (where $\dot{Z}^{\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi}_{\dot{p}^\varepsilon}$ is
the generic object added by $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\zeta$; compare \ref{maintech}),
\item[(vi)] for each $\zeta\leq\kappa$
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\zeta}\mbox{`` }\{(\dot{A}^\varepsilon_\zeta,{\mathcal U}(
\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon),E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon)\cap [
\dot{A}^\varepsilon_\zeta]^{\textstyle 2}): \varepsilon<\zeta\}\mbox{ is
an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs '',}\]
\item[(vii)] if $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}$ is a ${\mathbb P}_\kappa$--name for a ccc forcing notion
on a bounded subset of $\kappa$ then
\[|\{\zeta<\kappa:\ \ \forces_{{\mathbb P}_\zeta}\mbox{`` }\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\zeta=\dot{{\mathbb Q}}
\mbox{ ''}\}|=\kappa,\]
\item[(viii)] if $\dot{{\mathbb P}}$ is a ${\mathbb P}_\kappa$--name for an element of ${\mathcal K}$
then then for some $\varepsilon<\kappa$ we have
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\varepsilon}\mbox{`` }\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon=\dot{{\mathbb P}}\mbox{
''\ \ and\ \ }\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\kappa}\mbox{`` the set }\{\dot{p}^\zeta:\zeta
\in I_\varepsilon\} \mbox{ is dense in $\dot{{\mathbb P}}$ ''.}\]
\end{enumerate}
We use the standard bookkeeping arguments to choose the lists $\langle
\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\xi,I_\xi:\xi<\kappa\rangle$, $\langle\dot{p}^\zeta:\zeta\in I_\xi
\rangle$ so that clauses (ii), (iii) and (viii) are satisfied. Similarly we
choose a list $\langle\dot{{\mathbb Q}}'_\xi:\xi<\kappa\rangle$ of all
${\mathbb P}_\kappa$--names for partial orders on bounded subsets of $\kappa$ so
that each name appears $\kappa$ many times in the list, and $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}'_\xi$
is a ${\mathbb P}_\xi$--name (for $\xi<\kappa$) (this list will be used to take care
of clauses (i), (vii)).
Now we have to be more specific. So suppose that for some $\xi<\kappa$ we
have already defined the iteration $\langle {\mathbb P}_\zeta,\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\zeta:\zeta<
\xi\rangle$. If $\xi$ is a limit ordinal, before we go further we should
argue that the clause (vi) is satisfied by the limit ${\mathbb P}_\xi$, i.e.,
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\xi}\mbox{`` }{\mathcal F}_\xi\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\{(\dot{A
}^\varepsilon_\zeta,{\mathcal U}(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon),E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon)\cap
[\dot{A}^\varepsilon_\zeta]^{\textstyle 2}): \varepsilon<\zeta\}\mbox{ is an
${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs ''.}\]
But this is immediate by \ref{maintech} --- if a problem occurs than it is
caused by a finite subfamily of ${\mathcal F}$ and we may assume that the respective
forcing notions ${\mathbb P}^{\varepsilon_\ell}$ are from the ground model.
Suppose $\xi=2\cdot\alpha+1$. Then we look at the ${\mathbb P}_\alpha$--name
${\mathbb Q}'_\alpha$ and we ask if, in $\bV^{{\mathbb P}_\xi}$, it is a ccc forcing
notion. If not that we let ${\mathbb Q}_\xi$ be the Cohen real forcing. If yes,
then we we ask if (in $\bV^{{\mathbb P}_\xi}$) it forces that ${\mathcal F}_\xi$ remains an
${\mathcal S}$--family. If again yes, then we let $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi$ be
$\dot{{\mathbb Q}}'_\alpha$; otherwise $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi={\mathbb P}^{{\mathcal F}_\xi}$ (see
\ref{notccc}). In any case we are sure that the relevant instances of
clauses (i)--(viii) are satisfied (remember \ref{conclusion}).
Assume now that $\xi=2\cdot\alpha\in I_\zeta$, $\zeta<\kappa$. Then clause
(iv) determines $\dot{{\mathbb Q}}_\xi$. We should show that the clause (vi) holds
true. Suppose that we may find a condition $q\in{\mathbb P}_{\xi+1}$, an integer
$m<\omega$, $\varepsilon_0,\ldots,\varepsilon_{m-1}\leq\xi$ and
${\mathbb P}_{\xi+1}$--names $\dot{\nu}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha<\omega_1$) of sequences
of length $m$ such that
\[\begin{array}{ll}
q\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{\xi+1}}&\mbox{`` }(\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(
\dot{\nu}_\alpha\neq\dot{\nu}_\beta)\ \&\ (\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall i<
m)(\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i)\in \dot{A}^{\varepsilon_i}_{\xi+1})\\
\ &\ \ (\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(\exists i<m)(\{\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i),
\dot{\nu}_\beta(i)\}\in E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^{\varepsilon_i}))\mbox{ ''.}
\end{array}\]
We may additionally demand that for some $k<m$ we have
\[\begin{array}{ll}
q\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{\xi+1}}&\mbox{`` }(\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall i<k)
(\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i)\in \dot{A}^{\varepsilon_i}_{\xi})\quad\mbox{ and}\\
\ &\ \ (\forall\alpha<\omega_1)(\forall i\in [k,m))(\varepsilon_i=\xi\ \&\
\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i)\in \dot{Z}^{\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\zeta}_{
\dot{p}^\xi})\mbox{ ''.}
\end{array}\]
\begin{claim}
\label{clx2}
Suppose that ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$, $p\in{\mathbb P}$ (and ${\mathbb C}({\mathbb P},p)$ is defined). Then
\[\forces_{{\mathbb C}^{\omega_1}({\mathbb P},p)}\mbox{`` }(\forall s_0,s_1\in
\dot{Z}^{\mathbb P}_p)(\{s_0,s_1\}\notin E({\mathbb P}))\mbox{ ''.}\]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the claim]
Like \ref{oneforce}.
\end{proof}
It follows from \ref{clx2} that
\[q\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{\xi+1}}\mbox{`` }(\forall\alpha<\beta<\omega_1)(\exists i<
k)(\{\dot{\nu}_\alpha(i),\dot{\nu}_\beta(i)\}\in
E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^{\varepsilon_i}))\mbox{ ''.}\]
But, by \ref{conclusion}, we have
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_{\xi+1}}\mbox{`` ${\mathcal F}_\xi$ is an ${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs
'',}\]
so we get an immediate contradiction.
Finally if $\xi=2\cdot\alpha\notin\bigcup\limits_{\zeta<\kappa} I_\zeta$
then we let ${\mathbb Q}_\xi$ be the Cohen real forcing (again all clauses are
preserved).
The construction is complete. We claim that the limit forcing notion
${\mathbb P}_\kappa$ is as required in \ref{main}. Clearly it satisfies the ccc and
(a dense subset of it) is of size $\kappa$. Clause (vii) guarantees that
$\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\kappa}$`` $\con=\kappa\ \&\ {\bf MA}$ ''. It follows from the
clause (vi) and \ref{maintech} that
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\xi}\mbox{`` }{\mathcal F}_\kappa\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\{(\dot{A
}^\varepsilon_\zeta,{\mathcal U}(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon),E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon)\cap
[\dot{A}^\varepsilon_\zeta]^{\textstyle 2}): \varepsilon<\kappa\}\mbox{ is an
${\mathcal S}$--family of good graphs ''.}\]
Clauses (v)+(viii) (and the definition of $E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon)$) imply
that for each $\varepsilon<\kappa$
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\kappa}\mbox{`` }(\dot{A}^\varepsilon_\zeta,{\mathcal U}(\dot{{\mathbb P}
}^\varepsilon),E(\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon)\cap [\dot{A}^\varepsilon_\zeta]^{
\textstyle 2})\mbox{ is densely representably by
$\bot_{\dot{{\mathbb P}}^\varepsilon}$ ''}.\]
Consequently, by \ref{notFAP} and clause (viii) we get
\[\forces_{{\mathbb P}_\kappa}\mbox{`` }(\forall{\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K})(\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P}))
\mbox{ '',}\]
finishing the proof of \ref{main}.
\begin{corollary}
It is consistent with ${\bf MA}+\neg{\rm CH}$ that any forcing notion ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$
collapses $\con$ to $\omega_1$ (and thus is not $\omega_1$--proper).
\end{corollary}
\section{Open problems}
The model constructed in the previous section provides
$(\forall{\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K})(\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P}))$ by dealing with each forcing
${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$ separately. We would like to have one common reason for
$\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ for all forcing notions ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$, i.e., a
combinatorial principle ${\mathcal P}$ which is consistent with ${\bf MA}+\neg {\rm CH}$
and which implies $(\forall{\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K})(\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P}))$. A possible
candidate for a principle like that was already pointed in \cite[\S
2]{CRSW93}. As we stated in the Introduction, our method is a slight
generalization of that of Steprans. Steprans' method in turn was based on
the proof of Abraham, Rubin and Shelah \cite{ARSh:153} that it is consistent
with ${\bf MA}+\neg {\rm CH}$ that there are two non-isomorphic $\aleph_1$--dense
sets of reals. In the latter proof, a 2--entangled set of reals was
used. This leads us to the following question
\begin{problem}
[Compare {\cite[Question 2.4]{CRSW93}}]
Does the existence of a 2--entangled set of reals of size $\aleph_1$ imply
$(\forall{\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K})(\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P}))$?
\end{problem}
If one tries to repeat the proof of \cite[Theorem 2.1]{JMSh:372} for
elements of ${\mathcal K}$ then one gets into some problems in cases 1,3 of
Definition \ref{classK}. Possible reason for it is that a proof as in
\cite[Theorem 2.1]{JMSh:372} would give a property that seems to be stronger
than $\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$.
\begin{definition}
Let ${\mathbb P}$ be a forcing notion of size $\con$, $\bar{p}=\langle p_i: i<\con
\rangle\subseteq{\mathbb P}$. We say that $\bar{p}$ is an JMSh--sequence if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\oplus)_{\rm JMSh}$] given $\langle F_\alpha:\alpha<\omega_1\rangle$
pairwise disjoint finite subsets of $\con$, there exist $\alpha<\beta<
\omega_1$ such that
\[(\forall i\in F_\alpha)(\forall j\in F_\beta)(p_i\, \bot_{{\mathbb P}}\; p_j).\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{JMShseq}
Suppose that ${\mathbb P}$ is a forcing notion of size $\con$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item above any condition in ${\mathbb P}$, there is an antichain (in ${\mathbb P}$) of size
$\con$, and
\item there is an JMSh--sequence $\bar{p}\subseteq{\mathbb P}$ which is dense in
${\mathbb P}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{problem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the existence of dense JMSh--sequences in ${\mathbb P}$ really stronger
than $\neg{\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ (for ${\mathbb P}$ of size $\con$ satisfying the
assumption \ref{JMShseq}(1)) ?
\item Is it consistent with ${\bf MA}+\neg{\rm CH}$ that for each ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}$
there is a dense JMSh--sequence in ${\mathbb P}$?
\end{enumerate}
\end{problem}
On the other hand, Judah, Miller and Shelah \cite{JMSh:372} and Goldstern,
Johnson and Spinas \cite{GJS94} showed that ${\bf MA}_{\omega_1}(\mbox{ccc}
)$ implies the forcing axiom for the Miller and Laver forcing notions. This
gives a strong expectation that ${\bf MA}_{\omega_1}(\mbox{ccc})$ implies
forcing axioms for most of forcing notions (with norms) adding unbounded
reals. Brendle \cite[Proposition 5.1]{Br96a} showed that ${\bf MA}$ implies that
the Laver forcing, the Mathias forcing, the Miller forcing and the
Blass-Shelah forcing are $\alpha$--proper for all $\alpha<\con$. Again, one
expects that this could be generalized further.
\begin{problem}
Let ${\mathcal K}^\bot$ be the class of the forcing notions of \cite{RoSh:470} which
are not in ${\mathcal K}$ for nontrivial reasons.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Does ${\bf MA}+\neg{\rm CH}$ imply ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ for all ${\mathbb P}\in
{\mathcal K}^\bot$ ?
\item Does ${\bf MA}+\neg{\rm CH}$ imply that all ${\mathbb P}\in{\mathcal K}^\bot$ are
$\alpha$--proper (for all $\alpha<\con$) ?
\end{enumerate}
\end{problem}
Finally, possible further generalizations of the present paper could go into
the direction of nep/snep forcing notions of Shelah \cite{Sh:630},
\cite{Sh:669}.
\begin{problem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is ${\bf MA}+\neg{\rm CH}$ consistent with the failure of
${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ for all snep $\baire$--bounding forcing notions ${\mathbb P}$
which do not have ccc above any condition?
\item Does ${\bf MA}+\neg{\rm CH}$ imply ${\bf FA}_{\aleph_1}({\mathbb P})$ for all snep
forcing notions ${\mathbb P}$ adding unbounded reals?
\end{enumerate}
\end{problem}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, there has been a renaissance of interest in
diffractive scattering.
These diffractive processes are described by the Regge theory in
terms of the Pomeron ($I\!\! P$) exchange\cite{pomeron}.
The Pomeron carries quantum numbers of the vacuum, so it is a colorless entity
in QCD language, which may lead to the ``rapidity gap" events in experiments.
However, the nature of Pomeron and its reaction with hadrons remain a mystery.
For a long time it had been understood that the dynamics of the
``soft pomeron'' is deeply tied to confinement.
However, it has been realized now that how much can be learned about
QCD from the wide variety of small-$x$ and hard diffractive processes,
which are now under study experimentally.
In Refs.\cite{th1,th2}, the diffractive $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ production
cross section have been formulated in photoproduction processes and in
DIS processes in perturbative QCD.
In the framework of perturbative QCD the Pomeron is represented by a pair of
gluon in the color-singlet sate.
This two-gluon exchange model can successfully describe the experimental
results from HERA\cite{hera-ex}.
On the other hand, as we know that there exist nonfactorization effects
in the hard diffractive processes at hadron colliders
\cite{preqcd,collins,soper,tev}.
First, there is the so-called spectator effect\cite{soper}, which can
change the probability of the diffractive hadron emerging from collisions
intact. Practically, a suppression factor (or survive factor) ``$S_F$"
is used to describe this effect\cite{survive}.
Obviously, this suppression factor can not be calculated in perturbative
QCD, which is now viewed as a nonperturbative parameter.
Typically, the suppression factor $S_F$ is determined to be about
$0.1$ at the energy scale of the Fermilab Tevatron\cite{tev}.
Another nonfactorization effect discussed in literature is associated with the coherent
diffractive processes at hadron colliders\cite{collins}, in which
the whole Pomeron is induced in the hard scattering.
It is proved in \cite{collins} that the existence of the leading twist
coherent diffractive processes is associated with a breakdown of the
QCD factorization theorem.
Based on the success of the two-gluon exchange parametrization of the Pomeron
model in the description of the diffractive photoproduction processes
at $ep$ colliders\cite{th1,th2,hera-ex}, we may extend the applications
of this model to calculate the diffractive processes at hadron colliders in perturbative QCD.
Under this context, the Pomeron represented by a color-singlet two-gluon
system emits from one hadron and interacts with another hadron in hard
process, in which the two gluons are both involved (as shown in Fig.~1).
Therefore, these processes calculated in the two-gluon exchange model are just
belong to the coherent diffractive processes in hadron collisions.
Another important feature of the calculations of the diffractive processes in this model recently demonstrated is the sensitivity
to the off-diagonal parton distribution
function in the proton\cite{offd}.
Using this two-gluon exchange model, we have calculated the diffractive
$J/\psi$ production \cite{psi}, quark jet production\cite{charm,quark},
massive muon pair and $W$ boson productions\cite{dy},
and direct photon production\cite{photon} in hadron collisions.
In this paper, we will further calculate the gluon jet production
at large transverse momentum in the coherent diffractive processes at hadron
colliders by using the two-gluon exchange model.
In the calculations of Refs.\cite{psi,charm,dy}, there always is a large mass
scale associated with the production process.
That is $M_\psi$ for $J/\psi$ production, $m_c$ for the charm jet
production, $M^2$ for the massive muon production ($M^2$ is the invariant mass
of the muon pair) and $M_W^2$ for $W$ boson production.
However, in the gluon jet production process as well as the light quark jet production process,
there is no large mass scale.
So, for these processes, the large transverse momentum is needed to
guarantee the application of the perturbative QCD.
Furthermore, in \cite{quark} we
show that the light quark jet production
in the two-gluon exchange model has a distinctive feature that
there is no contribution from the small $l_T^2$ region ($l_T^2<k_T^2$)
in the integration of the amplitude over $l_T^2$. (The similar behavior
has also been found for the diffractive light quark photoproduction
process\cite{zaka}.)
So, the expansion (in terms of $l_T^2/M_X^2$) method
used in Refs.\cite{psi,charm,dy} can not be applied to the calculations
of gluon jet production.
In the following calculations, we will employ the helicity amplitude method
to calculate the amplitude of the diffractive gluon jet production
in hadron collisions.
We will show that the production
cross section is related to the differential (off-diagonal) gluon distribution
function in the proton as that in the diffractive light quark jet
production process\cite{quark}.
(On the other hand, we note that the cross sections of the processes
calculated in Refs.\cite{psi,charm,dy} are related to
the integrated gluon distribution function in the proton).
Diffractive gluon jet production can come from two types partonic processes:
one is the quark initiated process (Fig.2), and the other is the gluon initiated process
(Fig.3).
The diffractive production of heavy quark jet at hadron colliders has also
been studied by using the two-gluon exchange model in Ref.\cite{levin}.
However, their calculation method is very different from ours
\footnote{For detailed discussions and comments, please see \cite{charm}}.
In their calculations, they separated their diagrams into two parts,
and called one part the coherent diffractive contribution to the heavy
quark production.
However, this separation can not guarantee the
gauge invariance\cite{charm}.
In our approach, we follow the definition of
Ref.\cite{collins}, i.e., we call
the process in which the whole Pomeron participants in the hard scattering
process as the coherent diffractive process.
Under this definition, all of the diagrams plotted in Fig.2
and Fig.3 for the partonic processes contribute to
the coherent diffractive production.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
In Sec.II, we will give the cross section formula for the partonic process
in the leading order of perturbative QCD.
In this section we employ the helicity amplitude method to calculate
two partonic processes, $qp\rightarrow qgp$ and $gp\rightarrow ggp$.
In Sec.III, we estimate the production rate of diffractive gluon
jet at the Fermilab Tevatron by approximating the off-diagonal
gluon distribution function by the usual diagonal gluon distribution
function in the proton.
We also compare the contributions from different partonic processes to
the diffractive dijet production at the Tevatron.
And the conclusions will be given in Sec.IV.
\section{ The cross section formula for the partonic process}
\subsection{$qp\rightarrow qgp$ process}
For the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qgp$, in the leading order of perturbative
QCD, there are nine diagrams shown in Fig.2.
The two-gluon system coupled to the proton (antiproton) in Fig.2 is in
a color-singlet state, which characterizes the diffractive processes in
perturbative QCD.
Due to the positive signature of these diagrams (color-singlet exchange),
we know that the real part of the amplitude cancels out in the leading
logarithmic approximation.
To get the imaginary part of the amplitude, we must calculate the
discontinuity represented by the crosses in each diagram of Fig.2.
The first four diagrams of Fig.2 are the same as those calculated in the
diffractive direct photon production process at hadron colliders\cite{photon}.
But, due to the existence of gluon-gluon interaction vertex in QCD,
in the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qgp$, there are additional five diagrams (Fig.2(5)-(9)).
These five diagrams are needed for a complete calculation in this order of QCD.
In our calculations, we express the formulas in terms of the Sudakov
variables.
That is, every four-momenta $k_i$ are decomposed as,
\begin{equation}
k_i=\alpha_i q+\beta_i p+\vec{k}_{iT},
\end{equation}
where $q$ and $p$ are the momenta of the incident quark and the proton,
$q^2=0$, $p^2=0$, and $2p\cdot q=W^2=s$.
Here $s$ is the c.m. energy of the quark-proton system, i.e., the invariant
mass of the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qg p$.
$\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ are the momentum fractions of $q$ and $p$
respectively.
$k_{iT}$ is the transverse momentum, which satisfies
\begin{equation}
k_{iT}\cdot q=0,~~~
k_{iT}\cdot p=0.
\end{equation}
All of the Sudakov variables for every momentum
are determined by using the on-shell conditions
of the momenta represented by the external lines and the crossed lines in the diagram.
The calculations of these Sudakov variables are similar to those in
the diffractive light quark jet production process $gp\rightarrow q\bar q p$\cite{quark},
and we can get the Sudakov variables of every momentum for the process
$qp\rightarrow qgp$ from the relevant formulas of \cite{quark}.
In the following, we list all of the Sudakov variables for the diffractive
process $qp\rightarrow qgp$.
For the momentum $u$, we have
\begin{equation}
\alpha_u=0,~~\beta_u=x_{I\! P}=\frac{M_X^2}{s},~~u_T^2=t=0,
\end{equation}
where $M_X^2$ is the invariant mass squared of the diffractive final state
including the light quark and antiquark jets.
For the high energy diffractive process, we know that $M_x^2\ll s$, so
we have $\beta _u$ ($x_{I\! P}$) as a small parameter.
For the momentum $k$,
\begin{equation}
\label{ak}
\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)=-\frac{k_T^2}{M_X^2},~~\beta_k=-\alpha_k\beta_u,
\end{equation}
where $k_T$ is the transverse momentum of the out going quark jet.
For the loop mentum $l$, because the results for $\beta_l$ are not the
same for the nine diagrams of Fig.2, we get its value from the formula
of Ref.\cite{quark} for the relevant diagram. The results are
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\alpha_l&=&-\frac{l_T^2}{s},\\
\nonumber
\beta_l&=&\frac{2(k_T,l_T)-l_T^2}{\alpha_ks},~~~{\rm for~Diag.}1,~2,~6,\\
\nonumber
&=&\frac{2(k_T,l_T)+l_T^2}{(1+\alpha_k)s},~~~{\rm for~Diag.}5,~7,~8,\\
&=&-\frac{M_X^2-l_T^2}{s},~~~~~~~{\rm for~Diag.}3,~4,~9,
\end{eqnarray}
where $(k_T,l_T)$ is the 2-dimensional product of the transverse vectors
$\vec{k}_T$ and $\vec{l}_T$.
Using these Sudakov variables, we can give the cross section formula
for the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qgp$ as,
\begin{equation}
\label{xs}
\frac{d\hat{\sigma}(qp\rightarrow qgp)}{dt}|_{t=0}=\frac{dM_X^2d^2k_Td\alpha_k}{16\pi s^216\pi^3M_X^2}
\delta(\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)+\frac{k_T^2}{M_X^2})\sum \overline{|{\cal A}|}^2,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal A}$ is the amplitude of the process $qp\rightarrow qgp$.
We know that the real part of the amplitude ${\cal A}$ is zero,
and the imaginary part of the amplitude ${\cal A}(qp\rightarrow qgp)$ for each diagram
of Fig.2 has the following general form,
\begin{equation}
\label{ima}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}=C_F(T_{ij}^a)\int \frac{d^2l_T}{(l_T^2)^2}F\times\bar u
_i(u-k)\Gamma_\mu u_j(q),
\end{equation}
where $C_F$ is the color factor for each diagram.
$a$ is the color index of the incident gluon.
$\Gamma_\mu$ represents some $\gamma$ matrices including one
propagator. $F$ in the integral is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{feq}
F=\frac{3}{2s}g_s^3f(x',x^{\prime\prime};l_T^2),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{offd1}
f(x',x^{\prime\prime};l_T^2)=\frac{\partial G(x',x^{\prime\prime};l_T^2)}{\partial {\rm ln} l_T^2},
\end{equation}
where the function
$G(x',x^{\prime\prime};k_T^2)$ is the so-called
off-diagonal gluon distribution function\cite{offd}.
Here, $x'$ and $x^{\prime\prime}$ are the momentum fractions of the proton
carried by the two gluons.
It is expected that at small $x$, there is no big difference between the off-diagonal and
the usual diagonal gluon densities\cite{off-diag}.
So, in the following calculations, we estimate the production rate by
approximating the off-diagonal gluon density by
the usual diagonal gluon density,
$G(x',x^{\prime\prime};Q^2)\approx xg(x,Q^2)$, where $x=x_{I\!\! P}=M_X^2/s$.
In \cite{photon}, we calculate the cross section for the diffractive photon
production process $qp\rightarrow \gamma qp$ by directly squaring the
partonic process amplitude.
However, in the calculations here for the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qgp$
because there are additional five diagrams contribution, it is not convenient
to directly square the amplitude.
Following Ref.\cite{quark}, we calculate the amplitude
by employing the {\it helicity amplitude} method\cite{ham,wu}.
Furthermore, we will show that by using the helicity amplitude method we can
reproduce the cross section formula for the diffractive photon production
process\cite{photon}.
For the massless quark spinors, we define
\begin{equation}
u_\pm(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1\pm\gamma_5)u(p).
\end{equation}
For the polarization vector of the outgoing gluon (its momentum is $k+q$),
following the method of Ref.\cite{wu}, we find that it is convenient to
choose
\begin{equation}
\label{epq}
\not\! e^{(\pm)}=N_e[(\not\! k+\not\! q)\not\! q\not\! p(1\mp\gamma_5)+
\not\! p\not\! q(\not\! k+\not\! q)(1\pm\gamma_5)].
\end{equation}
The normalization factor $N_e$ equals to
\begin{equation}
\label{ene}
N_e=\frac{1}{s\sqrt{2k_T^2}}.
\end{equation}
With this definition (\ref{epq}), we can easily get the scalar products between the
four-momenta and the polarization vector $e$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eprc}
e\cdot p=0,~~e\cdot q=N_e\frac{k_T^2s}{1+\alpha_k},~~e\cdot k_T=-N_ek_T^2s,~~e\cdot l_T=-N_e(k_T,l_T)s.
\end{equation}
The helicity amplitudes for the processes in which the polarized Dirac particles are involved
have the following general forms\cite{ham},
\begin{equation}
\label{ham}
\bar u_\pm(p_f)Qu_\pm(p_i)=\frac{Tr[Q\not\! p_i\not\! n\not\! p_f(1\mp\gamma_5)]}
{4\sqrt{(n\cdot p_i)(n\cdot p_f)}},
\end{equation}
where $n$ is an arbitrary massless 4-vector, which is set to be $n=p$ in the
following calculations.
Using this formula (\ref{ham}), the calculations of the helicity amplitude
${\cal A}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ for the diffractive
process $qp\rightarrow qgp$ is straightforward.
Here $\lambda_1$ represents the helicity of the incident quark;
$\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ represent the helicities of the
outgoing gluon and quark respectively.
In our calculations, we only take the leading order contributions, and neglect the
higher order contributions which are proportional to $\beta_u=\frac{M_X^2}{s}$
because in the high energy diffractive processes we have $\beta_u\ll 1$.
For the first four diagrams, to sum up together, the imaginary part of the
amplitude ${\cal A}(+,+,+)$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{im1}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{1234}(+,+,+)=\alpha_k^2(1+\alpha_k){\cal N}\times
\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)
(\frac{2}{9}-\frac{-1}{36}\frac{k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)(k_T,l_T)}{(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)^2}),
\end{equation}
where $\frac{2}{9}$ and $\frac{-1}{36}$ are the color factors for Diags.1,4 and
Diags.2,3 respectively, and
${\cal N}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}=\frac{3s}{\sqrt{-2\alpha_kk_T^2}}g_s^3T_{ij}^a.
\end{equation}
The other helicity amplitudes for the first four diagrams have the similar forms
as (\ref{im1}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{im11}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{1234}(-,-,-)&=&{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{1234}(+,+,+),\\
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{1234}(+,-,+)&=&{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{1234}(-,+,-)=\frac{-1}{\alpha_k}{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{1234}(+,+,+).
\end{eqnarray}
These amplitude expressions Eq.~(\ref{im1}) can also serve as the calculations
of the amplitude for the diffractive direct photon
production process $q p\rightarrow q\gamma p$ \cite{photon} except the difference
on the color factors.\footnote{In Ref.\cite{photon}, we did not employ the
helicity amplitude method. If we use the amplitude expressions Eqs.(\ref{im1}) and
(\ref{im11}) (correct the color factors) to calculate the photon production process $qp\rightarrow q\gamma p$,
we can get the same result as that in \cite{photon}. This can be viewed as a cross
check for the methods we used in the calculations.}
In the direct photon process, the color
factors for these four diagrams are the same (they are all $\frac{2}{9}$).
It is instructive to see what is the consequence of this difference.
We know that the amplitude of the diffractive process in Eq.~(\ref{ima}) must be
zero in the limit $l_T^2\rightarrow 0$. Otherwise, this will lead to a linear singularity
when we perform the integration of the amplitude over $l_T^2$ due to existence of the factor $1/(l_T^2)^2$ in the
integral of Eq.~(\ref{ima})\cite{charm}.
This linear singularity is not proper in QCD calculations.
So, we must first exam the amplitude behavior under the limit of $l_T^2\rightarrow 0$
for all the diffractive processes in the calculations using the two-gluon exchange model.
From Eq.~(\ref{im1}), we can see that the amplitude for the
diffractive direct photon production process $qp\rightarrow q\gamma p$ is exact zero at $l_T^2\rightarrow 0$.
However, for the process $qp\rightarrow qgp$ the amplitude
for the first four diagrams
is not exact zero in the limit $l_T^2\rightarrow 0$ due to the inequality of the
color factors between them.
So, for this process there must be other diagrams in this order
of perturbative QCD calculation to cancel out the linear singularity which
rises from the first four diagrams.
The last five diagrams of Fig.2 are just for this purpose.
Finally, by adding up all of the nine diagrams of Fig.2, the
imaginary parts of the amplitudes
are
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(+,+,+)&=&{\rm Im}{\cal A}(-,-,-)=\frac{\alpha_k^2}{4}{\cal N}\times {\cal T},\\
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(+,-,+)&=&{\rm Im}{\cal A}(-,+,-)=-\frac{\alpha_k}{4}{\cal N}\times {\cal T},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{int2}
\nonumber
{\cal T}&=&\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)[
\frac{(1+\alpha_k)^2}{9}\frac{(k_T,l_T)-(1+\alpha_k)l_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)^2}
-(1+\alpha_k)\frac{(k_T,l_T)+l_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)^2}\\
&&-\alpha_k\frac{(k_T,l_T)-l_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)^2}
+\alpha_k^2\frac{(k_T,l_T)-\alpha_kl_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)^2}].
\end{eqnarray}
From the above results, we can see that in the integration of the amplitude
the linear singularity from different diagrams are canceled out by each other,
which will guarantee there is no linear singularity in the total sum.
Another feature of the above results for the amplitudes is the relation to the
differential off-diagonal gluon distribution function $f(x',x'';l_T^2)$.
However, as mentioned above that there is no big difference between the off-diagonal
gluon distribution function and the usual gluon distribution at small $x$,
so we can simplify the integration of (\ref{int2}) by
approximating the differential off-diagonal gluon
distribution function $f(x',x'';l_T^2)$ by the usual diagonal differential
gluon distribution function $f_g(x;l_T^2)$.
After integrating over the azimuth angle of $\vec{l}_T$, the integration
${\cal T}$ will then be
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{qt}
\nonumber
{\cal T}&=&\pi\int\frac{dl_T^2}{(l_T^2)^2}f_g(x;l_T^2)[
\frac{1+\alpha_k}{9}(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)l_T^2}{2|k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)l_T^2|})
+(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{k_T^2-l_T^2}{2|k_T^2-l_T^2|})\\
&&+\alpha_k(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{k_T^2-\alpha_k l_T^2}{2|k_T^2-\alpha_k l_T^2|})].
\end{eqnarray}
In the above integration, if $l_t^2<k_T^2/(1+\alpha_k)^2$ the first term of the
integration over $l_T^2$ will be zero; if $l_t^2<k_T^2$ the second
term will be zero; if $l_t^2<k_T^2/\alpha_k^2$ the third term will be zero.
So, the dominant regions contributing to the three integration terms are
$l_t^2\sim k_T^2/(1+\alpha_k)^2$, $l_t^2\sim k_T^2$, and $l_t^2\sim k_T^2/\alpha_k^2$
respectively.
Approximately, by ignoring some evolution effects of the differential gluon
distribution function $f_g(x;l_T^2)$ in the above dominant integration regions,
we get the following results for the integration ${\cal T}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{i1}
{\cal T}=\frac{\pi}{k_T^2}[f_g(x;k_T^2)+\frac{(1+\alpha_k)^3}{9}f_g(x;\frac{k_T^2}{(1+\alpha_k)^2})
+\alpha_k^3f_g(x;\frac{k_T^2}{\alpha_k^2})].
\end{equation}
Obtained the formula for the integration ${\cal T}$, the amplitude squared for
the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qgp$ will be reduced to, after averaging
over the spin and color degrees of freedom,
\begin{equation}
\overline{|{\cal A}|}^2=\frac{\alpha_s^3(4\pi)^3}{24}\frac{1+\alpha_k^2}{M_X^2(1+\alpha_k)}s^2|{\cal T}|^2.
\end{equation}
And the cross section for the partonic process $qp\rightarrow qgp$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{xsp}
\nonumber
\frac{d\hat\sigma(qp\rightarrow qgp)}{dt}|_{t=0}&=&\int_{M_X^4>4k_T^2}dM_X^2dk_T^2d\alpha_k[\delta(\alpha_k-\alpha_1)+\delta(\alpha_k-\alpha_2)]\\
&&\frac{\alpha_s^3}{96(M_X^2)^2}\frac{1+\alpha_K^2}{1+\alpha_k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{4k_T^2}{M_X^2}}}
|{\cal T}|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{1,2}$ are the solutions of the following equations,
\begin{equation}
\alpha(1+\alpha)+\frac{k_T^2}{M_X^2}=0.
\end{equation}
The integral bound $M_X^2>4k_T^2$ in (\ref{xsp}) shows that the dominant contribution
of the integration over $M_X^2$ comes from the region of $M_X^2\sim 4k_T^2$.
Using Eq.~(\ref{ak}), this indicates that in this dominant region
$\alpha_k$ is of order of 1.
So, in the integration ${\cal T}$ the differential gluon distribution
function $f_g(x;Q^2)$ of the three terms can approximately take their values
at the same scale of $Q^2=k_T^2$.
That is, the integration ${\cal T}$ is then simplified to
\begin{equation}
\label{i2}
{\cal T}=\frac{\pi}{9k_T^2}f_g(x;k_T^2)(1+\alpha_k)(10-7\alpha_k+10\alpha_k^2).
\end{equation}
Numerical calculations show that there is little difference
between the cross sections by using these two different
parametrizations of ${\cal T}$, Eq.~(\ref{i1}) and Eq.~(\ref{i2}).
So, in Sec.IV, we use Eqs.~(\ref{xsp}) and (\ref{i2}) to
estimate the diffractive production rate at the Fermilab
Tevatron.
\subsection{$gp\rightarrow ggp$ process}
For the partonic process $gp\rightarrow ggp$, there are twelve diagrams in the
leading order contributions as shown in Fig.3.
The first nine diagrams are due to the existence of the three-gluon interaction vertex, and
the last three diagrams are due to the existence of the four-gluon interaction vertex.
But it will be shown in the following calculations, the last three diagrams
do not contribute under some choice of the polarizations of the three
external gluons.
The Sudakov variables can be calculated by the similar method used in the
last subsection. And those Sudakov variables of the momenta $u$, $k$ for the
process $gp\rightarrow ggp$ are the same as those in the last subsection.
For the loop momentum $l$, the relevant Sudakov variables for each diagram
are
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\alpha_l&=&-\frac{l_T^2}{s},\\
\nonumber
\beta_l&=&\frac{2(k_T,l_T)-l_T^2}{\alpha_ks},~~~{\rm for~Diag.}1,~4,~6,~10,\\
\nonumber
&=&\frac{2(k_T,l_T)+l_T^2}{(1+\alpha_k)s},~~~{\rm for~Diag.}2,~3,~5,~11,\\
&=&-\frac{M_X^2-l_T^2}{s},~~~~~~~{\rm for~Diag.}7,~8,~9,~12.
\end{eqnarray}
And also, we can express the cross section formula for the partonic process
$gp\rightarrow ggp$ in the following form,
\begin{equation}
\label{gxs}
\frac{d\hat{\sigma}(gp\rightarrow ggp)}{dt}|_{t=0}=\frac{dM_X^2d^2k_Td\alpha_k}{16\pi s^216\pi^3M_X^2}
\delta(\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)+\frac{k_T^2}{M_X^2})\sum \overline{|{\cal A}|}^2,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal A}$ is the amplitude of the process $gp\rightarrow ggp$.
We know that the real part of the amplitude ${\cal A}$ is zero,
and the imaginary part of the amplitude ${\cal A}(gp\rightarrow ggp)$ for each diagram
of Fig.3 has the following general form,
\begin{equation}
\label{gima}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}=C_Ff_{abc}\int \frac{d^2l_T}{(l_T^2)^2}G(e_1,e_2,e_3)\times F,
\end{equation}
where $C_F$ is the color factor for each diagram.
$a,~b,~c$ are the color indexes for the incident gluon and the two outgoing
gluons respectively, and $f_{abc}$ are the antisymmetric $SU(3)$ structure
constants.
$G(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ represents the interaction part including one propagator
for the first nine diagrams, where
$e_1,~e_2,~e_3$ are the polarization vectors for the incident gluon
and the two outgoing gluons.
$F$ in the integral is the same as that in Eq.(\ref{feq}).
The color factors $C_F$ for the twelve diagrams are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{cf}
\nonumber
C_F&=&\frac{1}{2},~~~~~~~{\rm for~ Diag.}1,~7,\\
\nonumber
C_F&=&-\frac{1}{2},~~~~~{\rm for~ Diag.}2,\\
\nonumber
C_F&=&-\frac{1}{4},~~~~~{\rm for~ Diag.}3,~6,~9,\\
\nonumber
C_F&=&\frac{1}{4},~~~~~~~{\rm for~ Diag.}4,~5,~8,\\
C_F&=&\frac{3}{4},~~~~~~~{\rm for~ Diag.}10,~11,~12.
\end{eqnarray}
Following the calculation method used in the last subsection, we employ the helicity amplitude method
to calculate the amplitude Eq.(\ref{gima}).
For the polarization vector of the incident gluon, which is transversely polarized,
we choose,
\begin{equation}
\label{ev}
e^{(\pm)}_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1,\pm i,0).
\end{equation}
For the two outgoing gluons, we choose their polarization vectors as\cite{wu}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{geprc}
\nonumber
\not\! e_2^{(\pm)}=N_e[(\not\! k+\not\! q)\not\! q\not\! p(1\mp\gamma_5)+
\not\! p\not\! q(\not\! k+\not\! q)(1\pm\gamma_5)],\\
\not\! e_3^{(\pm)}=N_e[(\not\! u-\not\! k)\not\! q\not\! p(1\mp\gamma_5)+
\not\! p\not\! q(\not\! u-\not\! k)(1\pm\gamma_5)].
\end{eqnarray}
The normalization factor $N_e$ has the same form as in Eq.(\ref{ene}).
Under the above choice of the polarization vectors for the external gluons,
we can easily find that they are satisfied the following equations,
\begin{equation}
p\cdot e_1=p\cdot e_2=p\cdot e_3=0.
\end{equation}
With these relations, we can further find that the last three diagrams do
not contribute to the partonic process $gp\rightarrow ggp$.
For the first nine diagrams, there are two helicity amplitudes among
the eight helicity amplitudes do not contribute in the context of the above choice
of the polarizations of the external gluons, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(+,+,+)={\rm Im}{\cal A}(-,-,-)=0.
\end{equation}
In the expression of the amplitude ${\cal A}(\lambda(e_1),\lambda(e_2),\lambda(e_3))$,
$\lambda$ denote the helicities for the three gluons respectively.
The other six helicity amplitudes are divided into the following three different
sets,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(+,-,-)&\sim &{\rm Im}{\cal A}(-,+,+),\\
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(+,-,+)&\sim &{\rm Im}{\cal A}(-,+,-),\\
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(+,+,-)&\sim &{\rm Im}{\cal A}(-,-,+).
\end{eqnarray}
For the first helicity amplitudes set, ${\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\mp,\mp)$,
to sum up all of the nine diagrams, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{gm1}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\mp,\mp)={\cal N}'\pi \vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot k_T{\cal I},
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}'$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}'=\frac{3}{4}\frac{s}{k_T^2}g_s^3f_{abc}.
\end{equation}
And the integration ${\cal I}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gim11}
\nonumber
{\cal I}&=&{1\over \pi}\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)[-(1+\alpha_k)\frac{k_T^2+(k_T,l_T)}{(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)^2}
+\alpha_k\frac{k_T^2-(k_T,l_T)}{(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)^2}
\\
&&+(1+\alpha_k)^2\frac{k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)(k_T,l_T)}{(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)^2}
-\alpha_k^2\frac{k_T^2-\alpha_k(k_T,l_T)}{(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)^2}]\\
\nonumber
&=&{1\over \pi}\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)[(1+\alpha_k)\frac{(k_T,l_T)+l_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)^2}
+\alpha_k\frac{(k_T,l_T)-l_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)^2}
\\
&&-(1+\alpha_k)^2\frac{(k_T,l_T)-(1+\alpha_k)l_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)^2}
+\alpha_k^2\frac{(k_T,l_T)-\alpha_kl_T^2}{(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)^2}].
\end{eqnarray}
From the above equations, we can check that there is no linear singularity at the
limit of $l_T^2\rightarrow 0$ in the integration of the amplitude over
the loop momentum.
The first term of the integration ${\cal I}$ in Eq.(\ref{gim11}) comes from the
contribution of Diag.3; the second term comes from Diag.4; the third term comes from Diag.6 and Diag.9;
the last term comes from Diag.5 and Diag.8. The contributions from Diags.1, 2
and 7 are canceled out by each other.
From (\ref{gim11}), we can see that the linear singularities coming from the
four terms are canceled out by each other.
The final result for the amplitude is now free of linear singularity.
We must emphasize here that only the total sum of the contributions from all
of the diagrams is free of linear singularity. The separation of these diagrams
will cause linear singularity.
Following the argument in the last subsection of the calculation for the partonic
process $qp\rightarrow qgp$, we can approximate the differential off-diagonal gluon
distribution function $f(x',x'';l_T^2)$ by the usual diagonal differential
gluon distribution function $f_g(x;l_T^2)$ to further simplify the integration
of ${\cal I}$.
After integrating over the azimuth angle of $\vec{l}_T$, this integration
will then be
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gi2}
\nonumber
{\cal I}&=&\int\frac{dl_T^2}{(l_T^2)^2}f_g(x;l_T^2)[(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{k_T^2-l_T^2}{2|k_T^2-l_T^2|})
-{(1+\alpha_k)}(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)l_T^2}{2|k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)l_T^2|})
\\
&&+\alpha_k(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{k_T^2-\alpha_k l_T^2}{2|k_T^2-\alpha_k l_T^2|})].
\end{eqnarray}
The above equation shows that the integration ${\cal I}$ here has the similar
behavior as that of the integration ${\cal T}$ of Eq.(\ref{qt}) in the last
subsection.
So, the three terms of the above integration ${\cal I}$ are dominantly
contributed from the integral regions of $l_T^2$ as
$l_t^2\sim k_T^2/(1+\alpha_k)^2$, $l_t^2\sim k_T^2$, and $l_t^2\sim k_T^2/\alpha_k^2$
respectively.
Approximately, we may also ignore the evolution effects of the differential gluon
distribution function $f_g(x;l_T^2)$ in the above dominant integration regions,
and so the integration ${\cal I}$ is reduced to
\begin{equation}
\label{gi1}
{\cal I}=\frac{1}{k_T^2}[f_g(x;k_T^2)-(1+\alpha_k)^3f_g(x;\frac{k_T^2}{(1+\alpha_k)^2})
+\alpha_k^3f_g(x;\frac{k_T^2}{\alpha_k^2})].
\end{equation}
For the second helicity amplitudes set, ${\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\mp,\pm)$,
the calculations are more complicated, and
the contribution from Diag.3 is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g21}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^3(\pm,\mp,\pm)&=&-{\cal N}'(1+\alpha_k)^2\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{\alpha_kk_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)+
(k_T^2+(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contribution from Diag.4 is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g22}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^4(\pm,\mp,\pm)&=&{\cal N}'\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{\alpha_kk_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)+
(k_T^2-(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contributions from Diag.5 and Diag.8, to sum up together, are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g23}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{58}(\pm,\mp,\pm)&=&-{\cal N}'\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{\alpha_kk_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)+
(k_T^2-\alpha_k(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contributions from Diag.6 and Diag.9, to sum up together, are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g24}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{69}(\pm,\mp,\pm)&=&{\cal N}'(1+\alpha_k)^2\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{\alpha_kk_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)+
(k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contributions from other three diagrams (Diag.1, Diag.2 and Diag.7) are
canceled out by each other.
From the above results Eqs.(\ref{g21}-\ref{g24}), we can see that every term
has linear singularity at the limit of $l_T^2\rightarrow 0$ in the integration
of the amplitude over $l_T^2$, while
their total sum is free of the linear singularity.
Following the procedure as we do for the helicity amplitude ${\cal A}(\pm,\mp,\mp)$
in the above, we can approximate the off-diagonal gluon distribution function
$f(x',x'';l_T^2)$ by the usual diagonal differential
gluon distribution function $f_g(x;l_T^2)$.
After integrating over the azimuth angle of $\vec{l}_T$, to sum up all of
Eqs.(\ref{g21}-\ref{g24}), we get the helicity amplitude,
\begin{equation}
\label{gm2}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\mp,\pm)={\cal N}'\pi (1+\alpha_k)^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot k_T{\cal I},
\end{equation}
where ${\cal I}$ is the same as Eq.(\ref{gi2}) and then Eq.(\ref{gi1}) under
the same approximation.
For the third helicity amplitudes set, ${\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\pm,\mp)$,
the calculations are similar to the calculations of ${\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\mp,\pm)$.
The contribution from Diag.3 is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g31}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^3(\pm,\pm,\mp)&=&-{\cal N}'\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{(1+\alpha_k)k_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)-
(k_T^2+(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T+\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contribution from Diag.4 is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g32}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^4(\pm,\pm,\mp)&=&{\cal N}'\alpha_k^2\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{(1+\alpha_k)k_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)-
(k_T^2-(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T-\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contributions from Diag.5 and Diag.8, to sum up together, are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g33}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{58}(\pm,\pm,\mp)&=&-{\cal N}'\alpha_k^2\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{(1+\alpha_k)k_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)-
(k_T^2-\alpha_k(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T-\alpha_k\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The contributions from Diag.6 and Diag.9, to sum up together, are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{g34}
\nonumber
{\rm Im}{\cal A}^{69}(\pm,\pm,\mp)&=&{\cal N}'\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k)\int\frac{d^2\vec{l}_T}{(l_T^2)^2}f(x',x'';l_T^2)\\
&& \frac{(1+\alpha_k)k_T^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)-
(k_T^2-(1+\alpha_k)(k_T,l_T))\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot\vec{k}_T}{(\vec{k}_T-(1+\alpha_k)\vec{l}_T)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
And also, we find that the contributions from other three diagrams (Diag.1, Diag.2 and Diag.7) are
canceled out by each other, and the total sum of
Eqs.(\ref{g31}-\ref{g34}) is free of the linear singularity.
If we approximate the off-diagonal gluon distribution function
$f(x',x'';l_T^2)$ by the usual diagonal differential
gluon distribution function $f_g(x;l_T^2)$,
and integrate over the azimuth angle of $\vec{l}_T$, their sum will lead to
a similar result as in Eq.(\ref{gm2}),
\begin{equation}
\label{gm3}
{\rm Im}{\cal A}(\pm,\pm,\mp)={\cal N}'\pi \alpha_k^2\vec{e}_1^{(\pm)}\cdot k_T{\cal I}.
\end{equation}
By summing up all of the helicity amplitudes Eqs.(\ref{gm1}), (\ref{gm2}) and
{\ref{gm3}), we will get the amplitude squared for
the partonic process $gp\rightarrow ggp$, after averaging
over the spin and color degrees of freedom,
\begin{equation}
\overline{|{\cal A}|}^2=\frac{27\pi^2\alpha_s^3(4\pi)^3}{16}\frac{s^2}{k_t^2}(1-\frac{k_T^2}{M_X^2})^2|{\cal I}|^2.
\end{equation}
And the cross section for the partonic process $gp\rightarrow ggp$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{gxsp}
\frac{d\hat\sigma(gp\rightarrow ggp)}{dt}|_{t=0}=\int_{M_X^4>4k_T^2}dM_X^2dk_T^2
\frac{27\alpha_s^3\pi^2}{32M_X^2k_T^2}(1-\frac{k_T^2}{M_X^2})^2|{\cal I}|^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{4k_T^2}{M_X^2}}},
\end{equation}
Following the same argument in the last subsection for the calculations of the partonic process
$qp\rightarrow qgp$,
we see that the dominant contribution of the integration over $M_X^2$
comes from the region of $M_X^2\sim 4k_T^2$, where
the differential gluon distribution
function $f_g(x;Q^2)$ of the three terms in the integration ${\cal I}$
can approximately take their values
at the same scale of $Q^2=k_T^2$.
That is, the integration ${\cal I}$ is then simplified to
\begin{equation}
\label{i22}
{\cal I}=\frac{1}{k_T^2}(-3\alpha_k(1+\alpha_k))f_g(x;k_T^2)
=\frac{1}{k_T^2}\frac{3k_T^2}{M_X^2}f_g(x;k_T^2)=\frac{3}{M_X^2}f_g(x;k_T^2).
\end{equation}
\section{Numerical results}
In this section we study the numerical behavior of the diffractive gluon jet
production at the Fermilab Tevatron. We will study the $p_T$ distribution
and $x_1$ distribution of the cross section. We will also compare the gluon
jet production with the quark jet production which has been calculated in
\cite{charm,quark}. A more thorough phenomenological study, including a comparison
to currently available data at Tevatron on the diffractive dijet production
rate, will be presented elsewhere.
Provided with the cross section formulas for the partonic processes
$qp\rightarrow qg p$ (\ref{xsp}) and $gp\rightarrow ggp$ (\ref{gxsp}),
we can calculate the cross
section of the diffractive gluon jet production
at hadron level.
However, as mentioned above, there exists nonfactorization effect caused by
the spectator interactions in the hard
diffractive processes in hadron collisions.
Here, we use a suppression factor ${\cal F}_S$ to describe this
nonfactorization effect in the hard diffractive processes at hadron
colliders\cite{soper,survive}.
At the Tevatron,
the value of ${\cal F}_S$ may be as small as ${\cal F}_S\approx 0.1$\cite{soper,tev}.
That is to say, the total cross section of the diffractive processes
at the Tevatron may be reduced down by an order of magnitude due to
this nonfactorization effect.
In the following numerical calculations, we adopt this suppression factor value
to evaluate the diffractive production rate.
In our calculations, the scales for the parton distribution functions and
the running coupling constant
are both set to be $Q^2=k_T^2$. For the parton distribution functions,
we choose the GRV NLO set \cite{grv}.
In Fig.4, we plot the differential cross section $d\sigma/dt|_{t=0}$
as a function of the lower bound of the transverse momentum of the gluon
jet, $k_{T{\rm min}}$. This figure shows that the cross section is
sensitive to the transverse momentum cut $k_{T{\rm min}}$.
We plot separately the contributions from the two subprocesses,
$qp\rightarrow qgp$ and $gp\rightarrow ggp$.
By comparison, we also plot the cross section of
the diffractive light quark jet
production calculated in\cite{quark}.
The three curves in this figure show that the contribution from the subprocess
$gp\rightarrow ggp$ is two orders of magnitude larger than that from
the subprocess $qp\rightarrow qgp$ for the diffractive gluon jet production,
and the light quark jet production rate is in the same order with that of the
subprocess $qp\rightarrow qgp$.
This indicates that the diffractive dijet production at hadron colliders
dominantly comes from the subprocess $gp\rightarrow ggp$ in the two-gluon
exchange model.
In Fig.5, we plot the differential cross section $d\sigma/dt|_{t=0}$ as
a function of the lower bound of the momentum fraction of the proton
carried by the incident gluon $x_{1{\rm min}}$,
where we set $k_{T{\rm min}}=5~GeV$.
Fig.5(a) is for the contribution from the subprocess
$qp\rightarrow qgp$, and Fig.5(b) is
from the subprocess $gp\rightarrow ggp$.
These two figures show that the dominant
contribution comes from the region of $x_1\sim 10^{-2}-10^{-1}$ for the
subprocess $gp\rightarrow ggp$, and $x_1>10^{-1}$ for the subprocess
$qp\rightarrow qgp$.
These properties are similar to those of the diffractive charm jet
and $W$ boson productions calculated in\cite{charm,dy}.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have calculated the diffractive gluon jet production
at hadron colliders in perturbative QCD by using the two-gluon exchange model.
We find that the production cross section is related to the squared of the
differential gluon distribution function $\partial G(x;Q^2)/\partial ln Q^2$
at the scale of $Q^2\sim k_T^2$, where $k_T$ is the transverse momentum of
the final state gluon jet.
We have also compared the production rate of the gluon jet in the
diffractive processes with those of the light quark jet and heavy quark jet productions,
and found that the production rates of these processes
are in the same order of magnitude.
As we know, the large transverse momentum dijet production in the diffractive
processes at hadron colliders is important to study the diffractive mechanism and
the nature of the Pomeron. The CDF collaboration at the Fermilab Tevatron
have reported some results on this process\cite{tev}.
Up to now, we have calculated all of the dijet production subprocesses
in the diffractive processes at hadron colliders, including $gp\rightarrow
q\bar qp$, $qp\rightarrow qgp$ and $gp\rightarrow ggp$ processes.
In a forthcoming paper, we will compare the available data on the diffractive
dijet production cross section at the Tevatron\cite{tev} to the predictions of
our model to test the validity of perturbative QCD description of the diffractive
processes at hadron colliders.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China, the State Education Commission of China, and the State
Commission of Science and Technology of China.
|
\section{Present observational constraints}
The bulk of the mass of the {\sc lmc}\xspace resides in a nearly face-on disk,
with an inclination usually taken to equal the canonical value of
$i=33^{\circ}$ (\cite{westerlund}), although both lower ($27^{\circ}$)
and higher (up to $45^{\circ}$) values have also been derived from
morphological or kinematical studies of the {\sc lmc}\xspace. This disk is
observed to rotate with a circular velocity $V_{C} \sim 80$~km/s out
to at least $8^{\circ}$ from the {\sc lmc}\xspace center
(\cite{schommer}).
If all the stars belong to the same population, with a vertical ({\it
i.e.} perpendicular to the disk) velocity dispersion $\sigma_{W}$, the
microlensing optical depth of such a disk upon its own stars is given
by $\tau \sim 2 \sigma_{W}^{2} \sec^{2}i / c^{2} $ (\cite{gou95}).
Considering the measured velocity of {\sc lmc}\xspace carbon stars (Cowley \&
Hartwick 1991), Gould (1995) assumed $\sigma_{W} = 20$ km/s as
a typical velocity dispersion for {\sc lmc}\xspace stars. He thus concluded that
$\tau \sim 10^{-8}$, {\it i.e.} that self-lensing (first suggested by
\cite{sahu94} and \cite{wu94}) contributes very little to the observed
optical depth towards this line of sight.
Carbon stars however may not be the ultimate probe to infer the velocity
dispersion of {\sc lmc}\xspace populations: they actually comprise various
ill-defined classes of objects (Me\-nes\-sier 1999), and their prevalence
is a complex function of age, metallicity and probably other factors
(Gould 1999).
Both observational and theoretical arguments favour the existence
of a wide range of velocity dispersions among the various {\sc lmc}\xspace stellar
populations.
To commence, Mea\-theringham {et al.}\xspace (1988) have determined the
radial velocities of a sample of planetary nebulae (PN) in the {\sc lmc}\xspace.
They measured a velocity dispersion of 19.1 km/s, much larger than the value
of 5.4 km/s found for the HI. This was interpreted as being
suggestive of orbital heating and diffusion operating in the {\sc lmc}\xspace in
the same way as it is observed in the solar neighbourhood.
Then, the observations of Hughes {et al.}\xspace (1991) show clear
evidence for an increase in the velocity dispersion of long period
variables (LPV) as a function of their age. For young LPVs, the velocity
dispersion is 12 km/s whereas for old LPVs, it reaches 35 km/s.
More recently, Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace (1999) found a velocity dispersion of
$\sigma = 18.4 \pm 1.4$ km/s for 190 vertical red clump (VRC)
stars\footnote{see Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace (1999) and Beaulieu and Sackett
(1998) for a definition of RC and VRC stars.} whereas for the red
clump (RC), they measured a value of $\sigma = 32.2 \pm 3.8$ km/s on a
sample of 75 objects (throughout this paper, error bars are converted
from Zaritsky's 95 \% confidence levels to standard $1 \sigma$). A
general trend appears: the velocity dispersion is an increasing
function of the age.
Just like for our own Milky Way, stars of the {\sc lmc}\xspace disk have been
continuously undergoing dynamical scattering by, for instance, molecular
clouds or other gravitational inhomogeneities. This results in an increase
of the velocity dispersion of a given stellar population with its
age, as will be further discussed in section 3.
Notice that the main argument
in disfavour of a {\sc lmc}\xspace self-lensing explanation is precisely the low value
of the measured vertical velocity dispersions.
However, the stellar populations so far surveyed predominantly
consist of red giants. They are shown
in the next section not to be representative of the bulk of the {\sc lmc}\xspace disk
stars, and actually biased towards young ages:
they are on average $\sim$ 2 Gyr old, to be compared to an {\sc lmc}\xspace
age of $\sim$ 12 Gyr.
\section{The age bias}
The red clump population will illustrate the main thrust of our
argument. Clump stars have burning helium cores whose size is
approximately independent of the total mass of the object.
They also have the same luminosity and hence they spend a
fixed amount of time $\tau_{\rm \, He}$ in the clump, irrespective
of their mass $m$. Such objects are evolved post-MS stars,
which does not mean that they are necessarily old.
We have assumed a Salpeter Initial Mass Function for the
various {\sc lmc}\xspace stellar populations
\begin{equation}
{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dm}} \propto
m^{\displaystyle - \left( 1 + \alpha \right)}
\;\; ,
\end{equation}
with $\alpha = 1.35$.
The stellar formation history has been borrowed from
Geha {et al.}\xspace (1998).
Their preferred model (e) corresponds to a stellar formation rate
${\cal F}(t)$ that has remained constant for 10 Gyr since the formation
of the {\sc lmc}\xspace 12 Gyr ago. Then, two Gyr ago, ${\cal F}(t)$ has increased
by a factor of three. The number of stars that formed at time $t$ and
whose mass is comprised between $m$ and $m + dm$ may
be expressed as
\begin{equation}
{\displaystyle \frac{d^{2} N}{dm \, dt}} = {\cal F}(t) \,
m^{\displaystyle - \left( 1 + \alpha \right)} \;\; .
\end{equation}
We have assumed a mass-luminosity relation $L \propto m^{\beta}$ on
the MS so that the stellar lifetime may be expressed as $\tau_{\rm MS}
(m) = {12 \; {\rm Gyr}} / {m^{\beta - 1}}$ (since $\tau \propto m/L$).
With these oversimplified but natural assumptions, a star whose initial
mass is $\leq 1 \, {\rm M}_\odot$ is still today on the MS and cannot have
reached the clump. Conversely, a heavier star with $m \geq 1 \, {\rm M}_\odot$
may well be today in a helium core burning stage provided that its
formation epoch lies in the range between
$t = - \, \tau_{\rm MS} (m)$ (the object has just begun core helium
burning) and
$t = - \, \tau_{\rm MS} (m) - \, \tau_{\rm \, He} (m)$ (the star is about to
leave the red clump). The number of RC stars observed today with
progenitor mass in the range between $m$ and $m + dm$ is therefore
given by
\begin{equation}
dN_{\rm RC} = {\cal F} ( - \tau_{\rm MS} (m) ) \times
m^{\displaystyle - \left( 1 + \alpha \right)} \, dm \times \tau_{\rm \,
He} \;\; .
\label{CHSTAR_1}
\end{equation}
To get more insight into the age bias at stake, we can parameterize the
progenitor mass $m$ in terms of the age
$\tau \equiv \tau_{\rm MS} (m)$. The previous relation simplifies
into
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN_{\rm RC}}{d\tau} \; = \;
{\displaystyle
\frac{{\cal F} ( - \tau ) \, \tau_{\rm \, He}}{(\beta - 1)}} \;
\tau^{\displaystyle \left( \gamma - 1 \right)} \;\; ,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma = \alpha / (\beta - 1)$. This may be directly compared
to the age distribution of the bulk of the {\sc lmc}\xspace stars that goes like
${\cal F} ( - \tau )$. With a Salpeter mass function
and $\beta = 4.5$, we get a value of $\gamma = 0.4$. The excess
of young RC stars goes as $1 / \tau^{0.6}$ and the bias is obvious.
Other IMF are possible and a spectral index as large as
$\alpha \sim \beta - 1 \sim 3.5$ would be required to invalidate
the effect. HST data analyzed by Holtzman {et al.}\xspace (1997) nevertheless
point towards a spectral index $\alpha$ that extends from 0.6 up to 2.1
for stars in the mass range $0.6 \leq m \leq 3$ ${\rm M}_\odot$. The average
value corresponds actually to a Salpeter law.
There has been furthermore a recent burst in the {\sc lmc}\xspace stellar formation
rate. In order to model it, we may express the total number of
today's RC stars as an integral where the progenitor mass $m$ runs
from $m_{1} = 1 \, {\rm M}_\odot$ up to the tip of the IMF whose actual value
is irrelevant and has been set equal to infinity here for simplicity.
Notice that the specific progenitor mass
$m_{2} \simeq 1.7 \, {\rm M}_\odot$ corresponds to stars born 2 Gyr ago,
when the stellar formation rate increased by a factor of 3. Stars which
formed before that epoch will be referred to as old. Their number is
given by
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm RC}^{\rm old} =
{\displaystyle \int_{m_{1}}^{m_{2}}} \,
{\cal F} \left( - \tau_{\rm MS} \right) \,
m^{\displaystyle - \left( 1 + \alpha \right)} \, dm
\, \tau_{\rm \, He} \;\; .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the number $N_{\rm RC}^{\rm young}$ of young
clump stars is obtained similarly, with masses in excess of $m_{2}$.
We readily infer a fraction of young stars
\begin{equation}
{N_{\rm RC}^{\rm young}} / N_{\rm RC} =
{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2 \, + \, (m_{2}/m_{1})^{\alpha}}}
\simeq 0.751 \;\; .
\end{equation}
Three quarters of the clump stars observed today in the {\sc lmc}\xspace have
thus formed less than 2 Gyr ago, during the recent period of stellar
formation mentioned above. Integrating $\tau_{\rm MS}$
over the RC population
\begin{equation}
\left< \tau \right> = \frac{1}{N_{\rm RC}} \;
{\displaystyle \int_{m_{1}}^{\infty}} \tau_{\rm MS} \,
dN_{\rm RC} \;\; ,
\end{equation}
yields the average age
\begin{equation}
\left< \tau \right> = \left( 12 \; {\rm Gyr} \right) \times
\frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta - 1} \times
{\displaystyle \frac
{m_{1}^{1 - \alpha - \beta} \, + 2 \, m_{2}^{1 - \alpha - \beta}}
{m_{1}^{- \alpha} \, + 2 \, m_{2}^{- \alpha}}}
\; .
\end{equation}
This gives a numerical value of $\sim 1.95$ Gyr. We thus
conclude that today's clump stars are, on average, much younger
than the {\sc lmc}\xspace disk.
\section{Distributions of velocity dispersions}
This simple analytical result has been checked by means of
a Monte Carlo study. We have randomly generated a sample of
$10^{8}$ {\sc lmc}\xspace stars. The progenitor mass was drawn in the range
$0.1 \leq m \leq 10$ ${\rm M}_\odot$ according to a Salpeter law.
The age of formation was drawn in the range
$-12$~Gyr $\leq t \leq 0$ according to the stellar formation
history ${\cal F}(t)$ favoured by Geha {et al.}\xspace (1998). The vertical
velocity dispersion $\sigma_{W}$ was then evolved in time from
formation up to now according to Wielen's (1977) relation:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{W}^{2} \; = \; \sigma_{0}^{2} + C_{W} \, t.
\label{diffeq}
\end{equation}
This purely diffusive relation is known to be inadequate to describe
velocity dispersions in our Galaxy (Edvardsson et al. 1993). We will
however use it in our model, as heating processes in the {\sc lmc}\xspace may be
different than those in the galaxy. The {\sc lmc}\xspace is indeed subject to
tidal heating by the Milky Way (\cite{weinberg99}) and has most
probably suffered encounters with the {\sc smc}\xspace . Although this simple
relation lacks a theoretical motivation, it will be shown to account
for several features of the velocity distributions in the {\sc lmc}\xspace,
without being at variance with any observation.
The initial velocity dispersion $\sigma_{0}$ was taken to be 10~km/s,
and the diffusion coefficient in velocity space along the vertical
direction $C_{W}$ to be
300~$\unit{km}^{2} \unit{s}^{-2} \unit{Gy}^{-1}$
so that our oldest stars have a vertical velocity dispersion reaching
up to $\sigma_{W}^{\rm MAX} = 60$ km/s. For each star, the actual
vertical velocity was then randomly drawn, assuming a Gaussian
distribution with width $\sigma_{W}$.
In order to compare our Monte Carlo results with the Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace
(1999) measurements of the radial velocities of {\sc lmc}\xspace clump stars, we
selected two groups of stars according to their position in the HR
diagram. Following Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace, we use their colour index
\begin{equation}
C \; \equiv \; 0.565 \, (B - I) \; + \; 0.825 \, (U - V + 1.15) \;\; ,
\end{equation}
so that the RC population is defined by $3.1 < C < 3.4$ with a magnitude
$19 < V < 19.3$ whereas the VRC stars have the same colour index C
and brighter magnitudes $18 < V < 18.75$. In order to infer the
colours and magnitudes of the stars that we generated, we used the
isochrones computed by Bertelli {et al.}\xspace (1994) for a typical {\sc lmc}\xspace
metallicity and helium abundance of $Z = 0.008$ and $Y = 0.25$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=Bd291.f1.eps,width=7.8cm}
\caption{
Velocity distribution for a sample of 190 vertical
red clump stars that have been generated by the Monte Carlo
discussed in the text. That histogram is similar to Fig.~10 of
Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace (1999). A velocity dispersion of 18~km/s is found
for the full sample (solid smooth curve).
}
\label{fig_vrc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A random sample of 190 stars that passed the VRC selection criteria is presented
in Fig.~\ref{fig_vrc} where the vertical velocities are displayed. This
histogram may be compared to Fig.~10 of Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace (1999) where
no VRC star is found with a velocity in excess of 60 km/s. With the full
statistics, our Monte Carlo generated a population of $\sim$ 2,900 VRC
objects whose vertical velocity distribution has a RMS of $\sim$ 18
km/s. The agreement between the Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace observations and our
Monte Carlo results is noteworthy. The average age of our VRC sample
is $\sim$~0.87~Gyr.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=Bd291.f2.eps,width=7.8cm}
\caption{
Like in the previous figure, a distribution of 75 red clump stars
is now featured. We inferred a velocity dispersion of 23 km/s
for the full sample (solid smooth curve). Our distribution is similar to that presented
in Fig.~11 of Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace (1999).
No star exhibits a velocity larger than 70~km/s.
}
\label{fig_rc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We also selected a random sample of 75 RC stars whose velocity distribution
is featured in Fig.~\ref{fig_rc}. Even with a diffusion coefficient as
large as $C_{W} = 300 \unit{km}^{2} \unit{s}^{-2} \unit{Gy}^{-1}$
so as to comply with a large {\sc lmc}\xspace self-lensing optical depth, our full
statistics of 18,000 RC objects has a velocity dispersion of $\sim$ 23 km/s.
This is slightly below the value of $\sigma = 32.2 \pm 3.8$ km/s quoted
by Zaritsky {et al.}\xspace
Observations are nevertheless fairly scarce with only 75 RC stars.
When Zaristsky {et al.}\xspace fitted a Gaussian to the RC radial velocity distribution
featured in the Fig.~11 of their paper, they obtained a 95~\% C.L. dispersion of
$\sigma = 32^{+19}_{-16}$ km/s with a large uncertainty. Our Monte Carlo
velocity dispersion of 23 km/s is definitely compatible with that result.
We infer
an average age for the RC population of $\sim$~1.8 Gyr to be compared
to our analytical result of $\sim$ 1.95 Gyr. This agrees well with Beaulieu
and Sackett's conclusion that isochrones younger than 2.5 Gyr are
necessary to fit the red clump. Notice finally that our age estimates
for these various clump populations are in no way related to {\sc lmc}\xspace
kinematics. They merely result from the postulated Salpeter IMF,
the Geha {et al.}\xspace preferred stellar formation history and the
Bertelli {et al.}\xspace isochrones.
With this model, 70\% in mass of the {\sc lmc}\xspace disk consists of objects
whose vertical velocity dispersion is in excess of 25 km/s, although
the average vertical velocity dispersion of RC stars, for instance, is
only $\sim$ 23 km/s.
What about the other measurements?
The velocity dispersion of PNs has been found equal to 19.1 km/s
(Meatheringham {et al.}\xspace 1988). These authors estimate that the bulk
of the PNs have an age near 3.5 Gyr. They also note that younger
objects are present down to an age of order $0.5 - 1.3$ Gyr.
Meatheringham {et al.}\xspace come finally to the conclusion that the
indicative age of the PN population is 2.1 Gyr. This value agrees well
once again with our analytical estimate. Our Monte Carlo gives a
slightly larger value of 2.4 Gyr for the age of the PNs, with a velocity
dispersion of 24.7 km/s. Because the observed sample contains 94 objects,
the measured value of 19.1 km/s suffers presumably from significant
uncertainties.
Quite interesting also are the measurements by Hughes {et al.}\xspace (1991) of
the velocity dispersions of LPVs as a function of their age. Their
sample of 63 ``old'' LPVs has a velocity dispersion of $\sigma =
35^{+10}_{-4}$ km/s. For the bulk of the {\sc lmc}\xspace populations, we obtain
an average velocity dispersion of $\sim 37$ km/s. The problem at
stake is actually the age of those old LPVs. These stars indeed
display an age-period relation. However, Hughes {et al.}\xspace derived this
relation from kinematics considerations, using precisely Eq.
\ref{diffeq}, and postulating the same diffusion coefficient as in the
Milky Way. They thus inferred an average age of 9.5~Gyr. Finding
instead the position of these stars in a colour-magnitude diagram and
using {\sc lmc}\xspace isochrones would have led to a clean determination of the
age-period relation.
A direct determination of the age of LPVs is nevertheless spoilt by a
few biases. Some LPVs are carbon stars and the ejected material
around them may considerably dim their luminosities. These stars may
also pulsate on an harmonic of the fundamental mode. Both effects
lead to an under-determination of their luminosity and hence to an
overestimate of their age (Menessier 1999). As a matter of fact,
Groenewegen and de Jong (1994) conclude that {\sc lmc}\xspace stars whose
progenitor mass is less than 1.15 ${\rm M}_\odot$ never reach the instability
strip on the AGB. This yields an upper limit on the age of LPVs of
$\sim 7.3$ Gyr, in clear contradiction with the average age of 9.5 Gyr
inferred by Hughes {et al.}\xspace for old LPVs.
Finally, Schommer {et al.}\xspace (1992) have obtained a velocity dispersion
of $21 - 24$ km/s for 9 old {\sc lmc}\xspace clusters. Their large $1\sigma$ error
of $\sim$ 10 km/s is due to the small size of the sample.
It is not clear whether or not these clusters have formed in the disk.
If they nevertheless had, they would have undergone a fairly
restricted orbital heating with respect to the {\sc lmc}\xspace stars. Those
systems and the giant molecular clouds have actually comparable
masses and the energy exchange between them does not result
in a significant increase of the velocity dispersion of the clusters
unlike what happens to the stars.
\section{Multi-component model of the {\sc lmc}\xspace}
We model the {\sc lmc}\xspace to contain several stellar populations, each
associated with a different velocity dispersion $\sigma_{W,i}$
which has evolved according to Eq. \ref{diffeq}.
We describe each of the ten components of our model by an ellipsoidal
density profile
\begin{equation}
\rho_i(R,z) =
\frac{\Lambda_i}{R^2 \; + \; {\displaystyle {z^2}/{(1-e_i^2)}}}
\;\; ,
\end{equation}
up to a cut-off radius $R_{\rm MAX} = 15 \unit{kpc}$ (Aubourg et al.
1999). The multi-component model based on these profiles is
self-consistent in the sense that it satisfies Poisson equation and
results in a flat rotation curve with the desired $V_C$ of 80~km/s.
We define the set of $\sigma_{W,i}$ so as to sample linearly the range
between $\sigma_0 = 10 \unit{km/s}$ and $\sigma_{W}^{\rm MAX} = 60
\unit{km/s}$ (see previous section). The parameters $\Lambda_i$ and the ellipticities $e_i$
are determined so that the model reproduces the set of velocity
dispersions $\sigma_{W,i}$ and surface mass densities $\Sigma_i$ where
$d\Sigma_i/d\sigma_i \propto \sigma_i {\cal F}(t)$ with ${\cal F}(t)$
the stellar formation history of the {\sc lmc}\xspace mentioned in section 2.
Assuming a typical M/L of 3, which is a free parameter in our model,
we reproduce the observed surface brightness of the LMC.
For a given distribution of objects, one can compute the total
self-lensing optical depth $\tau$ and the event rate $\Gamma$.
Both quantities are integrated on all deflectors and sources, considering
that only main sequence stars brighter than $V = 20$ and red giants can
be potential sources, since they are the only objects bright enough to be
visible in microlensing surveys. The computation of $\Gamma$ requires
an estimate of the relative transverse velocity of deflector and source, for
which we have assumed an horizontal velocity dispersion equal to the
vertical one predicted by the model. Details of this computation can be
found in (\cite{nous}).
For the model described above, one obtains $\tau = 9.3 \times 10^{-8}$
and $\Gamma = 3.5 \times 10^{-7} \unit{yr}^{-1}$.
This can be compared to the {\sc eros}\xspace and {\sc macho}\xspace optical depths,
respectively
$8.2 \times 10^{-8}$ (\cite{eros1}) and
$2.9_{-0.9}^{+1.4} \times 10^{-7}$ (Alcock {et al.}\xspace 1997). A combination
of those two results yields an average optical depth of
$2.1_{-0.8}^{+1.3} \times 10^{-7}$ (\cite{BennettReport}), but preliminary
{\sc macho}\xspace results from their five-year analysis (Sutherland 1999) hint to a
reduced optical depth as compared to their two-year analysis. The model
prediction is thus in good agreement with the results obtained so far from
microlensing experiments.
Another relevant prediction of the model is the distribution of event
durations, $d\Gamma/d\Delta t$. Figure~\ref{dgamdtau} illustrates this
prediction for our model, along with the distribution of observed
{\sc macho}\xspace events.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=Bd291.f3.eps,width=7.8cm}
\caption{
Predicted distribution of event durations $d\Gamma/d\Delta t$,
superimposed with the {\sc macho}\xspace experimental distribution. The
events are those presented by {\sc macho}\xspace at the IVth Microlensing
Workshop (\cite{machoEvt}), corrected for blending and efficiency
using the formulae in \cite{Macho2yr}.
}
\label{dgamdtau}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our model thus reproduces both the total observed optical depth towards
the {\sc lmc}\xspace and the observed event duration distribution, while complying
with the velocity dispersion measurements. A self-lensing interpretation
of {\em all} the microlensing events observed so far towards the {\sc lmc}\xspace
thus appears to be a plausible explanation.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We wish to thank M.O. Menessier for useful
discussions, and the members of the EROS collaboration for their comments.
We thank Andy Gould, our referee, for his useful remarks and suggestions.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
Light-front frame is believed to be a useful tool for solving bound state
problems in QCD. Generally, bound state calculations in the field theory
have two sources of complexity - they are relativistic and of many-body type.
The method of flow equations copes with both of them, at least to the definite
order in perturbation theory. One transforms the Hamiltonian to eliminate
interactions changing particle number, reducing thus the bound state
problem to a few-body problem. Simultaneously utraviolet divergencies
occur, originating from the high-energy region. To complete
renormalization one uses either coupling coherence or
fixes counterterms to provide finite values for physical observables
and to retain symmetries violated by the procedure~\cite{Perry}.
Both type of flow equations of renormalization type and for the new
(particle number conserving) interactions appear together.
This program can be fulfilled in perturbation theory expansion.
As a result, the bound state problem
is approximated by a set of renormalized, effective interactions
that do not change particle number.
The sensitive tool in the light-front frame to check how accurately
one desribes bound states by these effective interactions is to measure
the violation of rotational symmetry. This symmetry is linked to a
dynamical operator on the light-front, since rotations are dynamical,
i.e. depend on the interaction. The symmetry may be spoiled in two
steps: first, regularization and renormalization;
and second, reduction to the effective few-body interactions with
particle number conservation.
The nonperturbative renormalization flow is of crucial importance
for QCD~\cite{BrPe,Perry,pau96}, but one can disregard
this point in QED bound state calculations, that disentangles the two problems
mentioned above.
To the leading order the results for QED are obtained in~\cite{JoPeGl},
where positronium system is described approximately by the effective
electron-positron interaction. In the nonrelativistic limit
the results for positronium spectrum agree with the results of covariant
calculations.
There are at least two other alternative approaches to solve for bound states
in the light-front dynamics, the scheme of similarity renormalization of Glazek
and Wilson~\cite{GlWi} and the method of iterated resolvents of Pauli~\cite{pau96}.
In both schemes calculations of the effective electron-positron
interaction are performed and the question of rotational invariance for
positronium spectrum is investigated.
Calculations done so far in the similarity renormalization scheme use
the nonrelativistic limit to find corresponding eigenvalues in the bound
state perturbation theory~\cite{BrPe2}. Analytical calculations are
performed there for ground state: ground triplet levels are degenerate,
indicating that rotational symmetry is restored~\cite{BrPe2}. Performing
similarity renormalization one eliminates high-energy modes and absorbs
relativistic effects into an effective band-diagonal Hamiltonian, which
describes bound state creation at nonrelativistic energy scales. It is
a well working scheme for such systems as positronium~\cite{Perry};
therefore nonrelativistic approximations done in this approach to
extract eigenvalues from effective Hamiltonian are quite natural
there. In general, it is not always the case. In fact rotational
symmetry becomes kinematic one, like light-front boost in the
nonrelativistic limit, i.e. total momentum and its projection can be
considered approximately as quantum numbers, that makes simpler to trace
rotational invariance in these calculations.
In the method of iterated resolvents an effective electron-positron
potential is obtained and exact numerical solution of positronium bound
state equation with the given potential is done~\cite{TrPa,TrPa2}.
Degenerate multiplets for ground as well as for exited states are
obtained~\cite{TrPa}. \footnote{
Numerical solution of positronium bound state problem in the light-front frame
can be found also in ~\cite{kpw92,KaPi}. }
It is convenient to perform relativistic calculations
in the light-front frame, which effectively has nonrelativistic
kinematics.
In the present work we perform relativistic few-body calculations for
positronium spectrum numerically in the spirit of the work Trittmann
et.al.~\cite{TrPa} (and using numerical code ~\cite{TrPa2}), based on the
effective electron-positron Hamiltonian obtained by the flow
equations~\cite{previous}. Effective interaction was derived there for
different cutoff functions. The requirement of block-diagonalization of
the Hamiltonian determines the generator only up to a unitary
transformation of the blocks; this explains why the effective
interaction may depend on the cutoff function. The question we
investigate is to what extent rotational invariance is violated on the
level of positronium spectrum and how does it depend on the choice of
the cutoff function. We are not able to trace rotational invariance
during the calculations, since it is dynamical operator. This is an
excellent test for the method of flow equations itself and the control of
approximations done during the calculations.
\section{Formulation of the problem}
\label{sec:2}
We address to solve a light-front Hamiltonian bound state equation
\begin{equation}
H \vert\psi\rangle =E \vert\psi\rangle
\label{eq:i1}\end{equation}
for positronium. Using flow equations we transform the QED Hamiltonian $H$
to a block-diagonal effective Hamiltonian, which reduces positronium problem
to a bound state problem in the electron-positron sector.
The effective Hamiltonian for an electron and a positron is
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm eff}=H_0+U_{\rm eff}
\label{eq:i2}\end{equation}
where $H_0$ is the kinetic energy, and $U_{\rm eff}$ includes effective
interactions generated by the flow equations in the second order in
coupling constant.
The integral bound state equation is written
\begin{eqnarray}
E \langle p_1,p_2; \lambda_1,\lambda_2 \vert \psi \rangle &=&
(E_{p_1}\!+\!E_{p_2})
\langle p_1,p_2; \lambda_1,\lambda_2 \vert \psi \rangle
\nonumber\\
&+& \sum_{\lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime}
\!\int\! d^3p^\prime_1 d^3p^\prime_2 \langle p_1,p_2; \lambda_1,\lambda_2
\vert U_{\rm eff}\vert p^\prime_1,p^\prime_2;
\lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime \rangle
\langle p^\prime_1,p^\prime_2;\lambda_1^\prime,
\lambda_2^\prime \vert \psi \rangle
\nonumber\\
\label{eq:i3}\end{eqnarray}
where the effective Hamiltonian pickes out from the positronium wave function
$\vert \psi \rangle$ the lowest $e\bar{e}$-component
$\langle p_1,p_2;\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \vert \psi \rangle$
with $p_i,\lambda_i$ being the light-front three-momenta
and helicities, respectively, carried by an electron ($i=1$), and a
positron ($i=2$). The primed quantities refer to the initial state,
the unprimed ones to the final state. The effective interaction
$ \langle p_1,p_2;\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \vert U_{\rm eff}
\vert p^\prime_1,p^\prime_2;\lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime \rangle =
U_{\rm eff} \delta(p_1+p_2-p'_1-p'_2) $ will be specified below.
In order to deduce a Lorentz invariant energy we consider the bound
state equation written for operator $P^-P^+$, corresponding to the
invariant mass-squared $M^2$ on the light-front, rather than for the
light-front Hamiltonian operator $H=P^-$.
The light-front integral equation,
\\
\begin{eqnarray}
M^2\ \langle x,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}; \lambda_1,
\lambda_2 \vert \psi \rangle &=&
{m^2 \!+\! \vec \kappa_{\!\perp}^2 \over x(1\!-\!x)}
\ \langle x,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}; \lambda_1,
\lambda_2 \vert \psi \rangle
\nonumber\\
&+& \sum _{ \lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime}
\int\limits_D\!dx^\prime d^2 \vec \kappa_{\!\perp}^\prime\,
\,\langle x,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}; \lambda_1, \lambda_2
\vert V_{\rm eff}
\vert x^\prime,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}^\prime;
\lambda_1^\prime, \lambda_2^\prime\rangle
\ \langle x^\prime,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}^\prime;
\lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime
\vert \psi \rangle
\nonumber\\
\label{eq:r96}
\end {eqnarray}
is independent of the total momentum $P^+$ and $\vec P_\perp$. We
introduced $V_{\rm eff}=P^{+2}U_{\rm eff}$.
In that equation only intrinsic transversal momenta
$\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}$ and longitudinal momentum fractions
$x = p_1^+/P^+$ appear ($p_1^\mu=(xP^+,x\vec P_\perp + \vec
\kappa_{\!\perp},p_1^-)$).
Its spectrum is thus manifestly independent of the kinematical state
of the bound system, particularly of $P^+$ and $\vec{P}_{\perp}$,
which reflects on the boost invariance peculiar to the light-front
form~\cite{bpp97}.
The integration domain $D$ is restricted by the covariant cutoff
condition of Brodsky and Lepage~\cite{LeBr},
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{m^2+\vec{\kappa}_{\perp}^{2}}{x(1-x)}\leq \Lambda^2+4m^2
\,,\label{eq:domain}\end{eqnarray}
which allows for states having a kinetic energy below the bare
cutoff~$\Lambda$.
The effective interaction between electron and positron,
being a kernel in the integral equation~(\ref{eq:r96}),
is generated by the flow equations~\cite{previous}
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm eff} = &-&
\frac{\alpha}{4\pi^2} \langle \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\rangle_{ex}
\left[g_{\mu\nu}\,
\left(\frac{\Theta_{e \bar e}} {Q_{e}^2} +
\frac{\Theta_{\bar e e}} {Q_{\bar e}^2}\right) +
\eta_\mu\eta_\nu\,\frac {\delta Q^2}{{q^+}^2}
\left(\frac{\Theta_{e \bar e}} {Q_{e}^2} -
\frac{\Theta_{\bar e e}} {Q_{\bar e}^2}\right)
\right]
\nonumber\\
&-& \frac{\alpha}{4\pi^2} \langle \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\rangle_{an}
\left[
g_{\mu\nu}
\left(\frac{\Theta_{ab}} {M_a^2} +
\frac{\Theta_{ba}} {M_b^2} \right) -
\eta_\mu\eta_\nu\,\frac{\delta M^2} {{p^+}^2}
\left(\frac{\Theta_{ab}} {M_a^2} -
\frac{\Theta_{ba}} {M_b^2} \right) \right]
\,.\label{eq:56}\end{eqnarray}
with the generator of unitary transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta(l) &=& -\frac{1}{D}\left(\frac{d{\rm ln}\,f(D;l)}{dl}\right)g(l)
\,.\label{eq:gen}\end{eqnarray}
where $g(l)$ is the coupling constant
as a function of flow parameter $l$, and $f(D;l)$ is the cutoff function
specified below.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:56}) subscript $ex$ refers to the exchange part,
and $an$ to the annihilation part.
The null vector $\eta^{\mu}$ has components
$(\eta^+,\vec\eta_\perp, \eta^-)=(0,\vec{0},2)$ and is specific
to the light-front calculations.
The light-front metric tensor is denoted by $g_{\mu\nu}$.
The current-current tensors in the two channels are
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\rangle_{ex} &=&
\frac{(\overline u(p_1,\lambda_1) \gamma^\mu u(p'_1,\lambda'_1))\,
(\overline v(p'_2,\lambda'_2) \gamma^\nu v(p_2,\lambda_2))}
{\sqrt{x x' (1-x) (1-x')} }
\,,\nonumber\\
\langle \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\rangle_{an} &=&
\frac{(\overline u(p_1,\lambda_1)\gamma^\mu v(p_2,\lambda_2))\,
(\overline v(p'_2,\lambda'_2)\gamma^\nu u(p'_1,\lambda'_1))}
{\sqrt{x x' (1-x) (1-x')} }
\,,\label{eq:r94}\end{eqnarray}
where the fermion momenta were defined after Eq.~(\ref{eq:i3}).
The remaining definitions are as follows.
The energy differences along the electron
and the positron line,
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{e} &=& {p'_1}^- - p_1^{-} - (p'_1-p_1)^-
\,,\nonumber\\
D_{\bar e} &=& p_2^{-} - {p'_2}^- - (p_2-p'_2)^-
\,.\label{eq:40a} \end{eqnarray}
respectively, have a simple relation
to the (Feynman-) 4-momentum transfers along the two lines
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{e}^2 &=& -(p'_1-p_1)^2 = -q^+D_{e}
\,,\nonumber\\
Q_{\bar e}^2 &=& -(p_2-p'_2)^2 = -q^+D_{\bar e}
\,.\end{eqnarray}
Since the Feynman-momentum transfer $Q$ is more physical
quantity than the energy difference, we will use the former
as far as possible.
In fact, in our formulae we make use of the
{\em mean-square momentum transfer} and the {\em mean-square difference},
\begin{eqnarray}
Q^2 &=& {1\over 2}(Q_{e}^2+Q_{\bar e}^2)
= -{q^+\over 2}(D_{e}+D_{\bar e})
\,,\nonumber\\
\delta Q^2 &=& {1\over 2}(Q_{e}^2-Q_{\bar e}^2)
= -{q^+\over 2}(D_{e}-D_{\bar e})
\,,\label{eq:r15}\end{eqnarray}
respectively. The dependence of the effective interaction Eq.~(\ref{eq:56})
on the cutoff function $f(D;l)$ is carried by the factor
\begin{equation}
\Theta(D_{e},D_{\bar e}) = - \int_{0}^\infty\!dl'\,
\frac{d f (D_{e};l')}{dl'} f (D_{\bar e};l')
\equiv \Theta_{e\bar e}
\,,\label{eq:r16}\end{equation}
which is asymmetric in the arguments but which
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\Theta(D_{e},D_{\bar e})+\Theta(D_{\bar e},D_{e}) =
\Theta_{e\bar e} + \Theta_{\bar e e} = 1
\,.\label{eq:ii18a}\end{equation}
The latter combination obeys
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Theta_{e \bar{e}}} {Q_{e}^2}+
\frac{\Theta_{\bar{e} e}} {Q_{\bar{e}}^2} &=&
\frac {Q^2} {Q_{e}^2 Q_{\bar{e}}^2}
\left( 1 - \frac{\delta Q^2}{Q^2} \left(\Theta_{e\bar{e}} -
\Theta_{\bar{e}e} \right) \right)
\nonumber\\
\frac{\Theta_{e\bar{e}}} {Q_{e}^2}-
\frac{\Theta_{\bar{e}e}}{Q_{\bar{e}}^2} &=& -
\frac {\delta Q^2} {Q_{e}^2 Q_{\bar{e}}^2}
\left( 1 - \frac{ Q^2}{\delta Q^2} \left(\Theta_{e\bar{e}} -
\Theta_{\bar{e}e} \right) \right)
\,.\label{eq:ii18b}\end{eqnarray}
that we use further.
For the annihilation term we define the energy differences as
\begin{eqnarray}
D_a &=& {p'_1}^- + {p'_2}^- - (p'_1+p'_2)^-
\nonumber\\
D_b &=& p_1^{-} + p_2^{-} - (p_1+p_2)^-
\,.\label{eq:40b} \end{eqnarray}
They are related to the 4-momentum $p^\mu$ of the photon
and to the free invariant
mass-squares of the initial and final states
\begin{eqnarray}
M_a^2 &=& (p'_1+p'_2)^2 = p^+ D_a
\,,\nonumber\\
M_b^2 &=& (p _1+p _2)^2 = p^+ D_b
\,,\end{eqnarray}
as well as to their mean and difference
\begin{eqnarray}
M^2 &=& {1\over 2}(M_a^2 + M_b^2)= {p^+\over 2}(D_a+D_b)
\,,\nonumber\\
\delta M^2 &=& {1\over 2}(M_a^2 - M_b^2)= {p^+\over 2}(D_a-D_b)
\,,\label{eq:r16a}\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
Effective interaction~(\ref{eq:56}) includes two different
Lorentz structures: $g_{\mu\nu}$ part insures the Bohr spectrum
and is responsible for the spin splittings;
$\eta_{\mu}\eta_{\nu}$ term is diagonal in spin space
and vanishes for real processes, i.e. on mass shell with $\delta Q^2=0$,
making the effective interaction to
coincide with the Tamm-Dancoff approximation ~\cite{previous}.
The explicit $x$-dependence in the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:r94})
looks like the only remnant of the light-front formulation;
all other quantities are Lorentz scalars.
One can absorb this dependence by redefining the wave function
in the integral equation Eq.~(\ref{eq:r96}).
We introduce instead
of Jacobi momentum $(x,\vec{\kappa}_{\perp})$ the three momentum
in the center of mass frame $\vec{p}=(p_z,\vec{\kappa}_{\perp})$
as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
x = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{p_z}{\sqrt{{\vec p}^{\, 2}+m^2}} \right)
\,,\label{eq:eq3}\end{eqnarray}
where the Jacobian of this transformation $dx/dp_z$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
J = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\vec{\kappa}_{\perp}^2+m^2}
{({\vec p}^{\, 2}+m^2)^{3/2}}
= 2\frac{x(1-x)}{E}
\,,\label{eq:eq4}\end{eqnarray}
and it holds in this frame
\begin{eqnarray}
x(1-x) &=& \frac{1}{4}\frac{\vec{\kappa}_{\perp}^2+m^2}{{\vec p}^{\, 2}+m^2}
\,,\nonumber\\
E &=& \sqrt{{\vec p}^{\, 2}+m^2}
\,.\end{eqnarray}
The connection between `old' and `new' wave functions and the
interaction matrix elements are
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle x,\vec{\kappa}_{\perp} \vert \psi \rangle &=&
\frac{\langle \vec{p} \vert \psi^\prime \rangle}{\sqrt{x(1-x)}}
\,,\nonumber\\
\langle x,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp} \vert V_{\rm eff}
\vert x^\prime,\vec \kappa_{\!\perp}^\prime \rangle &=&
\frac{ \langle \vec {p} \vert V_{\rm eff}^\prime
\vert {\vec p}^{\: \prime} \rangle}
{\sqrt{x(1-x)x'(1-x')}}
\,.\end{eqnarray}
Integral equation~(\ref{eq:r96}),
\begin{eqnarray}
M^2\ \langle \vec{p}; \lambda_1,
\lambda_2 \vert \psi^\prime \rangle &=&
4 ({\vec p}^{\, 2}+m^2)
\ \langle \vec p; \lambda_1,
\lambda_2 \vert \psi^\prime \rangle
\nonumber\\
&+& \sum _{ \lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime}
\!\int_D\! \frac{d^3 {\vec p}^{\: \prime}}{2E}\,
\,\langle \vec p; \lambda_1, \lambda_2
\vert V_{\rm eff}^\prime
\vert {\vec p}^{\: \prime};
\lambda_1^\prime, \lambda_2^\prime\rangle
\ \langle {\vec p}^{\: \prime};
\lambda_1^\prime,\lambda_2^\prime
\vert \psi^\prime \rangle
\label{eq:r96a}\end {eqnarray}
is written in a rotationally covariant form.
\section{Rotational invariance}
\label{sec:3}
Integral equation~(\ref{eq:r96}) has rotationally covariant
but still not rotationally invariant form because of the interaction
kernel $\tilde{V}_{eff}$, written in the light-front frame.
Let us extract the part of interaction, which has manifestly
rotational symmetry.
Quite generally $\Theta$ factor Eq.~(\ref{eq:r16}) is a function of the ratio
of its two arguments. Therefore, making use of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ii18b}),
the effective interaction Eq.~(\ref{eq:56}) is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm eff} = - \frac{\alpha}{4\pi^2}
\langle\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\rangle_{ex}
B_{\mu\nu}
- \frac{\alpha}{4\pi^2}
\langle\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\rangle_{an}
C_{\mu\nu}
\,,\label{eq:inter}\end{eqnarray}
where the exchange part is defined
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{Q^2}
+ \left( \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{Q^2}
- \frac{\eta_{\mu}\eta_{\nu}}{{q^+}^2} \right)
\frac{\xi^2-\xi\vartheta(\xi)}{1-\xi^2}
\nonumber\\
\vartheta(\xi) &=& \Theta_{e \bar{e}} - \Theta_{\bar{e} e}
\quad,\quad
\xi = \frac{\delta Q^2}{Q^2}
\,,\label{eq:eq1}\end{eqnarray}
and the annihilation part
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{M^2}
+ \left( \frac{g_{\mu\nu}}{M^2}
- \frac{\eta_{\mu}\eta_{\nu}}{{p^+}^2} \right)
\frac{\beta^2-\beta\chi(\beta)}{1-\beta^2}
\nonumber\\
\chi(\beta) &=& \Theta_{a b} - \Theta_{b a}
\quad,\quad
\beta = \frac{\delta M^2}{M^2}
\,.\label{eq:eq2}\end{eqnarray}
The terms in the effective interaction proportional to
$\vartheta(\xi)$, $\chi(\beta)$ depend explicitly on the choice of
cut-off function and arise from $l$-ordering of the generator
in the operator of unitary transform~\cite{previous}.
Explicit form of the effective interaction
with different cut-off functions is given in Appendix A.
Define energy denominators in equation~(\ref{eq:eq2}).
Due to the three-momentum conservation on the light-front,
$p_1+p_2=p'_1+p'_2$ for longitudinal and transversal components,
one has $D_e-D_{\bar e}=D_a-D_b$, where the energy denominators $D_k$
in both channels are given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:40a}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:40b}).
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta Q^2 = \left( - \frac{q^+}{p^+} \right)\delta M^2
\,.\label{eq:delta}\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta M^2$ -- the total energy difference between initial
and final states shows the 'off-shellness` of process.
Using the parametrization Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq3})
one has for the energy denominators
\begin{eqnarray}
Q^2 &=& {\vec q}^{\, 2} -p_z p'_z\frac{(M_a-M_b)^2}{M_aM_b}
\nonumber\\
\delta Q^2 &=& - \left( \frac{p'_z}{M_a}
- \frac{p_z} {M_b} \right)\delta M^2
\nonumber\\
M_a^2 &=& 4({\vec p}^{\: \prime 2}+m^2)
\nonumber\\
M_b^2 &=& 4({\vec p}^{\: 2}+m^2)
\,,\label{eq:note}\end{eqnarray}
where $q=p'-p=(q_z,q_{\perp})$ is
the three-momentum transfer of the photon,
and the relations between mean-squared and difference momenta
and corresponding energy differences are given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r15})
and Eq.~(\ref{eq:r16}) for exchange and annihilation channels, respectively.
The second term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq2}) is obviously not rotational invariant.
For the real processes, $\delta M^2=0$, the second term
vanishes for both channels,
and the effective interaction is independent on the cutoff function
and coincide with the result of Tamm-Dancoff approximation
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm eff} &=& -\frac{\alpha}{4\pi^2}
\frac{\langle\gamma^\mu \gamma_\mu\rangle}{{\vec q}^{\,2}}
\,,\label{eq:td}\end{eqnarray}
and similarly in annihilation channel.
The same holds to the leading order of nonrelativistic expansion
${\vec p}^{\, 2}/m^2 \ll 1$ ~\cite{previous}.
Estimate current-current term in exchange channel, Eq.~(\ref{eq:r94}),
which defines nominator of the interaction Eq.~(\ref{eq:td}).
We work in the Lepage-Brodsky convention for the spinors~\cite{LeBr}
\begin{eqnarray}
u(p,\lambda) &=& \frac{2}{p^+}
( p^+ +\beta m + \vec{\alpha}_{\perp}\vec{p}_{\perp} )
\Lambda_{+} \chi_{\lambda}
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{N}}
( E +\beta m + \vec{\alpha}\vec{p} )
\Lambda_{+} \chi_{\lambda}
\,,\label{eq:spinor}\end{eqnarray}
and similarly for $v(p,\lambda)$ with the change $m\rightarrow -m$
and $\chi_{\lambda}\rightarrow \chi_{-\lambda}$ in the above formula.
The second expression for spinor holds quite in general for the solution
of Dirac equation, where $p^0=E=\sqrt{{\vec p}^{\, 2}+m^2}$
and the normalization factor $N=E+p_z$. Here $\beta=\gamma^0$,
$\vec{\alpha}=\gamma^0\vec{\gamma}$, $\Lambda_{+}=1/2(1+\alpha^3)$
is the projection operator ~\cite{bpp97}, and the spinor
\begin{displaymath}
\chi_{\lambda} = {\xi_{\lambda} \choose 0}
\,,\label{eq:spinor1}\end{displaymath}
is defined through the usual two-component spinors
\begin{displaymath}
\xi_{\uparrow} ={1 \choose 0}
\quad; \quad
\xi_{\downarrow}{0 \choose 1}
\,,\label{eq:spinor2}\end{displaymath}
Using the explicit representation for $\gamma$ matrices
and projection operators $\Lambda_{+}, \Lambda_{-}$
and relations between them ~\cite{bpp97},
one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{u}(p,\lambda)\gamma^0 u(p^\prime,\lambda^\prime) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{NN^\prime}}\xi_{\lambda}^+
( (E+p_z)(E^\prime+p_z^\prime) +(\vec p {\vec p}^{\: \prime})
+i[\vec p \times {\vec p}^{\: \prime}]\vec \sigma
\nonumber\\
&+& i[\vec p \times \vec \sigma]_z(p_z^\prime+m)
-i[{\vec p}^{\: \prime}\times \vec \sigma]_z(p_z+m)
+m^2-p_zp_z^\prime
) \xi_{\lambda^\prime}
\nonumber\\
\bar{u}(p,\lambda)\gamma^i u(p^\prime,\lambda^\prime) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{NN^\prime}}\xi_{\lambda}^+
( (E+p_z) (p^{\prime\, i}
+i[{\vec p}^{\: \prime} \times \vec \sigma]^{i})
+ (E^\prime+p^\prime_z)(p^{i} -i[\vec p \times \vec \sigma]^{i})
\nonumber\\
&+& \delta^{iz} ( EE^\prime-m^2-(\vec p {\vec p}^{\: \prime})
-i[\vec p \times {\vec p}^{\: \prime}]\vec{\sigma}
\nonumber\\
&+& i[\vec p \times \vec \sigma]^{i}(E^\prime -m)
-i[{\vec p}^{\: \prime}\times \vec \sigma]^{i}(E -m) )
\nonumber\\
&+& i\varepsilon^{ij}\sigma^{j}
( (E+p_z)(m+p_z^\prime)-(E^\prime+p_z^\prime)(m+p_z) )
) \xi_{\lambda^\prime}
\,,\label{eq:a}\end{eqnarray}
where $i=1,2,3$; $p=(p_z,\vec{\kappa}_{\perp})$ is the three momentum and
$\varepsilon^{ij}=\varepsilon^{ijz}$, $\varepsilon^{12}=-\varepsilon^{21}=1$.
Introducing three-momentum transfer and its mean
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec q &=& {\vec p}^{\: \prime}-\vec p
\nonumber\\
\vec k &=& \frac{1}{2}({\vec p}^{\: \prime}+\vec p)
\,,\label{}\end{eqnarray}
where $4(\vec q\vec k)=\delta M^2=2(E^2-E^{\prime\, 2})$
with $\delta M^2$ defined above,
Eq.~(\ref{eq:a}) is written
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{u}(p,\lambda)\gamma^0 u(p^\prime,\lambda^\prime) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{NN^\prime}}\xi_{\lambda}^+
( (E+k_z)(E^\prime +k_z) +\vec k^2-{\vec q}^{\, 2}/4
-i[\vec q \times \vec k]\vec \sigma
\nonumber\\
&-& i[\vec q \times \vec \sigma]_z
(k_z+m)
+q_z((E-E^\prime)/2
+i[\vec k \times \vec \sigma]_z)
+m^2-k_z^2
) \xi_{\lambda^\prime}
\nonumber\\
\bar{u}(p,\lambda)\gamma^i u(p^\prime,\lambda^\prime) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{NN^\prime}}\xi_{\lambda}^+
( ((E+E^\prime)/2+k_z)
(2k^{i} +i[\vec q \times\vec \sigma]^{i})
\nonumber\\
&+& ((E-E^\prime) -q_z)
(q^{i}/2 +i[\vec k \times\vec \sigma]^{i})
\nonumber\\
&+& \delta^{iz} ( EE^\prime-m^2-(\vec{k}^2-{\vec q}^{\, 2}/4)
+i[\vec q \times\vec k]\vec{\sigma}
\nonumber\\
&-& i[\vec q\times \vec \sigma]^{i}
((E+E^\prime)/2-m)
- i[\vec k \times\vec \sigma]^{i}
(E-E^\prime) )
\nonumber\\
&+& i\varepsilon^{ij}\sigma^{j}
((k_z+m)(E-E^\prime)+q_z((E+E^\prime)/2-m))
) \xi_{\lambda^\prime}
\,,\label{eq:b}\end{eqnarray}
where no approximations are done so far.
Excluding the overall normalization factor
the first lines in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b}) for scalar and vector current terms
contain rotationally invariant parts
(except terms proportional to $k_z$),
which coincide with the corresponding expressions
when making use of Bjorken-Drell convention for spinors ~\cite{MePa}.
\footnote{
Spinors as used by Bjorken-Drell are
\begin{eqnarray}
u(p,\lambda) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}
( E +\beta m + \vec{\alpha}\vec{p} )
\chi_{\lambda}
\,,\label{eq:fn1}\end{eqnarray}
where $N=E+m$ and $\chi_{\lambda}$ is defined in the main text.
The correspoding expressions for current terms are
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{u}(p,\lambda)\gamma^0 u(p^\prime,\lambda^\prime) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{NN^\prime}}\xi_{\lambda}^+
( (E+m)(E^\prime+m) +\vec{k}^2-\vec{q}^{\, 2}/4
-i[\vec q \times \vec k]\vec \sigma
) \xi_{\lambda^\prime}
\nonumber\\
\bar{u}(p,\lambda)\gamma^i u(p^\prime,\lambda^\prime) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{NN^\prime}}\xi_{\lambda}^+
( ((E+E^\prime)/2+m)
(2k^{i} +i[\vec q \times \vec \sigma]^{i})
\nonumber\\
&+& (E-E^\prime)
(q^{i}/2 +i[\vec k \times \vec \sigma]^{i})
) \xi_{\lambda^\prime}
\,,\label{eq:fn2}\end{eqnarray}
For the energy conserving process this expression was obtained
in ~\cite{MePa}.
}
Merkel et.al.~\cite{MePa} showed, that as far as the energy is conserved,
this part gives rise to familiar spin dependent forces.
The rest terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b}) are obviously not rotationally invariant,
particularly when the spacial rotations are performed
perpendicular to the $z$-axis. Expanding expression Eq.~(\ref{eq:b})
to the second order in $|\vec p|/m \ll 1$ and performing
the unitary transformation in spin space, Brisudova et.al.~\cite{BrPe2}
obtained Breit-Fermi spin-spin and tensor interactions.
It seems to be impossible to reproduce full set of Breit-Fermi terms
from the second order effective interaction in the light-front gauge.
Also it is complicated to cover rotational symmetry
on the level of light-front effective Hamiltonians
without additional approximations are done.
We use directly the effective electron-positron
interaction Eq.~(\ref{eq:inter})
for numerical calculations of positronium spectrum.
We aim to get fine structure and to investigate rotational symmetry
on the level of spectrum. The impact of different cutoff functions
is also considered.
The results of these calculations are presented in the next section.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c||c||c||c||c||c||c}
$n$ & Term & $B_{ETPT}$ & $B_E$ & $B_G^{\eta}$& $B_G$ & $B_S$ \cr \hline \hline
1 & $1^1S_0$ & 1.118125 & 1.049550 & 1.101027 & 1.026170 & 0.920921 \\
2 & $1^3S_1$ & 0.998125 & 1.001010 & 1.049700 & 0.981969 & 0.885347 \\
3 & $2^1S_0$ & 0.268633 & 0.260237 & 0.266490 & 0.260642 & 0.242607 \\
4 & $2^3S_1$ & 0.253633 & 0.253804 & 0.259506 & 0.254765 & 0.234312 \\
5 & $2^1P_1$ & 0.253633 & 0.257969 & 0.263056 & 0.257664 & 0.237611 \\
6 & $2^3P_0$ & 0.261133 & 0.267070 & 0.273826 & 0.266563 & 0.243075 \\
7 & $2^3P_1$ & 0.255508 & 0.259667 & 0.265412 & 0.260127 & 0.238135 \\
8 & $2^3P_2$ & 0.251008 & 0.255258 & 0.260345 & 0.255498 & 0.236383
\end{tabular}
\caption{Binding coefficients, $B_n=4 (2-M_n)/\alpha^2$
($\alpha=0.3$), for the lowest modes of the positronium spectrum
at $J_z=0$ for the equal time perturbation theory up to order
$\alpha^4$ ($B_{ETPT}$) compared to our
calculations with exponential ($B_E$), Gaussian ($B_G$) and sharp
($B_S$) cutoffs. $B_G$ is obtained using only $g_{\mu\nu}$ part
of interaction; for $B_G^{\eta}$ $'\eta_\mu\eta_\nu`$ term is included.
Exchange channel is considered.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c||c||c||c||c||c}
$n$ & Term & $B_E$ & $B_G^{\eta}$& $B_G$ & $B_S$ \cr \hline \hline
1 & $1^1S_0$ & 1.049550 & 1.101270 & 1.026170 & 0.920921 \\
2 & $1^3S_1$ & 0.936800 & 0.978018 & 0.921847 & 0.834004 \\
3 & $2^1S_0$ & 0.260237 & 0.266490 & 0.260642 & 0.242624 \\
4 & $2^3S_1$ & 0.255292 & 0.260383 & 0.255615 & 0.234338 \\
5 & $2^1P_1$ & 0.257969 & 0.263056 & 0.257664 & 0.236383 \\
6 & $2^3P_0$ & 0.267090 & 0.273847 & 0.266626 & 0.243075 \\
7 & $2^3P_1$ & 0.259667 & 0.265412 & 0.260127 & 0.237611 \\
8 & $2^3P_2$ & 0.245615 & 0.250821 & 0.247091 & 0.230901
\end{tabular}
\caption{Binding coefficients, $B_n=4 (2-M_n)/\alpha^2$
($\alpha=0.3$), for the lowest modes of the positronium spectrum
at $J_z=0$ for our calculations with exponential ($B_E$),
Gaussian ($B_G$) and sharp ($B_S$) cutoffs.
$B_G^{\eta}$ includes $'\eta_\mu\eta_\nu`$ term
in exchange channel; $B_G$ does not.
Exchange and annihilation channels are considered.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|| c|| c|| c|| c}
$n$ &Term & $\delta B_E$ & $\delta B_G$ & $\delta B_S$ \\ \hline \hline\\[-8pt]
2 & $1^3S_1$ & 6.30 $10^{-4}$ & 1.76 $10^{-3}$ & 1.18 $10^{-3}$ \\
4 & $2^3S_1$ & 8.40 $10^{-5}$ & 1.77 $10^{-4}$ & 9.0 $10^{-5}$ \\
5 & $2^1P_1$ & -1.30 $10^{-5}$ & -7.47 $10^{-4}$ &-9.1 $10^{-5}$ \\
7 & $2^3P_1$ & -4.08 $10^{-4}$ & -4.08 $10^{-4}$ & 1.4 $10^{-4}$ \\
8 & $2^3P_2$ & 5 $10^{-6}$ & -7.7 $10^{-5}$ & 4.15 $10^{-4}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Difference in the corresponding energy levels between $J_z\!=\!0$
and $J_z\!=\!1$ states for exponential ($\delta B_E$),
Gaussian ($\delta B_G$) and sharp ($\delta B_S$) cutoffs.
Exchange is channel is considered.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|| c|| c|| c|| c}
$n$ & Term & $\delta B_E$ & $\delta B_G$ & $\delta B_S$ \\ \hline \hline\\[-8pt]
2 & $1^3S_1$ & -1.411 $10^{-3}$ & -7.86 $10^{-4}$ &-1.65 $10^{-3}$ \\
4 & $2^3S_1$ & -4.1 $10^{-5}$ & -4.0 $10^{-5}$ &-1.15 $10^{-4}$ \\
5 & $2^1P_1$ & -6.4 $10^{-5}$ & -6.52 $10^{-4}$ &-4.60 $10^{-4}$ \\
7 & $2^3P_1$ & -4.69 $10^{-4}$ & -4.74 $10^{-4}$ &-1.40 $10^{-4}$ \\
8 & $2^3P_2$ & -1.96 $10^{-4}$ & -1.36 $10^{-4}$ &-2.44 $10^{-4}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Difference in the corresponding energy levels between $J_z\!=\!0$
and $J_z\!=\!1$ states for exponential ($\delta B_E$),
Gaussian ($\delta B_G$) and sharp ($\delta B_S$) cutoffs.
Exchange and annihilation channels are considered.}
\end{table}
\section{Mass spectrum of positronium}
\label{sec:6.3}
We solve the integral equation~(\ref{eq:r96}),
with interaction kernel given in Eq.(\ref{eq:56}),
for positronium spectrum numerically.
Effective interaction with different choice of cutoffs
is sumarized in Appendix A.
In polar coordinates the light-front variables are
$(\vec \kappa_{\perp};x)=(\kappa_{\perp},\varphi;x)$;
therefore the matrix elements of the effective interaction Eq.(\ref{eq:56})
depend on the angles $\varphi$ and $\varphi^{\prime}$, i.e.
$\langle x,\kappa_{\perp},\varphi;\lambda_1,\lambda_2|V_{\rm eff}|
x',\kappa'_{\perp},\varphi';\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2\rangle$.
In order to introduce the spectroscopic notation for positronium
mass spectrum we integrate out the angular degree of freedom,
$\varphi$, introducing a discrete quantum number
$J_z=n$, $n\in {\bf Z}$
(actually for the annihilation channel only $|J_z|\leq 1$ is possible),
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-1.5cm}
\langle x, \kappa_{\perp}; J_z, \lambda_1, \lambda_2
|\tilde{V}_{\rm eff}|
x',\kappa'_{\perp};J'_z,\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2\rangle
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\varphi {\rm e}^{-iL_z\varphi}
\int_0^{2\pi}d\varphi'{\rm e}^{iL'_z\varphi'}
\langle x, \kappa_{\perp}, \varphi; \lambda_1, \lambda_2
|V_{\rm eff}|
x',\kappa'_{\perp},\varphi';\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&
\,\label{eq:r43}\end{eqnarray}
where $L_z=J_z-S_z$; $S_z=\frac{\lambda_1}{2}+\frac{\lambda_2}{2}$
and the states
can be classified (strictly speaking only for rotationally invariant
systems) according to their quantum numbers of total angular momentum $J$,
orbit angular momentum $L$, and total spin $S$.
Definition of angular momentum operators in light-front
dynamics is problematic because they include interactions.
The matrix elements of the effective interaction
before integrating over the angles,
$ \langle x, \kappa_{\perp}, \varphi; \lambda_1, \lambda_2
|V_{\rm eff}| x',\kappa'_{\perp},\varphi';\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2\rangle$,
and after the integration inroducing the total momentum, $J_z$,
$ \langle x, \kappa_{\perp}; J_z, \lambda_1, \lambda_2|\tilde{V}_{\rm eff}|
x',\kappa'_{\perp};J'_z,\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2\rangle$
for different cutoff functions are given in the exchange and
annihilation channels in Appendices B and C, respectively.
Now we proceed to solve for the positronium spectrum
in all sectors of $J_z$. For this purpose we formulate
the light-front integral equation Eq.~(\ref{eq:r96}) in the form
where the integral kernel is given by the effective interaction
for the total momentum $J_z$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:r43}). After the change
of variables Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq3}) we parametrize
$ \vec{p}=(\vec{\kappa}_{\perp},p_z)=
(\mu\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\mu\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\mu\cos\theta)$.
The Jacobian of this transformation Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq4}) is given
\begin{eqnarray}
&& J=\frac{1}{2}
\frac{m^2+\mu^2 \sin^2\theta}{(m^2+\mu^2)^{3/2}}
\,.\label{r47}\end{eqnarray}
\newpage
One obtaines then the integral equation
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (M_n^2-4(m^2+\mu^2))
\tilde{\psi}_n(\mu,\cos\theta;J_z, \lambda_1, \lambda_2)
\nonumber\\
&+& \sum_{J'_z,\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2}
\int_{D}d\mu'\int_{-1}^{+1}d\cos\theta'
\frac{\mu^{'2}}{2}
\frac{m^2+\mu^{'2}(1-\cos^2\theta')}{(m^2+\mu^{'2})^{3/2}}
\nonumber\\
&\times& \langle\mu, \cos\theta; J_z, \lambda_1, \lambda_2
|\tilde{V}_{\rm eff}|
\mu',\cos\theta';J'_z,\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2\rangle
\tilde{\psi}_n
(\mu',\cos\theta';J'_z,\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2)=0
\,.\label{eq:r48}\end{eqnarray}
The integration domain $D$, defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:domain}),
is given now by $\mu\in [0;\frac{\Lambda}{2}]$.
Neither $L_z$ nor $S_z$ are good quantum numbers; therefore
we set $L_z=J_z-S_z$.
The integral equation Eq.~(\ref{eq:r48}) is used to calculate
positronium mass spectrum numerically.
Note, that if one succeeds to integrate out the angular degrees of freedom
for the effective interaction Eq.~(\ref{eq:r43}) analytically,
one has $2$-dimensional integration in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r48})
instead of $3$-dimensional one in the original
integral equation~(\ref{eq:r96}) to perform numerically.
We use the numerical code ~\cite{TrPa2}, worked out by Uwe Trittmann
for the similar problem ~\cite{TrPa}.
This code includes for the numerical integration
the Gauss-Legendre algorithm (Gaussian quadratures).
To improve the numerical convergence
the technique of Coulomb counterterms is included.
The problem has been solved for all components of the total
angular momentum, $J_z$.
Positronium spectrum is mainly defined by the Coulomb singularity
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec q \longrightarrow 0
\,,\label{eq:limit1}\end{eqnarray}
which is an integrable one analytically and also, by use of technique
of Coulomb counterterms, numerically. In this region
$\delta Q^2\rightarrow 0$ and the energy denominator
$Q^2\rightarrow {\vec q}^{\, 2}$ Eq.~(\ref{eq:note}),
giving rise to the leading order Coulomb behavior for the effective
interaction Eq.~(\ref{eq:td}), independent on the cutoff function.
We use therefore standard Coulomb counterterms,
introduced for the Coulomb problem Eq.~(\ref{eq:td}) ~\cite{TrPa,TrPa2},
in the case of all cutoffs.
Basing also on the argument Eq.~(\ref{eq:limit1}), we expect
the same pattern of levels for different cutoffs,
that we prove numerically to be true.
Another important limiting case to study effective interaction
Eq.~(\ref{eq:inter}), namely its exchange part, is the collinear limit
\begin{eqnarray}
q^+ \longrightarrow 0
\,,\label{eq:limit2}\end{eqnarray}
that is special for light-front calculations.
Because of Eq.~(\ref{eq:delta}) the variable $\xi^2 \sim q^{+\, 2}$,
resulting for the $'\eta_\mu\eta_\nu'$ part of effective interaction
to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\eta_\mu\eta_\nu}{q^{+\, 2}}\xi^2(1-\vartheta^{\prime}(0))
\,,\label{eq:}\end{eqnarray}
which is finite in this limit. This is true for
the regular cutoff functions, as in the case of exponential
and gaussian cutoffs, where the derivative
$d\vartheta(0)/d\xi$ is well defined. For sharp cutoff
this condition is not fulfilled, and the effective interaction
contains the $1/q^+$ type of singularity in this case
(see Appendix A). We do not associate any physics with this singularity,
considering it as a consequence of artificial choice of cutoff,
which corresponds to singular generator of unitary transformation
Eq.~(\ref{eq:gen}). We omit the $'\eta_\mu\eta_\nu'$ term
in exchange channel for sharp cutoff in numerical calculations.
We argued that the region of Coulomb singularity,
and hence $'g_{\mu\nu}'$ part of effective interaction,
determines mainly the positronium spectrum. However,
including $'\eta_\mu\eta_\nu'$ part for gaussian cutoff
shifts all levels as a whole of about $5-7\%$,
since this part is diagonal in spin space (Appendix B),
and improves the data to be near the result obtained in covariant
equal time calculations (Table $1$). Presumably,
it is necessary to take into account $'\eta_\mu\eta_\nu'$ term
in exchange channel also for sharp cutoff
after the proper regularization of infrared longitudinal
divergences is done.
We place the results of calculations for three different cutoffs,
performed in exchange and including both exchange and annihilation
channels, in Tables $1$ and $2$, respectively.
The corresponding set of figures is presented in Fig.$1$
and Fig.$2$.
We get the ionization threshold at $M^2\sim 4m^2$,
the Bohr spectrum, and the fine structure.
Including annihilation part increases the splittings twice as large
for the lowest multiplets.
As one can see from presents figures, certain mass eigenvalues at
$J_z=0$ are degenerate with certain eigenvalues at other $J_z$
to a very high degree of numerical precision. As an example,
consider the second lowest eigenvalue for $J_z=0$.
It is degenerate with the lowest eigenvalue for $J_z=\pm 1$,
and can thus be classified as a member of the triplet with $J=1$.
Correspondingly, the lowest eigenvalue for $J_z=0$ having no companion
can be classified as the singlet state with $J=0$.
Quite in general one can interpret degenerate multiplets
as members of a state with total angular momentum
$J=2J_{z,max}+1$. One can get the quantum number
of total angular momentum $J$ from the number of degenerate states
for a fixed eigenvalue $M_n^2$. One can make
contact with the conventional classification scheme
$^{2S+1}L_{J}^{J_z}$, as indicated in Tables $1-2$.
Such pattern of spectrum is driven by rotational invariance.
To trace rotational symmetry we calculate the difference
of energy levels between $J_z=0$ and $J_z=1$ states
for the lowest multiplets. The data are given for exchange and
including annihilation channnel in Tables $3$ and $4$,
respectively.
Annihilation part makes corresponding states practically degenerate
(see Tables $4$ and Figure $2$).
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:6.4}
The numerical solution of positronium bound state problem,
with the effective electron-positron interaction obtained by the flow equations,
is presented. No approximations along numerical procedure are done.
Concerning the spin-splittings the best agreement with covariant calculations
is obtained for gaussian cutoff, the worst results are for sharp cutoff.
Rotational invariance is traced on the level of spectrum by studing
the degree of degeneracy of corresponding states with the same total momentum
but different projection $J_z$ in the multiplet. Again, better results
are obtained for exponential and gaussian cutoff functions than for sharp cutoff.
This suggests, that smooth cutoff functions are preferable to perform calculations.
Including annihilation channel improves the extend of degeneracy.
For the sharp cutoff the lowest multiplet is placed higher than the one
in case of exponential and gaussian cutoffs. The reason is in disregarding
the infrared divergent part, which is diagonal in spin space and shifts
the spectrum as a whole down. The question how to regularize this part
and include it in mass spectrum calculations should be considered.
Generally, the impact of the different choice of cutoff functions
on the spectrum is small.
In this work we solve the bound state integral equation for the one fixed
integration interval. Integration domain introduces the ultraviolet-cutoff
dependence of invariant mass squared $M^2(\Lambda)$, that reflects
renormalization group properties of the effective coupling constant.
We leave this question for the future study.
\newpage
\begin{figure}[thbp]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=\textwidth \epsfbox{noanf.eps}}
\caption{The invariant mass-squared spectrum $M_i^2$ for positronium
versus the projection of the total spin, $J_z$, excluding
annihilation with exponential, Gaussian and sharp cutoffs.
The number of integration points is $N_1=N_2=21$.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[thbp]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=\textwidth \epsfbox{annif.eps}}
\caption{The invariant mass-squared spectrum $M_i^2$ for positronium
versus the projection of the total spin, $J_z$, including
annihilation with exponential, Gaussian and sharp cutoffs.
The number of integration points is $N_1=N_2=21$.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
A {\em Gerstenhaber algebra} is a triple $({\cal A}=\oplus_{k\in{\bf Z}}
{\cal A}^{k},\wedge,[\;,\;])$ where $\wedge$ is an associative, graded
commutative algebra structure (e.g., over {\bf R}), $[\;,\;]$ is a graded
Lie algebra structure for the {\em shifted grades} $[k]:=k+1$ (the sign
$:=$ denotes a definition), and
$$[a,b\wedge c]=[a,b]\wedge c+(-1)^{kj}b\wedge[a,c], \leqno{(1.1)}$$
$\forall a\in{\cal A}^{k+1}$, $b\in {\cal A}^{j}$, $c\in{\cal A}$.
If this structure is supplemented by
an endomorphism $\delta:{\cal A}
\rightarrow{\cal A}$, of grade $-1$,
such that $\delta^{2}=0$ and
$$[a,b]=(-1)^{k}(\delta(a\wedge b)-\delta a\wedge b-(-1)^{k}a\wedge\delta
b)\hspace{3mm}(a\in{\cal A}^{k},\,b\in{\cal A}),\leqno{(1.2)}$$
one gets an {\em exact Gerstenhaber algebra} or {\em Batalin-Vilkovisky
algebra} ({\em BV-algebra}) with the {\em exact generator} $\delta$.
If we also have a differential $d:{\cal A}^{k}\rightarrow
{\cal A}^{k+1}$ ($d^{2}=0)$ such that
$$d(a\wedge b)=(da)\wedge b+(-1)^{k}a\wedge(db) \hspace{3mm}
(a\in{\cal A}^{k},\,b\in{\cal A}),\leqno{(1.3)}$$
we will say that we have a {\em differential BV-algebra}.
(Some authors include $d$ in the BV-structure \cite{YK}, \cite{Xu}.)
Finally,if
$$d[a,b]=[da,b]+(-1)^{k}[a,db]\hspace{3mm}(a\in{\cal A}^{k},b\in{\cal
A})\leqno{(1.4)}$$
the differential BV-algebra is said to be strong \cite{Xu}.
On the other hand, a Jacobi manifold
(e.g., \cite{GL}) is a smooth manifold $M^{m}$
(everything is of class
$C^{\infty}$ in this paper) with a Lie algebra structure of
local type on the space of functions $C^{\infty}(M)$ or, equivalently
\cite{GL}, with
a bivector field $\Lambda$ and a vector field $E$ such that
$$[\Lambda,\Lambda]=2E\wedge\Lambda,\;\;[\Lambda,E]=0.\leqno{(1.5)}$$
In (1.5) one has usual
Schouten-Nijenhuis brackets. If $E=0$, $(M,\Lambda)$
is a {\em Poisson manifold}.
One of the most interesting examples of a BV-algebra is that of the
Gerstenhaber algebra of the cotangent Lie algebroid of a Poisson manifold,
described by Koszul \cite{Kz} and
Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach \cite{YK}. More generally, Xu \cite{Xu}
extends a result of Koszul \cite{Kz} and proves that the
exact generators of the Gerstenhaber
algebra of a Lie algebroid $A\rightarrow M$
are provided by flat connections on $\wedge^{r}A$
($r=rank\,A$), and Huebschmann \cite{H}
proves a corresponding result for {\em Lie-Rinehart algebras}.
The main aim of this note is to show that a Jacobi manifold also has a
canonically associated, differential,
BV-algebra (which, however, is not strong)
namely, the Gerstenhaber algebra of the $1$-jet Lie algebroid defined by
Kerbrat-Benhammadi \cite{KB}. Then, we apply results of Xu \cite{Xu},
and Evens-Lu-Weinstein \cite{ELW}
to discuss duality between the homology of this
BV-algebra and the cohomology of the Lie algebroid. (The homology was also
independently introduced and studied by de Le\'on, Marrero and Padron
\cite{LMP0}.)
In the final section, we come back to a Poisson
manifold $M$ with the Poisson bivector $Q$,
and show that the infinitesimal automorphisms $E$ of $Q$
yield natural Poisson bivectors of the Lie algebroid
$TM\oplus{\bf R}$. These bivectors lead to triangular Lie bialgebroids and
BV-algebras in the usual way \cite{YK}, \cite{Xu}
Notice that BV-algebras play an important role in some recent researches
of theoretical physics (e.g., \cite{G}).
{\it Acknowledgements}.
The final version of this paper was written during the author's visit at the
Centre de Math\'ematiques, \'Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France,
and he wishes to thank his host institution for invitation
and support.
The author is grateful to Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach
for her invitation to \'Ecole Polytechnique, and several useful
discussions on the modular class of a triangular Lie algebroid, as well as
to J. C. Marrero for the comparison of the
BV-homology and that of \cite{LMP0}, and to J. Monterde for his careful
reading of the final text and his remarks.
\section{The Jacobi BV-algebra}
For any Lie algebroid
$A\rightarrow M$ with anchor $\alpha:A\rightarrow TM$
one has a Gerstenhaber algebra ${\cal A}(A)$ defined by
$${\cal A}(A):=(\oplus_{k\in{\bf
N}}\Gamma\wedge^{k}A,\wedge,[\;,\;]_{SN}),
\leqno{(2.1)}$$
where $\Gamma$ denotes spaces of global cross-sections, and
SN denotes the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket
(e.g., \cite{YK}, \cite{Xu};
on the other hand, we refer the reader to \cite{{Mk},{YK},{ELW}},
for instance, for the basics of Lie algebroids and Lie algebroid
calculus).
The BV-algebra which we want to discuss is associated
with the $1$-jet Lie algebroid of a Jacobi manifold $(M,\Lambda,E)$ defined
in \cite{KB}, which we present as follows.
We identify $M$ with $M\times\{0\}\subseteq M\times{\bf R}$, where
$M\times{\bf R}$
is endowed with the Poisson bivector \cite{GL}
$$P:=e^{-t}(\Lambda+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\wedge E)
\hspace{3mm}(t\in{\bf R}).\leqno{(2.2)}$$
Let $J^{1}M=T^{*}M\oplus{\bf R}$ be the vector bundle of $1$-jets of
real functions on $M$, and notice that $\Gamma J^{1}M$ is isomorphic as a
$C^{\infty}(M)$-module with
$$\Gamma_{0}(M):=\{e^{t}(\alpha+fdt)\,/\alpha\in\wedge^{1}M,\,f\in
C^{\infty}(M)\}\subseteq\wedge^{1}(M\times{\bf R}). \leqno{(2.3)}$$
A straightforward computation shows that $\Gamma_{0}(M)$ is closed
under the
bracket of the cotangent Lie algebroid of
$(M\times{\bf R},P)$ (e.g., \cite{V3}) namely,
$$\{e^{t}(\alpha+fdt),e^{t}(\beta+gdt)\}_{P}=
e^{t}[L_{\sharp_{\Lambda}\alpha}\beta-L_{\sharp_{\Lambda}\beta}\alpha
-d(\Lambda(\alpha,\beta)) \leqno{(2.4)}$$
$$+fL_{E}\beta-gL_{E}\alpha-\alpha(E)\beta+\beta(E)\alpha
+(\{f,g\}-\Lambda(df-\alpha,dg-\beta))dt],$$
where $<\sharp_{\Lambda}\alpha,\beta>:=\Lambda(\alpha,\beta)$
$(\alpha,\beta\in\wedge^{1}M)$, and
$$\{f,g\}=\Lambda(df,dg)+f(Eg)-g(Ef)\hspace{3mm}(f,g\in C^{\infty}(M))$$
is the bracket which defines the Jacobi structure \cite{GL}.
Therefore, (2.4) produces a Lie bracket on $\Gamma J^{1}M$. Moreover, if
$\sharp_{P}$ is defined similar to $\sharp_{\Lambda}$, we get
$$\sharp_{P}(e^{t}(\alpha+fdt))=\sharp_{\Lambda}\alpha+fE-\alpha(E)
\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\leqno{(2.5)}$$ and
$$\rho:=(pr_{TM}\circ\sharp_{P})_{t=0}:J^{1}M\rightarrow TM \leqno{(2.6)}$$
has the properties of an anchor, since so does $\sharp_{P}$.
Formulas (2.4), (2.6) precisely yield the Lie algebroid structure defined
in \cite{KB}. In what follows we refer to it as the {\em $1$-jet
Lie algebroid}. The mapping $f\mapsto e^{t}(df+fdt)$ is a Lie
algebra homomorphism from the Jacobi algebra of $M$ to $\Gamma_{0}M$.
\proclaim 2.1 Proposition. The Gerstenhaber algebra ${\cal A}(J^{1}M)$
is isomorphic to the subalgebra ${\cal A}_{0}(M):=
\oplus_{k\in {\bf N}}\wedge^{k}\Gamma_{0}(M)$ of the Gerstenhaber
algebra
${\cal A}(T^{*}(M\times{\bf R}))$.\par
\noindent{\bf Proof.} The elements of ${\cal A}^{k}_{0}(M)$
are of the form
$$\lambda=e^{kt}(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}\wedge dt)\hspace{3mm}
(\lambda_{1}\in\wedge^{k}M,\,\lambda_{2}\in\wedge^{k-1}M),
\leqno{(2.7)}$$
and we see that ${\cal A}_{0}(M)$ is closed by the wedge product and by the
bracket $\{\;,\;\}_{P}$ of general differential forms on the Poisson manifold
$(M\times{\bf R},P)$ (e.g., \cite{V3}). Accordingly,
$({\cal A}(J^{1}M),\wedge,\{\:,\:\})$
and $({\cal A}_{0}(M),\wedge,\{\:,\:\}_{P})$ are isomorphic
Gerstenhaber algebras since they are isomorphic at the grade $1$ level,
and the brackets of terms of higher degree are spanned by those of
degree $1$.
Q.e.d.
\proclaim 2.2 Remark. Since ${\cal A}_{0}(M)$ is a Gerstenhaber algebra,
the pair $({\cal A}_{0}^{0}=C^{\infty}(M),\,{\cal
A}_{0}^{1}=\Gamma_{0}(M))$ is a Lie-Rinehart algebra \cite{H}.
\par
Now, we can prove
\proclaim 2.3 Proposition. The Gerstenhaber algebra ${\cal A}_{0}(M)$ has
a canonical exact generator. \par
\noindent{\bf Proof.} It is known that ${\cal A}(T^{*}(M\times {\bf R}))$
has the exact generator of Koszul and Brylinski (e.g., \cite{V3})
$$\delta_{P}=i(P)d-di(P),\leqno{(2.8)}$$
where $P$ is the bivector (2.2). Hence, all we have to do is check that
$\delta_{P}\lambda\in{\cal A}_{0}^{k-1}(M)$ if
$\lambda$ is given by (2.7).
First, we notice that
$$i(P)(dt\wedge\mu)=e^{-t}(i(E)\mu+dt\wedge(i(\Lambda)\mu))
\hspace{3mm}(\mu\in\Lambda^{*}M).\leqno{(2.9)}$$
Then, if we also introduce the operator
$\delta_{\Lambda}:=i(\Lambda)d-di(\Lambda)$ \cite{CLM}, and compute for
$\lambda$ of (2.7), we get
$$\delta_{P}\lambda=e^{(k-1)t}[\delta_{\Lambda}\lambda_{1}+(-1)^{k}L_{E}
\lambda_{2}+ki(E)\lambda_{1} \leqno{(2.10)}$$
$$+(\delta_{\Lambda}\lambda_{2}+(-1)^{k}i(\Lambda)\lambda_{1}+
(k-1)i(E)\lambda_{2})\wedge dt].$$
Q.e.d.
Of course, $\delta_{P}$ of (2.10) translates to an exact generator $\delta$
of the Gerstenhaber algebra ${\cal A}(J^{1}M)$, and the latter becomes a
BV-algebra. This is the BV-algebra announced in Section 1, and we call
it the
{\em Jacobi BV-algebra of the Jacobi manifold}
$(M,\Lambda,E)$.
We can look at it under the two
isomorphic forms indicated by Proposition 2.1.
It is easy to see that the Jacobi BV-algebra above has the
differential $$\bar d\lambda:=e^{(k+1)t}d(e^{-kt}\lambda), \leqno{(2.11)}$$
where $\lambda$ is given by (2.7). But, $\bar d$ is not a derivation of the
Lie bracket $\{\;,\;\}$ of ${\cal A}(J^{1}M)$, and computations lead to
$$(\delta_{P}\bar d+\bar d\delta_{P})\lambda=e^{kt}[(k+1)i(E)d\lambda_{1}
\leqno{(2.12)}$$
$$+(L_{E}\lambda_{2}+(k+1)i(E)
d\lambda_{2}-(-1)^{k}\delta_{\Lambda}\lambda_{1})
\wedge dt],$$ where $\lambda$ is given by (2.7) again.
\proclaim 2.4 Remark. If we refer to the Poisson case $E=0$, we see that
both $T^{*}M$ and $J^{1}M$ have natural structures of Lie algebroids.
The Lie bracket and anchor map of $J^{1}M$ are given by
$$\{e^{t}(\alpha+fdt),e^{t}(\beta+gdt)\}=e^{t}[\{\alpha,\beta\}_{\Lambda}
+((\sharp_{\Lambda}\alpha)g-(\sharp_{\Lambda}\beta)f-\Lambda(\alpha,\beta)
)dt],\leqno{(2.13)}$$
$$\rho(e^{t}(\alpha+fdt))=\sharp_{\Lambda}\alpha, \leqno{(2.14)}$$
and the mapping $\alpha\mapsto e^{t}(\alpha+0dt)$ preserves the Lie
bracket, hence, $T^{*}M$ is a Lie subalgebra of $J^{1}M$,
and the latter is an extension of the former by the trivial line bundle
$M\times{\bf R}$. $J^{1}M$
was not yet used in Poisson geometry. \par
\section{The homology of the Jacobi BV-algebra}
We call the homology of the Jacobi BV-algebra of a Jacobi manifold
$(M,\Lambda,E)$, with boundary operator $\delta$, {\em Jacobi homology}
$H^{J}_{k}(M,\Lambda,E)$. (Another Jacobi homology was studied in \cite{CLM}.)
Here, we look at this homology from the point of view of
\cite{Xu} and \cite{ELW}, and discuss duality
between the Jacobi homology and the Lie algebroid cohomology of $J^{1}M$,
called {\em Jacobi cohomology}.
Jacobi cohomology coincides with the one
studied by de Le\'on, Marrero and Padr\'on in
\cite{LMP}. If $C\in\Gamma\wedge^{k}(J^{1}M)^{*}$ is seen as a $k$-multilinear
skew symmetric form on arguments (2.7) of degree $1$, at $t=0$, it
may be written as
$$C=\tilde C_{/t=0}:=e^{-kt}[(C_{1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\wedge
C_{2})]_{t=0}
\hspace{3mm}(C_{1}\in{\cal V}^{k}M,\,C_{2}\in{\cal V}^{k-1}M),
\leqno{(3.1)}$$
where ${\cal V}^{k}M$ denotes the space of $k$-vector fields on $M$.
Furthermore, the coboundary, say $\sigma$, is given by the usual formula
$$(\sigma C)(s_{0},...,s_{k})=\sum_{i=0}^{k}(-1)^{i}(\rho s_{i})
C(s_{0},...,\hat s_{i},...,s_{k}) \leqno{(3.2)}$$
$$+
\sum_{i<j=0}^{k}(-1)^{i+j}C(\{s_{i},s_{j}\},s_{0},...,
\hat s_{i},...,\hat s_{j},...,s_{k}),$$
where $\rho$ is given by (2.6), and $s_{i}\in\Gamma J^{1}M$. Again, if we see
the arguments as forms (2.7) with $k=1$,
(3.2) becomes
$$(\sigma C)=[\sigma_{P}\tilde C)]_{t=0}=[P,\tilde C]_{t=0},
\leqno{(3.3)}$$
where $\sigma_{P}$ is the Lichnerowicz coboundary (e.g., \cite{V3}).
Up to the sign, (3.3) is the coboundary defined in \cite{LMP} namely,
$$\sigma C=[\Lambda,C_{1}]-kE\wedge C_{1}-\Lambda\wedge C_{2}
\leqno{(3.4)}$$
$$-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\wedge([\Lambda,C_{2}]-(k-1)E\wedge C_{2}
+[E,C_{1}]).$$
We denote the Jacobi cohomology spaces by $H^{k}_{J}(M,\Lambda,E)$.
\proclaim 3.1 Remark. {\rm \cite{LMP}}. The anchor $\rho$ induces homomorphisms
$\rho^{\sharp}:H^{k}_{de\,R}(M)\rightarrow H^{k}_{J}(M,\Lambda,E)$ given
by
$$(\rho^{\sharp}\lambda)(s_{1},...,s_{k})=(-1)^{k}\lambda(\rho
s_{1},...,\rho s_{k})
\hspace{3mm}(\lambda\in\wedge^{k}M,\, s_{i}\in\Gamma J^{1}M).
\leqno{(3.5)}$$\par
Now, we need a recapitulation of several results of \cite{Xu} and
\cite{ELW}.
For a Lie algebroid $A\rightarrow M$ with anchor $a$, an $A$-{\em connection}
$\nabla$ on a vector
bundle $E\rightarrow M$ consists of
{\em derivatives} $\nabla_{s}e\in\Gamma E$ ($s\in \Gamma
A,\;e\in\Gamma E$) which are ${\bf R}$-bilinear and satisfy
the conditions
$$\nabla_{fs}e=f\nabla_{s}e,\;\;
\nabla_{s}(fe)=(a(s)f)e+f\nabla_{s}e\hspace{3mm}(f\in C^{\infty}(M)).$$
For an $A$-connection, curvature may be defined as for usual connections.
Any flat $A$-connection $\nabla$ on $\wedge^{r}A$ ($r=rank\,A$)
produces a {\em Koszul operator} $D:\Gamma\wedge^{k}A
\rightarrow\Gamma\wedge^{k-1}A$,
locally given by
$$DU=(-1)^{r-k+1}[i(d\omega)\Omega+\sum_{h=1}^{r}\alpha^{h}
\wedge(i(\omega)\nabla_{s_{h}}\Omega],$$
where $\Omega\in\Gamma\wedge^{r}A$,
$\omega\in\Gamma\wedge^{r-k}A^{*}$ is such that $i(\omega)\Omega=U$,
$s_{h}$ is a local basis of $A$, and $\alpha^{h}$ is the dual cobasis of
$A^{*}$.
Moreover, $D$ is an exact generator of the
Gerstenhaber algebra of $A$, and every exact generator is defined by a
flat $A$-connection as above. The operator $D$ is a boundary, and yields
a corresponding homology, called the {\em homology of the Lie
algebroid $A$ with respect to the flat $A$-connection} $\nabla$,
$H_{k}(A,\nabla)$. For two flat connections $\nabla,\,\bar\nabla$
such that $D-\bar D=i(\alpha)$, where $\alpha=d_{A}f$ $(f\in C^{\infty}(M)
)$, one
has $H_{k}(M,\nabla)=H_{k}(M,\bar\nabla)$. If $\exists\Omega\in\Gamma
\wedge^{r}A$ which is nowhere zero, and
$\nabla\Omega=0$, one has the duality
$H_{k}(A,\nabla)=H^{r-k}(A)$, defined by sending $Q\in\Gamma\wedge^{k}A$
to $*_{\Omega}Q:=i(Q)\Omega$.
These results may be applied to the cotangent
Lie algebroid of an orientable Poisson manifold $(N^{n},Q)$. In this case,
the flat connection
$\nabla_{\theta}\Psi=\theta\wedge(di(Q)\Psi)$ ($\theta\in T^{*}N$,
$\Psi\in\wedge^{n}N$)
precisely has the Koszul operator $\delta_{Q}$ and defines
the known Poisson homology $H_{k}(N,Q)$ (e.g., \cite{V3}). Finally (\cite{Xu},
Proposition 4.6 and Theorem 4.7), if $N$ has the volume form $\Omega$,
which defines a connection $\nabla_{0}$ by $\nabla_{0}\Omega=0$, and if
$W^{Q}$ is the {\em modular vector field}
which acts on $f\in
C^{\infty}(M)$
according to the equation $L_{X^{Q}_{f}}\Omega=(W^{Q}f)\Omega$
($X^{Q}_{f}$ is
the Hamiltonian field of $f$) \cite{W},
one has $\delta_{Q}-D_{0}=i(W^{Q})$.
Accordingly, if the modular field $W^{Q}$ is Hamiltonian (i.e., $(N,Q)$
is a
{\em unimodular Poisson manifold}),
$H_{k}(N,Q)=H^{n-k}(T^{*}N)$.
The case of a general, possibly non orientable, Poisson manifold
is studied in \cite{ELW}. The expression of $\nabla_{\theta}\Psi$
above can be seen as the local equation of a connection on
$\wedge^{n}T^{*}N$, and it still defines the Koszul operator
$\delta_{Q}$.
The general duality Theorem 4.5 of \cite{ELW} is
$$H_{k}(N,Q)=H^{n-k}(T^{*}N,\wedge^{n}T^{*}N),\leqno{(*)}$$
where the right hand side is the cohomology of the Lie algebroid $T^{*}N$
with values in the line bundle $\wedge^{n}T^{*}N$.
This means that the $k$-cocycles are spanned by cross sections
$V\otimes\Psi$, $V\in {\cal V}^{k}N$, $\Psi\in\Gamma\wedge^{n}T^{*}N$, and
the coboundary is given by
$$\partial(V\otimes\Psi)=[Q,V]\otimes\Psi+(-1)^{k}V\otimes\nabla\Psi.$$
Duality ($*$) is again defined
by the isomorphism which sends $V\otimes\Psi$
to $i(V)\Psi$.
With this recapitulation finished, we apply the results to Jacobi
manifolds $(M^{m},\Lambda,E)$. Consider the Poisson manifold $(M\times{\bf
R},P)$ which we already used before.
Then $\delta_{P}$ is the Koszul operator of
the $(T^{*}M\times{\bf R})$-connection
$$\nabla_{\theta}\Psi=\theta\wedge(di(P)\Psi)\hspace{3mm}(\theta\in T^{*}
(M\times{\bf R}),\,\Psi\in\wedge^{m+1}(M\times{\bf R})).\leqno{(3.6)}$$
In particular, if we take
$$\theta=e^{t}(\alpha+fdt),\hspace{2mm}\Psi=e^{(m+1)t}\Phi\wedge dt
\hspace{3mm}(\alpha\in T^{*}M,\,\Phi\in\wedge^{m}M)\leqno{(3.7)}$$
(and use (2.9)) we get
$$\nabla_{\theta}\Psi=e^{(m+1)t}[fdi(E)\Phi-\alpha\wedge(di(\Lambda)\Phi
+mi(E)\Phi)]\wedge dt,\leqno{(3.8)}$$
and this formula may be seen as defining a $J^{1}M$-connection on
$\wedge^{m+1}J^{1}M$. Clearly, the Koszul operator of this connection must
be $\delta$ of (2.10). Therefore, we have
\proclaim 3.2 Proposition. The Jacobi homology of $(M,\Lambda,E)$ is
equal to the homology of the Lie algebroid $J^{1}M$ with respect to the
flat connection (3.8) i.e.,
$$H^{J}_{k}(M,\Lambda,E)=H_{k}(J^{1}M,\nabla).\leqno{(3.9)}$$ \par
Now, assume that $M$ has a volume form $\Phi\in\wedge^{m}M$. Then
$\Omega:=e^{(m+1)t}\Phi\wedge dt$ is a volume form on $M\times{\bf R}$, and
one has a connection $\nabla_{0}$ defined by
$\nabla_{0}\Omega=0$ with a Koszul operator $D_{0}$
such that $$\delta_{P}-D_{0}=i(W^{P}),\leqno{(3.10)}$$
where $W^{P}$ is the corresponding modular vector field i.e.,
$$L_{X^{P}_{\varphi}}\Omega=(W^{P}\varphi)\Omega
\hspace{3mm}(\varphi\in C^{\infty}(M\times{\bf R})).\leqno{(3.11)}$$
We need the interpretation of (3.10) at $t=0$. To get it, we take
local coordinates $(x^{i})$ on $M$, and compute the local components of
$W^{P}$ by using (3.11) for $\varphi=x^{i}$ and $\varphi=t$.
Generally,
we have
$$X^{P}_{\varphi}=i(d\varphi)P=e^{-t}(\sharp_{\Lambda}d\varphi+
\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}E-(E\varphi)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}).
\leqno{(3.12)}$$
On the other hand, on $M$, let us define a vector field $V$
and a function $div_{\Phi}E$ by
$$L_{\sharp_{\Lambda}df}\Phi=(Vf)\Phi,\;L_{E}\Phi=(div_{\Phi}E)\Phi
\hspace{3mm}(f\in C^{\infty}(M). \leqno{(3.13)}$$
(The fact that $V$ is a derivation of $C^{\infty}(M)$ follows easily
from the skew symmetry of $\Lambda$.)
Then, the calculation of the local components of $W^{P}$ yield
$$W^{P}=e^{-t}[V-mE+(div_{\Phi}E)\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}].\leqno{(3.14)}$$
At $t=0$, (3.14) defines a section of $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ which we
denote by $V^{(\Lambda,E)}$, and call the {\em modular field} (not a
vector
field, of course) of the Jacobi manifold.
As in the Poisson case, if $\Phi\mapsto a\Phi$ ($a>0$),
$V^{(\Lambda,E)}\mapsto V^{(\Lambda,E)}+\sigma(\ln a)$ hence, what is
well
defined is the Jacobi cohomology class $[V^{(\Lambda,E)}]$, to be called
the
{\em modular class}.
If the modular class is zero $(M,\Lambda,E)$ is
a {\em unimodular Jacobi manifold}.
It is also possible to get the modular class $[V^{(\Lambda,E)}]$
from the general definition of the modular class of a Lie algebroid
\cite{ELW}. In the case of the algebroid $J^{1}M$, the definition of
\cite{ELW} means computing the expression
$${\cal E}:=(L^{J^{1}M}_{e^{t}(df+fdt)}[(e^{mt}\Phi)
\wedge(e^{t}dt)])\otimes\Phi$$
$$+(e^{(m+1)t}\Phi\wedge dt)\otimes(L_{\rho(e^{t}(df+fdt))}\Phi,$$
where $\rho$ is given by (2.6), and
$$L^{J^{1}M}_{e^{t}(df+fdt)}[(e^{mt}\Phi)
\wedge(e^{t}dt)]=\{e^{t}(df+fdt),(e^{mt}\Phi)
\wedge(e^{t}dt)\}_{P}.$$
If we decompose $(e^{mt}\Phi)=\wedge^{n}_{i=1}(e^{t}\varphi_{i})$,
$\varphi_{i}\in\wedge^{1}M$, the result of the required
computation turns out to be
$${\cal E}=(2(Vf)+2f(div_{\Phi}E)-Ef)(e^{(m+1)t}\Phi\wedge dt)
\otimes\Phi.$$
By comparing with (3.14), we see that the modular class in the sense of
\cite{ELW} is the Jacobi cohomology class of the cross section of
$TM\oplus {\bf R}$ defined by
$$A^{(\Lambda,E)}=2V^{(\Lambda,E)}-(2m+1)E.$$
With all this notation in place, the recalled results
of \cite{Xu}, Proposition 4.6, and \cite{ELW}, Theorem 4.5, yield
\proclaim 3.3 Proposition. If $(M,\Lambda,E)$ is a unimodular Jacobi
manifold one has duality between Jacobi homology and cohomology:
$$H^{J}_{k}(M,\Lambda,E)=H^{m-k+1}_{J}(M,\Lambda,E).\leqno{(3.15)}$$
If $(M,\Lambda,E)$ is an arbitrary Jacobi
manifold, one has the duality
$$H^{J}_{k}(M,\Lambda,E)=H^{m-k+1}_{J}(J^{1}M,
\wedge^{m+1}J^{1}M).\leqno{(3.15')}$$
\par
\noindent{\bf Proof.}
The right hand side of (3.15$'$) is {\em Jacobi cohomology
with values in} $\wedge^{m+1}J^{1}M$, similar to that in ($*$).
The homologies and cohomologies of (3.15) and (3.15$'$) are to be seen
as given by subcomplexes of $\oplus_{k}\wedge^{k}(M\times{\bf R})$,
$\oplus_{k}{\cal V}^{k}(M\times{\bf R})$
defined by (2.7) and (3.1). Then the result follows by the proofs of
the theorems of \cite{Xu}, \cite{ELW} quoted earlier, if we notice that
$$i[e^{-kt}(C_{1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\wedge C_{2})]
(e^{(m+1)t}\Phi\wedge dt)$$
$$=e^{(m-k+1)t}[(-1)^{m}i(C_{2})\Phi+(i(C_{1})\Phi)\wedge dt].$$
The notation is that of (3.1) and (3.7). Q.e.d.
To get examples, let us look at the {\em transitive Jacobi manifolds}
\cite{GL}.
a). Let $M^{2n}$ be a locally or globally conformal symplectic manifold with the
$2$-form $\Omega=e^{\sigma_{\alpha}}\Omega_{\alpha}$, where
$\Omega_{\alpha}$ are
symplectic forms on the sets $U_{\alpha}$ of an open covering of $M$,
and $\sigma_{\alpha}\in
C^{\infty}(U_{\alpha})$. Then (e.g., \cite{V2}) $\{d\sigma_{\alpha}\}$ glue
up to a global closed $1$-form $\omega$, which is exact iff
$\exists\alpha$, $U_{\alpha}=M$, and $\sharp_{\Lambda}:=\flat_{\Omega}^{-1}$,
$E:=\sharp_{\Lambda}\omega$ define a Jacobi structure on $M$ \cite{GL}. It
follows easily that $L_{E}\Omega=0$ hence, $div_{\Omega^{n}}E=0$.
Furthermore,
$$L_{\sharp_{\Lambda}df}\Omega^{n}=-n(n-1)df\wedge\omega\wedge\Omega^{n-1}
.$$
Using the {\em Lepage decomposition theorem} (\cite{LM}, pg.46) we see that
$df\wedge\omega=\xi+\varphi\Omega$, where
$$\xi\wedge\Omega^{n-1}=0,\;\;\varphi=-\frac{1}{n}i(\Lambda)(df\wedge\omega)
=Ef.$$
Hence, $V=-n(n-1)E$, and
$V^{(\Lambda,E)}=-n(2n-1)E$. Then, for $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$,
(3.4) yields $\sigma f=\sharp_{\Lambda}df-(Ef)(\partial/\partial t)$, and
$\sigma f=E$ holds iff $\omega=df$.
Thus, (3.15) holds on globally conformal symplectic manifolds. But,
(3.15) may not hold in the true locally conformal symplectic case. For
instance, it
follows from Corollary 3.15 of \cite{LMP0} that the result does not hold
on a Hopf manifold with its natural locally conformal K\"ahler structure.
(Private correspondence from J. C. Marrero.)
b). Let $M^{2n+1}$ be a contact manifold with the contact $1$-form $\theta$
such that $\Phi:=\theta\wedge(d\theta)^{n}$ is nowhere zero. Then $M$ has
the Reeb vector field $E$ where
$$i(E)\theta=1,\;\;i(E)d\theta=0,$$
and $\forall f\in C^{\infty}(M)$ there is a {\em Hamiltonian vector field}
$X^{\theta}_{f}$ such that
$$i(X^{\theta}_{f})\theta=f,\;\;i(X^{\theta}_{f})d\theta=-df+(Ef)\theta.$$
Furthermore, if $$\Lambda(df,dg):=d\theta(X^{\theta}_{f},X^{\theta}_{g})
\hspace{3mm}(f,g\in C^{\infty}(M)),$$
$(\Lambda,E)$ is a Jacobi structure \cite{GL}.
Now, let $(q^{i},p_{i},z)$ $(i=1,...,n)$ be local canonical coordinates,
such that $\theta=dz-\sum_{i}p_{i}dq^{i}$. Then
$$E=\frac{\partial}{\partial z},\;\Lambda=\sum_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial
q^{i}}\wedge\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{i}}+\frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\wedge(\sum_{i}p_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p{_i}}).$$
This leads to $div_{\Phi}E=0$, $V^{(\Lambda,E)}=nE$, and it follows that
there is no $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$ satisfying $\sigma f=(nE\oplus 0)$.
We close this section by the remark that the identification of a manifold
$M$ with $M\times\{0\}\subseteq M\times {\bf R}$ leads to other interesting
structures too. For instance, if we define the spaces
$$\wedge_{0}^{k}M:=\{e^{t}(\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}\wedge dt)
\,/\,\xi_{1}\in\wedge^{k}M,\xi_{2}\in\wedge^{k-1}M\},$$
the triple $(\oplus_{k}
\wedge_{0}^{k}M,d,i(X+f(\partial/\partial t))$ is a {\em
Gelfand-Dorfman complex}
\cite{Dor}, and a Jacobi structure on $M$ is equivalent with
a {\em Hamiltonian structure} \cite{Dor} on this complex.
On the other hand, if we have a Jacobi manifold $(M,\Lambda,E)$, and put
$${\cal V}_{0}^{k}M:=\{e^{-(k-1)t}(Q_{1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\wedge Q_{2})\,/\,Q_{1}\in{\cal V}^{k}M,\,Q_{2}\in{\cal V}^{k-1}M\},$$
then $(\oplus_{k}{\cal V}_{0}^{k}M,[\:,\:],\sigma_{P})$ ($P$ is defined by
(2.2)) is a differential graded Lie algebra, the cohomology of which is
exactly the $1$-{\em differentiable Chevalley-Eilenberg cohomology}
$H^{k}_{1-dif}(M,\Lambda,E)$ of Lichnerowicz \cite{Lz}. In particular,
$H^{1}_{1-dif}(M,\Lambda,E)$ is the quotient of the space of conformal
Jacobi infinitesimal automorphisms by the space of the Jacobi Hamiltonian
vector fields \cite{Lz}.
\section{Lie bialgebroid structures on TM$\oplus${\bf R}}
In the Poisson case, $T^{*}M$ is a Lie bialgebroid
\cite{YK}, \cite{MX} with dual $TM$. This is
not true for $J^{1}M$ on Jacobi manifolds in spite of the fact
that $(J^{1}M)^{*}=TM\oplus{\bf R}$ has a natural Lie algebroid structure,
which extends the one of $TM$. Namely, if we
see ${\cal X}\in\Gamma(TM\oplus{\bf R})$ as a vector field of $M\times {\bf
R}$ given by
$${\cal X}=(X+f\frac{\partial}{\partial t})_{t=0}\hspace{3mm}
(X\in\Gamma TM,\,f\in C^{\infty}(M)),\leqno{(4.1)}$$
we have the Lie bracket
$$[{\cal X},{\cal Y}]_{0}:=
[X+f\frac{\partial}{\partial t},Y+g\frac{\partial}{\partial t}]=
[X,Y]+(Xg-Yf)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \leqno{(4.2)}$$
and the anchor map $a({\cal X}):=X$.
If we would be in the case of a Lie bialgebroid, the bracket
$\{f,g\}_{s}$
$:=<df,d_{*}g>$ $(f,g\in C^{\infty}(M))$,
where $d,\,d_{*}$ are the differentials of the Lie
algebroids $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ and $J^{1}M$, respectively, would be Poisson
\cite{YK}, \cite{MX}. This is not true since one gets
$\{f,g\}_{s}=\Lambda(df,dg)$.
\proclaim 4.1 Remark. The differential $\bar d$ defined by (2.11) is the
same as the differential $d$ of the Lie algebroid
$TM\oplus{\bf R}$ with the bracket (4.2).\par
In Poisson geometry, the cotangent Lie bialgebroid
structure is produced by a Poisson
bivector $\Pi$ of $TM$ i.e., $[\Pi,\Pi]=0$. It is natural to ask what is
the structure produced by a Poisson bivector $\Pi$ of $TM\oplus{\bf R}$. We
generalize this question a bit namely,
we fix a closed $2$-form $\Omega$ on $M$, and take the Lie bracket
$$[{\cal X},{\cal Y}]_{\Omega}:=[{\cal X},{\cal Y}]_{0}+\Omega(X,Y)
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}. \leqno{(4.2')}$$
The notation, and the anchor map $a$ are the same as for (4.2). It is known
that (4.2$'$) defines all the transitive Lie algebroid structures over $M$
such that the kernel of the anchor is a trivial line bundle, up to an
isomorphism \cite{Mk}. A Poisson
bivector $\Pi$ on $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ with the bracket (4.2$'$) will be called
an $\Omega$-{\em Poisson structure} on $M$.
\proclaim 4.2 Proposition. An $\Omega$-Poisson structure $\Pi$ on $M$ is
equivalent with a pair $(Q,E)$, where $Q$ is a Poisson bivector on $M$
(i.e., $[Q,Q]=0$), and $E$ is a vector field such that
$$L_{E}Q=\sharp_{Q}\Omega. \leqno{(4.3)}$$
\par \noindent{\bf Proof.} Using the identification (4.1) of the
cross sections of $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ with vector fields on $M\times{\bf R}$
for $t=0$, and
local coordinates $(x^{i})$ on $M$, we may
write
$$\Pi=Q+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\wedge E=
\frac{1}{2}Q^{ij}(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}\wedge
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\wedge(E^{k}(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{k}}),\leqno{(4.4)}$$
where $Q$ is a bivector field on $M$, $E$ is a vector field, and the
Einstein
summation convention is used.
Now, $[\Pi,\Pi]_{\Omega}=0$ can be expressed by the known formula of the
Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket of decomposable multivectors (e.g., \cite{V3},
formula (1.12)), and (4.2$'$). The result is equivalent to $[Q,Q]=0$ and
(4.3). Q.e.d.
\proclaim 4.3 Corollary. If $(M,Q)$ is a Poisson manifold, $Q$ extends to a
$\Omega$-Poisson structure for every closed $2$-form $\Omega$,
where the de Rham class $[\Omega]$ has zero
$\sharp_{Q}$-image in the Poisson cohomology of $(M,Q)$, by taking $E$ such
that (4.3) holds. \par
This is just a reformulation of Proposition 4.2.
It is well known that a Poisson bivector on a Lie algebroid $A$ induces a
bracket on $\Gamma A^{*}$ such that $(A,A^{*})$ is a
triangular Lie bialgebroid
\cite{YK}, \cite{MX}. Namely, the Poisson bivector
$\Pi$ of (4.4) yields the following bracket
$$\{\alpha\oplus f,\beta\oplus g\}_{\Omega}:=
L^{\Omega}_{\sharp_{\Pi}(\alpha\oplus f)}(\beta\oplus g)
-L^{\Omega}_{\sharp_{\Pi}(\beta\oplus g)}(\alpha\oplus f)
-d_{\Omega}(\Pi(\alpha\oplus f,\beta\oplus g)),\leqno{(4.5)}$$
where $\alpha\oplus f,\beta\oplus g\in\Gamma J^{1}M$,
and the index $\Omega$ denotes the fact that the operators involved are
those of the Lie algebroid calculus of (4.2$'$).
To make this formula explicit, notice that
$$\sharp_{\Pi}(\alpha+fdt)=\sharp_{Q}\alpha+fE-\alpha(E)
\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\leqno{(4.6)}$$
whence $$\Pi(\alpha+fdt,\beta+gdt)=
Q(\alpha,\beta)+f\beta(E)-g\alpha(E).\leqno{(4.7)}$$
Then, by evaluation on a field of the form (4.1), and with (4.2$'$), we
obtain $$L_{\sharp_{\Pi}(\alpha+fdt)}^{\Omega}(\beta+gdt)=
L_{\sharp_{\Pi}(\alpha+fdt)}(\beta+gdt)-g(\flat_{\Omega}\sharp_{Q}
\alpha)-fgi(E)\Omega,\leqno{(4.8)}$$
where $\flat_{\Omega}X:=i(X)\Omega$.
As a consequence, (4.5) becomes
$$\{\alpha\oplus f,\beta\oplus g\}_{\Omega}:=
[\{\alpha,\beta\}_{Q}+f(L_{E}\beta+\flat_{\Omega}\sharp_{Q}\beta)
\leqno{(4.9)}$$
$$-g(L_{E}\alpha+\flat_{\Omega}\sharp_{Q}\alpha)]\oplus
[(\sharp_{Q}\alpha)g-(\sharp_{Q}\beta)f+f(Eg)-g(Ef)],$$
where $(Q,E)$ are associated with $\Pi$ as in Proposition 4.2.
The anchor map of the Lie algebroid $J^{1}M$ with (4.9)
is $\rho:=pr_{TM}\circ\sharp_{\Pi}$, and it is provided by (4.6).
In particular, Proposition 4.2 tells us that a pair $(Q,E)$ which consists
of a Poisson bivector $Q$ and an infinitesimal automorphism $E$ of $Q$, to
which we will refer as an {\em enriched Poisson structure}, provides a
Poisson bivector $\Pi$ on $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ with the bracket (4.2), and a
Lie bialgebroid
$(TM\oplus{\bf R},J^{1}M=T^{*}M\oplus{\bf R})$.
An example (suggested by \cite{Lh}) can be obtained as follows. Let
$(M,\Lambda,E)$ be a Jacobi manifold. A {\em time function} is a function
$\tau\in C^{\infty}(M)$ which has no critical points and satisfies $E\tau=1$.
If
such a function exists, $(\Lambda_{0}:=\Lambda-(\sharp_{\Lambda}dt)\wedge E,
E)$ is an enriched Poisson structure. Jacobi manifolds with time may be
seen as generalized phase spaces of time-dependent Hamiltonian systems.
Namely, if $H\in C^{\infty}(M)$ is the Hamiltonian function, the
trajectories of the system are the integral lines of the vector field
$X^{0}_{H}:=\sharp_{\Lambda_{0}}df+E$.
Let us briefly indicate the important objects associated with the
Lie algebroids $TM\oplus{\bf R}$, defined by the bracket (4.2$'$),
and $J^{1}M$ with the bracket (4.9).
The cohomology of $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ is that of the cochain spaces
$$\wedge^{k}_{\Omega}M:=\{\lambda=\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}\wedge dt
\;/\;\lambda_{1}\in \wedge^{k}M,\lambda_{2}\in\wedge^{k-1}M\}
\leqno{(4.10)}$$
with the corresponding coboundary, say $d_{\Omega}$. A straightforward
evaluation of $d_{\Omega}\lambda$ on arguments
$X_{i}+f_{i}(\partial/\partial t)$, in accordance with the Lie algebroid
calculus \cite{Mk}, yields the formula
$$d_{\Omega}\lambda=d\lambda-(-1)^{k}\Omega\wedge\lambda_{2}.
\leqno{(4.11)}$$
The {\em Poisson cohomology} of $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ above i.e., the
cohomology of the Lie algebroid $J^{1}M$ with (4.9), can be seen (with
(4.1)) as having the cocycle spaces
$${\cal C}^{k}(M):=\{C=C_{1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\wedge C_{2}\;
/\;C_{1}\in{\cal V}^{k}M,C_{2}\in {\cal V}^{k-1}M\},\leqno{(4.12)}$$
and the coboundary $\partial C=[\Pi,C]_{\Omega}$, with $\Pi$ of (4.4) and
the $\Omega$-Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket. In order to write down a concrete
expression of this coboundary, we define an operation
$U\wedge_{\Omega}V\in{\cal V}^{k+h-2}$, for $U\in {\cal V}^{k}M$,
$V\in{\cal V}^{h}M$, by the formula
$$U\wedge_{\Omega}V(\alpha_{1},...,\alpha_{k+h-2})=\frac{1}
{(k-1)!(h-1)!}\sum_{\sigma\in
S_{k+h-2}}[(sign\,\sigma)\leqno{(4.13)}$$
$$\cdot\sum_{i=1}^{m}U(\epsilon^{i},
\alpha_{\sigma_{1}},...,\alpha_{\sigma_{k-1}})
V(\flat_{\Omega}e_{i},\alpha_{\sigma_{k}},...,\alpha_{\sigma_{k+h-2}})],
$$
where $S$ is the symmetric group, $e_{i}$ is a local tangent basis
of $M$, and $\epsilon^{i}$ is the corresponding dual cobasis.
If $U,V$ are vector fields, $U\wedge_{\Omega}V=\Omega(U,V)$.
By computing for decomposable multivectors $C_{1},C_{2}$, we get
$$\partial C=[Q,C_{1}]+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\wedge
([Q,C_{2}]+Q\wedge_{\Omega} C_{1}-L_{E}C_{1}),\leqno{(4.14)}$$
where the brackets are the usual Schouten-Nijenhuis brackets on $M$.
Furthermore, the exact generator of the BV-algebra of the Lie algebroid
$J^{1}M$ is $\delta_{\Omega}:=[i(\Pi),d_{\Omega}]$, and using (4.11) we get
$$\delta_{\Omega}(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}\wedge dt)=
\delta_{Q}\lambda_{1}+(-1)^{k-1}([i(Q),e(\Omega)]\lambda_{2}\leqno{(4.15)}$$
$$-di(E)\lambda_{2})
+(\delta_{Q}\lambda_{2})\wedge dt,$$
where $e(\Omega)$ is exterior product and $[\;,\;]$ is the commutant of
the operators.
Finally, let us discuss the {\em modular class} of the Lie algebroid
($J^{1}M$, (4.9)). For simplicity, we assume the manifold $M$ orientable,
with the volume form $\Phi\in\Gamma\wedge^{m}M$. In the non orientable
case, the same computations hold if $\Phi$ is replaced by a density
$\Phi\in\Gamma|\wedge^{m}M|$.
Again, we denote by $W^{Q}$ the modular vector
field defined by $L_{\sharp_{Q}df}\Phi=(W^{Q}f)\Phi$ (see Section 3).
There are two natural possibilities to define a modular class for
the algebroid $J^{1}M$. One is by computing the Lie derivative:
$$L_{\sharp_{\Pi}(\alpha+fdt)}(\Phi\wedge dt)=
[L_{\sharp_{Q}\alpha}\Phi+fL_{E}\Phi+df\wedge i(E)\Phi]
\wedge dt.\leqno{(4.16)}$$
This result is obtained if the computation is done after $\Phi$
is decomposed into a product of $m$ $1$-forms, and by using (4.6). Since
$i(E)(df\wedge\Phi)=0$, the last term in (4.16) is $(Ef)\Phi$, and if we
also use (3.13), (4.16) yields
$$L_{\sharp_{\Pi}(df+fdt)}(\Phi\wedge dt)=
(W^{Q}f+fdiv_{\Phi}E+Ef)(\Phi\wedge dt).\leqno{(4.17)}$$
Therefore, we get the {\em modular field}
$$W^{\Pi}:=W^{Q}+E+(div_{\Phi}E)\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}.\leqno{(4.18)}$$
If $\Phi$ is replaced by $h\Phi$ $(h\in C^{\infty}(M))$, it follows easily
that the $\Pi$-Poisson cohomology class $[W^{\Pi}]$ is preserved. This
will be the {\em modular class}.
The second possibility is to apply the general definition of \cite{ELW}.
Similar to what we had for Jacobi manifolds in Section 3,
this asks us to compute the flat connection $D$ on $(\wedge^{m+1}J^{1}M)
\otimes(\wedge^{m}T^{*}M)$ given by
$$D_{(df+fdt)}[(\Phi\wedge dt)\otimes\Phi]=
L^{J^{1}M}_{(df+fdt)}(\Phi\wedge dt)\otimes\Phi+
(\Phi\wedge dt)\otimes (L_{\rho(df+fdt)}\Phi).\leqno{(4.19)}$$
From Lie algebroid calculus, we know that
$$L^{J^{1}M}_{(df+fdt)}(\Phi\wedge dt)=\{df+fdt,\Phi\wedge dt\}_{\Omega},
\leqno{(4.20)}$$
where the bracket is the Schouten-Nijenhuis extension of (4.9).
If we look at a decomposition $\Phi=\varphi_{1}\wedge...\wedge
\varphi_{n}$ $(\varphi_{i}\in\wedge^{1}M)$, (4.9) yields
$$\{df+fdt,dt\}_{\Omega}=0,$$
$$\{df+fdt,\varphi_{i}\}_{\Omega}=L_{\rho(df+fdt)}\varphi_{i}
-\varphi_{i}(E)df+f\flat_{\Omega}\sharp_{Q}\beta-(\sharp_{Q}\beta(f))dt,$$
and we get
$$L^{J^{1}M}_{(df+fdt)}(\Phi\wedge dt)=[L_{(df+fdt)}\Phi-(Ef)\Phi
+ftr(\flat_{\Omega}\circ\sharp_{Q})\Phi]\wedge dt.\leqno{(4.21)}$$
But, we also have
$$L_{\rho(df+fdt)}\Phi=L_{\sharp_{Q}df+fE}\Phi=[W^{Q}f+fdiv_{\Phi}E
+Ef]\Phi.\leqno{(4.22)}$$
By inserting (4.21), (4.22) into (4.19), we get another {\em modular
field} namely,
$$A_{\Omega}:=(2W^{Q}+E)\oplus(div_{\Phi}E+tr(\flat_{\Omega}\circ\sharp_{Q}))
=(2W^{\Pi}-E)\oplus tr(\flat_{\Omega}\circ\sharp_{Q}).\leqno{(4.23)}$$
From the general results of \cite{ELW}, it is known that the $\Pi$-Poisson
cohomology class of this field is independent of the choice of $\Phi$, and
it is a {\em modular class} of $J^{1}M$.
As for the modular class of $TM\oplus{\bf R}$ with the bracket (4.2$'$),
it vanishes for reasons similar to those for the class of the tangent
groupoid $TM$ \cite{ELW}.
We finish by another interpretation of the enriched Poisson
structures.
If ${\cal F}$, be an arbitrary associative, commutative, real algebra, we
may say that $f:M\rightarrow{\cal F}$ is differentiable if for any ${\bf
R}$-linear mapping $\phi:{\cal F}\rightarrow{\bf R}$, $\phi\circ f\in
C^{\infty}(M)$. Furthermore, an ${\bf R}$-linear operator $v_{x}$ which
acts on germs of ${\cal F}$-valued differentiable functions at $x\in M$,
and satisfies the Leibniz rule will be an ${\cal F}$-{\em tangent vector}
of $M$ at $x$. Then, we have natural definitions of tangent spaces
$T_{x}(M,{\cal F})$,
differentiable ${\cal F}$-vector fields, etc. \cite{V1}.
A bracket $\{\;,\;\}$ which makes $C^{\infty}(M,{\cal F})$ into a Poisson
algebra will be called an ${\cal F}$-{\em Poisson structure} on $M$.
Now, take ${\cal F}$ to be the {\em Studi algebra of parabolic dual numbers}
${\cal S}:={\bf R}[s\,/\,s^{2}=0]$, where $s$ is the generator. An ${\cal
S}$-Poisson structure $\Pi$ in the above mentioned sense will be called a
{\em Studi-Poisson structure}. The restriction of $\Pi$ to real valued
functions is a Poisson bivector $Q$ on $M$, and the Jacobi identity shows
that the Hamiltonian vector field $X^{\Pi}_{s}$
of the constant function $s$ is an infinitesimal
automorphism $E$ of $Q$. Conversely, the pair $(Q,E)$ defines the
Studi-Poisson bracket
$$\{f_{0}+f_{1}s,g_{0}+g_{1}s\}:=\{f_{0},g_{0}\}_{Q}+f_{1}(Eg_{0})-
g_{1}(Ef_{0})$$
$$+s(\{f_{0},g_{1}\}_{Q}+\{f_{1},g_{0}\}_{Q}+f_{1}(Eg_{1})-g_{1}(Ef_{1})).$$
Notice that we cannot say that $v_{x}s=0$ for all $v_{x}\in T_{x}(M,{\cal
F})$ since $v_{x}$ was linear over ${\bf R}$ only.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Being the only example
of a non-cuprate layered perovskite superconductor \cite{1},
Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ has attracted considerable attention
despite its rather
low critical temperature , $T_c \sim$1 K \cite{1}.
Its normal state is characterized as an essentially two-dimensional Fermi liquid and the
coherent interlayer transport settles in at low temperature only \cite{2}.
The susceptibility is most likely dominated by an enhanced Pauli spin
susceptibility, $\tilde{\chi}$.
Meanwhile, the Sommerfeld coefficient, $\gamma$, in the specific heat is
enhanced by a factor 3.5 with respect to band structure calculations \cite{2,3}.
It yields a Wilson ratio, $R_W$ ($\sim \tilde{\chi}/\gamma$), of 1.7.
This value indicates that the enhancements in both susceptibility and
electronic specific heat can be ascribed to the same origin:
most likely correlations among electrons \cite{2}.
Noticing that SrRuO$_3$ is ferromagnetic (FM), it has been conjectured that Sr$_2$RuO$_4$
is close to a FM instability as well \cite{4}.
This assertion is corroborated by microscopic calculation of magnetic
properties of ruthenates \cite{5}.
Since FM fluctuations disfavor both s- and d-wave superconductivity,
it has been suggested that superconductivity in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ should
possess p-wave symmetry (triplet pairing) \cite{4,6}.
Conventional local density approximation (LDA) calculations \cite{oguchi,7}
give a correct Fermi-surface topography, probed
by de Haas-van Alphen measurements \cite{8}, as well as the magnetic
enhancement due to Stoner exchange enhancement, although the
mass renormalization cannot be explained within LDA calculations.
In the superconducting state, the $^{101}$Ru nuclear spin lattice relaxation rate, $1/T_1$
exhibits a sharp decrease without a coherence peak (Hebel-Slichter peak) just above $T_c$,
supporting the idea
that an anisotropic pairing is effectively realized in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ \cite{10}.
In addition, the spontaneous appearance of an internal magnetic field below the transition
temperature, reported by muon spin rotation measurements ($\mu SR$) \cite{11},
and the absence of $^{17}$O Knight shift modifications below $T_c$ \cite{ishida} point towards the triplet p-wave superconductivity.
However, few experiments have really probed the exact
nature of the spin fluctuations.
Only the observation of a similar temperature dependence for
$^{101}$Ru ${1/T_1T}$ and for $^{17}$O ${1/T_1T}$ in the NMR experiments
by Imai {\it et al.} \cite{12} has suggested that
spin fluctuations are predominantly FM in origin.
The determination of the antiferromagnetic order in the
closely related compound Ca$_2$RuO$_4$ \cite{caruo,nakatsuji}
has suggested that the
picture of a near-by FM instability in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ is too simple.
Furthermore, recent calculations
which take into account the particular topology of the Fermi-surface,
have predicted a sizeable magnetic response
at the incommensurate wave-vector (2$\pi$/3a,2$\pi$/3a,0) \cite{9},
i.e. far away from the zone-center.
The enhanced susceptibility arises
from pronounced nesting properties of the almost
one-dimensional d$_{xz,yz}$ bands.
Mazin and Singh discuss the possibility of a competition
between p-wave and d-wave superconductivity in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ \cite{9}.
In this letter, we report first inelastic neutron scattering (INS)
measurements performed on single crystals of Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ in the normal state.
Our data reveal dominant magnetic scattering at the incommensurate wave vectors
{\bf$q_0$}=($\pm$0.6$\pi$/a,$\pm$0.6$\pi$/a,0), i.e. very close to the
positions
predicted by the band-structure calculations.
The relevance of these findings for the mechanism of superconductivity
in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ will be discussed.
Most of the INS measurements presented here have been carried out on a single crystal of
cylindrical shape (4mm in diameter and 35mm long) grown by a floating zone method.
The sample exhibits the superconducting transition at $T_c \sim$0.62 K.
The single crystal was mounted in an aluminum can and attached to the cold
finger of a closed cycle helium refrigerator.
The INS experiments were performed on the triple axis spectrometers 2T (thermal beam) and 4F2 (cold beam)
at the Laboratoire L\'eon Brillouin, Saclay, France.
These spectrometers use neutron optics that focus the beam to the sample,
with a resulting gain of neutron flux that proved to be crucial
for these experiments.
The experimental set up incorporates PG002 monochromator and analyzer
and 14.7 meV fixed final energy.
A pyrolytic graphite filter was inserted into the scattered beam
in order to remove higher order contaminations.
Data were taken within the scattering plane spanned by (1,0,0) and (0,1,0) directions.
Some additional measurements were performed using several smaller single crystals
with higher transition temperatures, $T_c$=1.4--1.5\ K; these experiments
have revealed similar signals.
Throughout this article, the wave vector {\bf Q}=(H,K,L) is indexed in units of
the reciprocal tetragonal lattice vectors $2\pi /a=2\pi /b=1.63$ \AA$^{-1}$ and $2\pi /c=0.49$ \AA$^{-1}$ (I4/mmm space group)\cite{1}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsfxsize=6cm
$$
\epsfbox{fig1.eps}
$$
\caption{Constant-$\omega$ scans performed at $\hbar \omega$=6.2 meV around {\bf Q}=(1.3,0.3,0) along the (0,1,0) direction: T=10.4 K ($\bullet$), T=295 K ($\circ$).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig1} shows representative constant-$\omega$ scans taken in the (H,K,0)-plane:
at $\hbar \omega$=6.2 meV and around ${\bf Q_0} $ =(1.3,0.3,0) along the (0,1,0) direction.
The scan at 10.4 K shows a sharp maximum of intensity peaked at
${\bf Q_0}$=(1.3,0.3,0)
on top of a smooth background. At room temperature, this sharp peak has almost disappeared.
The horizontal bar indicates the spectrometer resolution.
At 10.4 K, several constant-$\omega$ scans, with 6.2 meV energy transfer and performed
along different directions ((1,0,0), (0,1,0), (1,1,0), (1,-1,0)) have revealed the
existence of comparable peaks at ${\bf Q}_0$ =${\bf q}_0$+${\bf G}$,
where ${\bf q}_0$=($\pm$0.3,$\pm$0.3,0) $\equiv$
($\pm$0.6$\pi$/a,$\pm$0.6$\pi$/a,0) and
${\bf G}$ is a zone-center or a Z-point (001) in the (HK0)-plane.
The fit of the data to a Gaussian profile incorporating experimental resolution function demonstrates that the peak intensity is isotropic with an
intrinsic q-width (FWHM), $\Delta q$=0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 \AA$^{-1}$.
The interpretation of the scattering at ${\bf q}_0$
as magnetic in origin
is supported by the large number of points in reciprocal
space where it has been observed. Further, the lowest phonon frequencies at ${\bf q}_0$ are above 12 meV \cite{marcus2}. In addition, in contrast
to a phonon-related scattering that increases at large $|Q|$ or
with temperature, the scattering at ${\bf q}_0$ decreases
both at large wave vector (Fig.~\ref{fig2}) and at high
temperature (Fig.~\ref{fig1}). These different points establish
the magnetic origin of the scattering observed around ${\bf q}_0$.
In contrast, in spite of several attempts, no sizable FM spin fluctuations
have been observed.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\epsfxsize=6cm
$$
\epsfbox{fig2.eps}
$$
\caption{
Magnetic intensity, measured at T=10.4 K and $\hbar \omega$=6.2 meV as a function of $|Q|$. For each point, the corresponding wave vector, (H,K,L), is also reported. The full line corresponds to the square of the $Ru^+$ magnetic form factor.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
In a paramagnetic state, the magnetic neutron cross section per
formula unit can be written in terms of the imaginary part of the
dynamical spin susceptibility, $\chi"({\bf Q}, \omega)$,
as \cite{Lovesey,xirmq};
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 \sigma}{d \Omega d \omega}=r_0^2 \frac{2 F^2({\bf Q})}{\pi (g \mu_B)^2} \frac{\chi"({\bf Q},\omega)}{1-\exp(-\hbar \omega / k_BT)}
\; \label{eq:INS}
\end{equation}
where $r_0^2$=0.292 barn, $F({\bf Q})$ is the magnetic form factor and $g \simeq$2 is the
Land\'e factor. The intensity of the scattering can be reasonably well described
by the squared magnetic form factor of the Ru$^+$-ion \cite{formfac} (note
that the magnetic form-factor of Ru$^{4+}$ is not available) after correction
for geometrical factors related to the unfavorable shape of the sample,
see Fig. 2.
According to our measurements, the q-dependence of
$\chi"$ is given by: $\chi"({\bf Q},\omega)= \chi"(q_0,\omega)
\exp[-4\ln(2)( {\bf Q - Q_0})^2/\Delta q^2]$.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\epsfxsize=7cm
$$
\epsfbox{fig3.eps}
$$
\caption{Energy dependence of the imaginary part of the dynamical magnetic susceptibility at ${\bf Q}_0$=(1.3,0.3,0) as obtained from energy scans ($\circ$) and constant energy scans around ${\bf Q}_0$ along the (0,1,0) direction ($\bullet$) (see text).}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The Fermi surface in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ is formed by three sheets \cite{9}:
one, related to the $4d_{xy}$-orbitals is quasi-2D, whereas, the two others,
related to $4d_{xz,yz}$ orbitals are quasi-1D.
The 1D-sheets can be schematically described by parallel planes separated
by $\bar q$=$\pm 2\pi /3a$, running both in the x and in the y directions.
These peculiarities give rise to dynamical nesting effects
at the wave vectors {\bf $k$}=($\bar q,k_y$), {\bf $k$}=($k_x,\bar q$) and in particular
at ${\bf \bar q}$=($\bar q,\bar q$).
The nesting effects become dominant when calculating the bare spin
susceptibility of a non interacting metal \cite{9}, given by the Lindhard-function \cite{Lovesey}:
\begin{equation}
\chi_0 (q, \omega) = - 2 \mu_B^2 \sum_{k}\frac{f_{k+q}-f_{k}}{\varepsilon_{k+q}-\varepsilon_{k}-\hbar \omega + i \epsilon}
\; \label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon \rightarrow$0, $f_k$ is the Fermi distribution function and $\varepsilon_k$
the quasiparticle dispersion relation.
Our INS are in very good agreement with the predicted four spots of
magnetic scattering situated at ${\bf \bar q}$=($\pm$2$\pi$/3a,$\pm$2$\pi$/3a) \cite{9}.
In the experiment
the incommensurate magnetic responses are actually observed slightly away, at
${\bf q}_{0 //}$=($\pm0$.6$\pi$/a,$\pm0$.6$\pi$/a), which is most
likely related to details of the band-structure \cite{9}.
Let us now consider the energy dependence and magnitude of $\chi"(q_0,\omega)$.
At T=10.4 K, constant-$\omega$ scans have been measured at
{\bf Q}=(1.3,0.3,0)
along the (0,1,0)-direction for different transferred energies between
2.4 and 12 meV. The magnetic response always displays a Gaussian profile, located
at $q_0$ with an energy independent q-width, on top of a constant background. In addition,
two energy scans have been performed at ${\bf Q}$=(1.3,0.3,0) and at {\bf Q}=(1.3,0.46,0),
the latter providing a background reference. These measurements allow us to determine the
energy dependence of the magnetic response at {\bf q$_0$} from 1.5 to 12 meV.
The analysis could not be extended to higher and lower energies due to
the contaminations by phonon\cite{marcus2} and elastic incoherent
scattering respectively.
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:INS}), the magnetic intensity has been converted to the dynamical
spin susceptibility $\chi$" after correction by the thermal population factor and the
squared magnetic form factor reported in figure \ref{fig2}.
We have then calibrated $\chi$" in absolute units
against acoustic phonons, according to a standard procedure
\cite{phonon}. $\chi "(\omega, Q_0)$, whose energy dependence is
reported in absolute units in Fig.\ref{fig3}, slightly increases
up to 7 meV and then almost saturates. This energy dependence
can be parameterized following linear response theory:
\begin{equation}
\chi "(q_0, \omega) = \chi '(q_0, 0) \frac{\Gamma \omega}{\omega ^2 + \Gamma ^2}
\; \label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is a damping energy of 9 meV and $\chi '(q_0, 0)$ = 180 $\mu_B^2.$eV$^{-1}$ corresponds to the static spin susceptibility at
{\bf q$_0$}. It is worth emphasizing that $\chi '(q_0, 0)$ is
6 times larger than that at Q=0, i.e. the uniform susceptibility:
$\tilde{\chi}=\chi '(Q=0, 0)$ = 30 $\mu_B^2.$eV$^{-1}$
($\simeq$ 10$^{-3}$ emu/mole) \cite{1,2,3}.
In La$_{1.86}$Sr$_{0.14}$O$_4$, usually referred to as a strongly
correlated system, $\chi"({\bf Q}, \omega)$ at incommensurate
wave vectors exhibits almost the same magnitude and a similar $\omega$-dependence \cite{gabe}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{-0cm}
\epsfxsize=6.3cm
$$
\epsfbox{fig4.eps}
$$
\caption[toto]{ Results from fits to a Gaussian profile of 6.2 meV constant-$\omega$ scans at
${\bf Q}_0$=(1.3,0.3,0) along the (0,1,0):
temperature dependences of (a)
$\chi"({\bf Q}_0,6.2 {\rm meV})$ and (b) the intrinsic q-width
of the magnetic signal, $\Delta q$ (FWHM). (c) Comparison between $^{17}(1/T_{1}T)$ observed by $^{17}$O NMR by Imai {\it et al} \cite{12} ($\Box$)
and the incommensurate contribution
calculated from our INS measurements ($\bullet$).
Assuming $\Lambda$=33 kOe/$\mu_B$\cite{Aq2}
the two scales in this figure are identical.
}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
In Sr$_2$RuO$_4$, electronic correlations are incorporated in RPA calculations: the spin
susceptibility $\chi (q, \omega)$ becomes enhanced through the Stoner-factor
$I(q)$\cite{7,9}:
\begin{equation}
\chi (q, \omega) = \frac{\chi_0(q, \omega)}{1 - \frac{I(q)}{2 (\mu_B)^2} \chi_0(q, \omega)}
\; \label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
The q-dependence of the Stoner factor, for an individual RuO$_2$ plane,
reflects the fact
that FM interactions are favored over antiferromagnetic interactions in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ :
in our units, $I(q)= 0.86/(1+0.8(a/\pi)^2q^2)$ eV (q in \AA$^{-1}$)\cite{7,9}. INS results point
towards a strong enhancement of the spin susceptibility by the Stoner factor
(see Eq.~(\ref{eq:2})), such that the system should be close to a magnetic instability at
${\bf q}_0$. With $\chi '(q_0, 0)$ = 180 $\mu_B^2.$eV$^{-1}$, one deduces from Eq.~(\ref{eq:2}) that $\frac{I(q_0)}{2(\mu_B)^2}\chi_0(q_0, 0) \simeq$0.99, instead of being larger than 1 for a magnetic instability. Thus, incommensurate spin fluctuations are stronger than FM
fluctuations in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$, as suggested in ref.~\cite{9}.
The temperature dependence of both $\chi "({\bf Q}_0, 6.2 {\rm meV})$ and the intrinsic q-width
are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig4}, as deduced from constant-$\omega$ scans performed at 6.2 meV
around {\bf Q}=(1.3,0.3,0) along the (0,1,0) direction at
different temperatures.
$\chi "({\bf q}_0, 6.2 {\rm meV})$ exhibits a sharp decrease upon temperature increase and
simultaneously the magnetic response broadens (the width of the signal can be reliably
determined only up to 200 K).
The T-dependence of $\chi"$ observed in INS measurements may be described
by the out-smearing of the Fermi surface due to thermal hopping of electrons
into unoccupied states (see the numerator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:3})),
yielding a lowering of the dynamical susceptibility at ${\bf q}_0$
and its broadening in q-space. The T-dependence of the magnetic response at ${\bf q}_0$
can indeed be qualitatively reproduced \cite{pfeuty} using Eqs. (\ref{eq:3})-(\ref{eq:2})
and a description of the LDA band structure by three mutually non-hybridizing tight-binding
bands \cite{7}.
INS measurements point out the existence of strong magnetic response at ${\bf q}_0$,
but do not reveal any sizeable FM fluctuations.
In contrast, the uniform spin susceptibility
\cite{1,2,3} and the Knight shift measurements \cite{12,13} provide
evidence of strong FM correlation in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
However, the delicate balance between
FM and incommensurate spin fluctuations should
become visible in the spin-lattice
relaxation rate $T_1$ measured by both $^{17}$O and $^{101}$Ru
NMR experiments\cite{12,13}.
These NMR-techniques probe the low energy spin fluctuations
($\omega \rightarrow 0$ with respect to INS measurements); furthermore,
they integrate the fluctuations in q-space.
Since the INS studies have determined the incommensurate fluctuations
on an absolute scale we may estimate their contribution
to $(1/T_1T)$, $^{INS} (1/T_1T)$.
In general $(1/T_1T)$ probes the q-summation of the
the imaginary part of the susceptibility divided by the
frequency in the limit $\omega \rightarrow 0$ (i.e. its initial slope),
${\sum_{q} \frac{\chi "(q,\omega)}{ \omega} }\vert_{\omega
\rightarrow 0}$; its temperature dependency
is shown in Fig. 4.c (left scale).
What renders the quantitative comparison between the INS and NMR-results
more difficult is the estimate of the hyperfine field whose
q-dependent Fourier transform, $A(q)$, weights the susceptibility in
NMR-studies. Considering that INS magnetic fluctuations are sharply
peaked around {\bf q$_0$}, one may approximate $A(q)$=$A(q_0)$, and
gets\cite{berthier},
\begin{equation}
^{ INS}(1/T_1T) \simeq \frac{k_B\gamma_n^2}{(g\mu_B)^2}
\left. | A(q_0) |^2 {\sum_{q} \frac{\chi "(q,\omega)}{ \omega} }\right\vert_{\omega \rightarrow 0}
\; \label{eq:1/T1}
\end{equation}
with $| A(q_0) |^2= \Lambda ^2 [1+1/2(\cos(2\pi 0.3)+\cos(2\pi / a0.3))]$
($\Lambda$ = 33 kOe/${\mu _B}$\cite{Aq2}) for $^{17}$O and
$A(q_0)$=-299 kOe/$\mu_B$\cite{10,12} for $^{101}$Ru.
Using these values, we directly compare $^{INS}(1/T_1T)$
with the measured $^{17}$O $(1/T_1T)$ in Fig. \ref{fig4}.c (right scale).
Clearly, the spin fluctuations at ${\bf q}_0$ significantly
contribute to $^{17}(1/T_1T)$, and can explain a large part of
the reported T-dependence\cite{12,13}. Similar calculation for the
$^{101}$Ru $(1/T_1T)$ (not shown) yields even a stronger contribution.
The remaining parts in $^{17,101}(1/T_1T)$, likely
associated with FM excitations, should exhibit a less pronounced
T-dependence similar to that of the uniform static spin
susceptibility.
Furthermore, assuming a weak q-dependence for these FM
excitations\cite{pfeuty}, the comparison of NMR and INS measurements
allows us to estimate the ferromagnetic characteristic energy
to be of the order of 50 meV.
This rather elevated value actually provides a satisfactory explanation
for the absence of FM fluctuations in our INS measurements.
To conclude, our INS measurements demonstrate the existence of incommensurate
spin fluctuations related to dynamical nesting properties
of the Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ Fermi surface.
Our data suggest that the system is close to a magnetic instability at
${\bf q}_{0//}$=($\pm 0.6 \pi /a$,$\pm 0.6 \pi /a$).
The comparison of INS and $^{17}(1/T_1T)$ measurements suggests
that the FM fluctuations are transferred to higher energy with respect to
the spin fluctuations at ${\bf q}_0$.
All these results cast some doubt on the predominant role of FM spin
fluctuations in the mechanism of superconductivity in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
We wish to acknowledge P. Pfeuty, J. Bobroff and Ph. Mendels
for helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
B\"{a}cklund transformations (BTs)
are an important aspect of the
theory of integrable
systems which have traditionally
been studied in the context of
evolution equations. However, more recently
there has been much interest in discrete
systems or integrable mappings
\cite{sympl, veselov}. Within the
modern approach to separation of
variables (reviewed by Sklyanin in \cite{sklyan})
this has led to the study of
BTs for finite-dimensional
Hamiltonian systems \cite{kuskly}.
The latter are canonical transformations
including a B\"{a}cklund parameter $\lambda$,
and apart from being interesting integrable
mappings in their own right they also
lead to separation of variables when $n$ such
mappings are applied to an
integrable system with $n$ degrees of freedom.
The sequence of B\"{a}cklund
parameters $\lambda_{j}$ together with a set
of conjugate variables $\mu_{j}$
constitute the separation variables, and
satisfy a new property called
{\it spectrality} introduced in \cite{kuskly}.
We proceed to develop these ideas
with some new examples of BTs for $n$-body
systems, namely the many-body
generalisation of the case (ii)
integrable H\'{e}non-Heiles system, the
Garnier system and the Neumann system
on the sphere (see \cite{eekt}).
It is known that the case (ii)
H\'{e}non-Heiles system is equivalent to
the stationary flow of fifth-order KdV
\cite{fordy}, while the Garnier and
Neumann systems may be obtained as
restricted flows of the KdV hierarchy \cite{zeng}.
Thus we derive BTs for these systems
by reduction of
the standard BT for KdV, which arises
from the Darboux-Crum transformation
\cite{crum} for Schr\"{o}dinger operators.
The restriction of the Darboux transformation
to the stationary flows of the modified (mKdV)
hierarchy has been discussed in \cite{poiss}.
In the following section we describe how
the reduction works in general,
before specialising these
considerations to each particular system
and presenting the associated
generating function for the BT.
We note that these systems are examples
of the reduced Gaudin magnet \cite{eekt}, so that we have
the following Lax matrix
\begin{equation}
L(u)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{\ell_{j}}{u-a_{j}}+B(u),
\qquad \ell_{j}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc} S_{j}^{3} &
S_{j}^{-} \\ S_{j}^{+} & -S_{j}^{3} \end{array}
\right) \label{eq:gaulax}
\end{equation}
where (up to scaling)
the $S_{j}$ satisfy $n$ independent
copies of the standard $sl(2)$ algebra:
\begin{equation}
\{ S_{j}^{3},S_{k}^{\pm} \}
=\pm2\delta_{jk}S_{k}^{\pm},
\qquad \{ S_{j}^{+},S_{k}^{-} \}
=4\delta_{jk}S_{k}^{3}. \label{eq:alg}
\end{equation}
For the H\'{e}non-Heiles
and Garnier systems the matrix $B(u)$ is
respectively quadratic and linear in the
spectral parameter $u$, while for the
Neumann system it is independent of
$u$ and turns out to be constant due to
the constraint that the particles lie on the
sphere (hence the Poisson algebra
(\ref{eq:alg}) must be modified by Dirac
reduction).
We have constructed the BT for the (non-reduced)
$sl(2)$ Gaudin magnet with quasi-periodic boundary
condition in \cite{gaud},
while some preliminary results on the
classical Garnier system
and two-body H\'{e}non-Heiles system
first appeared in \cite{us}.
\section{Classical integrable systems and KdV}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Restricting the BT}
\noindent
As is well known, the Darboux-Crum transformation
\cite{crum} consists of mapping the
Schr\"{o}dinger operator
$\partial_{t}^{2}+V-\lambda$ to another
operator $\partial_{t}^{2}+\tilde{V}-\lambda$
by factorizing the former and then
reversing the order of factorisation.
Given an eigenfunction $\phi$ satisfying
$$
(\partial_{t}^{2}+V-\lambda)\phi=0
$$
we may set $y=(\log[\phi])_{t}$ and then
\begin{equation}
V=-y_{t}-y^{2}+\lambda, \qquad
\tilde{V}=y_{t}-y^{2} +\lambda; \label{eq:miura}
\end{equation}
for $\lambda=0$ this is just the Miura map for
KdV. Also given another
eigenfunction $\psi$ of the Schr\"{o}dinger
operator with potential $V$
for a different spectral parameter $u$ we have
$$
(\partial_{t}^{2}+V-u)\psi=0, \qquad
(\partial_{t}^{2}+\tilde{V}-u)\tilde{\psi}=0
$$
where the transformation to
the new eigenfunction $\tilde{\psi}$
and its derivative may be given in matrix form as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c} \tilde{\psi}_{t} \\
\tilde{\psi} \end{array} \right) = k
\left(\begin{array}{cc} -y & y^{2} + u - \lambda \\
1 & -y \end{array} \right)
\left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_{t} \\
\psi \end{array} \right)
\label{eq:gauge}
\end{equation}
for any constant $k$. From (\ref{eq:miura})
follows the standard formula for
the Darboux-B\"{a}cklund
transformation of KdV,
$\tilde{V}=V+2(\log[\phi])_{tt}$.
For what follows it will also be necessary to
consider a product of eigenfunctions
for a Schr\"{o}dinger operator with potential
$V$ and eigenvalue $u$,
$$
f=\psi\psi'
$$
with Wronskian
$\psi_{t}\psi '-\psi\psi_{t}'=2m$.
It is well known
that $f$ satisfies the Ermakov-Pinney
equation \cite{pinney}
\begin{equation}
ff_{tt}-\frac{1}{2}f_{t}^{2}+2(V-u)f^{2}+2m^{2}=0.
\label{eq:pinney}
\end{equation}
If we now transform $\psi$ and $\psi'$ according
to (\ref{eq:gauge}) then we find a new
product of eigenfunctions
$\tilde{f}=\tilde{\psi} \tilde{\psi}'$
satisfying the
same Ermakov-Pinney equation but with
$V$ replaced by $\tilde{V}$, given explicitly by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}=(\lambda-u)^{-1}\frac{(Z^{2}-m^{2})}{f},
\quad Z=\frac{1}{2}f_{t}-yf,
\label{eq:trans}
\end{equation}
where we have set $k^{2}=(\lambda-u)^{-1}$ to
ensure that the transformed eigenfunctions have
the same Wronskian $2m$. It is also
straightforward to show that, in terms of
$\tilde{f}$, the quantity $Z$ can be written as
$Z=-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{f}_{t}-y\tilde{f}$
(see \cite{exact}).
We can now describe how
this transformation restricts
to the finite-dimensional Hamiltonian systems
presented below. The systems are expressed
in variables $(q_{j},p_{j})$
which appear in the Lax matrix (\ref{eq:gaulax})
via the identification \cite{ku,eekt}
$$
S_{j}^{3}=p_{j}q_{j}, \quad
S_{j}^{-}=-p_{j}^{2}+\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{2}},
\quad
S_{j}^{+}=q_{j}^{2}.
$$
For H\'{e}non-Heiles and Garnier the
non-vanishing Poisson
brackets are the standard ones
$\{p_{j},q_{k}\}=\delta_{jk}$
which provide a realization of the
algebra (\ref{eq:alg}); for the Neumann
system on the sphere the bracket must
be modified by Dirac reduction.
All of the systems
are Liouville integrable, and thus have
a complete set of Hamiltonians
in involution, but for these purposes we
concentrate on the Hamiltonian $h$ generating
the flow corresponding to $t$
above (in KdV theory this is usually
denoted $x$, the spatial variable).
For this flow the Lax equation $L_{t}=[N,L]$
is the compatibility condition for the linear
system
\begin{equation}
L(u)\Psi=v\Psi, \quad \Psi_{t}=N\Psi;
\quad
N=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & u-V(q_{j},p_{j}) \\
1 & 0 \end{array} \right). \label{eq:linsys}
\end{equation}
Observe that the second part of the linear system
is just a Schr\"{o}dinger equation for the
potential $V$; for Neumann and Garnier this is
a function of $(q_{j},p_{j})$ for
$j=1,\ldots,n$, while for H\'{e}non-Heiles
there is an extra pair of conjugate variables
$(q_{n+1},p_{n+1})$ such that $V\equiv q_{n+1}$.
The equations of motion generated by this
Hamiltonian take the form $q_{j,t}=p_{j}$
and
\begin{equation}
p_{j,t}=q_{j,tt}=(a_{j}-V(q_{k},p_{k}))q_{j}-
\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{3}} \label{eq:pini}
\end{equation}
for $j=1,\ldots,n$; for H\'{e}non-Heiles
there are also equations for
$q_{n+1}$ and $p_{n+1}=q_{n+1,t}$.
The important thing to observe is that
(\ref{eq:pini}) is equivalent to the fact that
$S_{j}^{+}=q_{j}^{2}$ satisfies the
Ermakov-Pinney equation (\ref{eq:pinney})
corresponding to a Schr\"{o}\-dinger equation with
potential $V$ and eigenvalue $a_{j}$. Thus
to obtain a B\"{a}cklund transformation for
these many-body systems we simply apply
a Darboux-Crum transformation
(\ref{eq:miura}) to the potential
$V=V(q_{j},p_{j})$ to obtain
$\tilde{V}=V(\tilde{q}_{j},\tilde{p}_{j})$,
and then we know that the solutions
of the Ermakov-Pinney equation must
transform according to (\ref{eq:trans}).
By this procedure we may
explicitly construct the BT
for the many-body systems
below (or for any restricted flow of KdV),
and it is then simple to calculate the
generating function $F(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j})$
of this canonical
transformation, such that
$$
dF=\sum_{j}
(p_{j}dq_{j}-\tilde{p}_{j}d\tilde{q}_{j}).
$$
The discrete Lax equation for the BT,
$$
ML=\tilde{L}M
$$
where
$\tilde{L}=L(\tilde{q_{j}}, \tilde{p_{j}};u)$,
is necessary to ensure the
preservation of the
spectral curve $\det(v-L(u))=0$
(so that
all the Hamiltonians in involution
are preserved).
This follows
immediately from the
properties of the Darboux-Crum
transformation, since we know that
the vector $\Psi$ in the linear system
(\ref{eq:linsys}) must transform
according to (\ref{eq:gauge}), and hence
we may take (setting $k=1$)
\begin{equation}
M=\left(
\begin{array}{cc} -y & y^{2} + u - \lambda \\
1 & -y \end{array} \right).
\label{eq:emm}
\end{equation}
Of course we must
determine $y$ as a function of
the dynamical variables.
In the Garnier and H\'{e}non-Heiles
cases it turns out that the potential
depends on coordinates only, $V=V(q_{j})$,
and so by adding the two equations in
(\ref{eq:miura}) we obtain
$$
y(q_{j}, \tilde{q_{j}})=\pm
\sqrt{\lambda-\frac{1}{2}(V+\tilde{V})};
$$
to obtain the correct continuum limit
of the discrete dynamics it is necessary to
take the negative branch of the square root
(see \cite{us, exact}). For the Neumann system
$V$ depends on both coordinates and
momenta, so the above does not yield
$y(q_{j}, \tilde{q_{j}})$.
There is another way of writing $L$
which arises more naturally via
reduction from the zero curvature
representation of the KdV
hierarchy \cite{eekt,fordy, zeng}, viz
$$
L(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cr}
\frac{1}{2}\Pi_{t}
& -\frac{1}{2}\Pi_{tt} +(u-V)\Pi\\
\Pi & -\frac{1}{2}\Pi_{t}
\end{array} \right)
$$
where
\begin{equation}
\Pi(u)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{q_{j}^{2}}{u-a_{j}}
+\Delta(u).
\label{eq:other}
\end{equation}
$\Delta$ is a polynomial in $u$ fixing the dynamical term $B$
in (\ref{eq:gaulax}); we shall present the appropriate $\Delta$
and $B$ in each case below.
Clearly the $t$ derivatives of
$\Pi$ can be rewritten using the equations
of motion to yield (\ref{eq:gaulax}).
Finally if we write the
(hyper-elliptic) spectral curve as
$$
v^{2}=R(u)
$$
then it is easy to check that the spectrality property \cite{kuskly}
is satisfied for these systems, in the sense that defining the
conjugate variable to $\lambda$ by
$$
\mu=-2\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda}
$$
we find that
$$
L(\lambda)\Omega=\mu\Omega
$$
with eigenvector $\Omega=(y,1)^{T}$,
or in other words $\mu^{2}=R(\lambda)$ so that
$(\lambda,\mu)$ is a point on the
spectral curve. Note that
(as for the examples in \cite{gaud, kuskly})
this eigenvector spans the kernel of $M$,
$$
M(\lambda)\Omega=0.
$$
We can also write $y$ explicitly
in terms of both the old and the
new variables related by the BT, thus:
\begin{equation}
y(q_{j},p_{j})=
\frac{\Pi_{t}(\lambda)+2\mu}{2\Pi(\lambda)}, \qquad
y(\tilde{q_{j}},\tilde{p_{j}}) =
-\frac{(\tilde{\Pi}_{t}(\lambda)-2\mu)}
{2 \tilde{\Pi}(\lambda)};
\label{eq:ynewold}
\end{equation}
clearly we denote $\tilde{\Pi}(\lambda)=
\Pi(\tilde{q_{j}},\tilde{p_{j}};\lambda)$.
\subsection{Generalised H\'{e}non-Heiles system}
\noindent
For the many-body generalisation of
case (ii) integrable H\'{e}non-Heiles
system, the Hamiltonian
generating the $t$ flow takes the form
$$
h=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}p_{j}^{2}
+q_{n+1}^{3}+q_{n+1}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}
q_{j}^{2}+c\right)
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}
\left(a_{j}q_{j}^{2}+
\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{2}}\right).
$$
The original case (ii) integrable
H\'{e}non-Heiles
system corresponds to $n=1$ with
$c=m_{j}=a_{j}=0$.
The link between stationary
fifth-order KdV and the type (ii)
system
was noted by Fordy in \cite{fordy}, although
this was anticipated
in work of Weiss \cite{weiss},
who used Painlev\'{e} analysis to derive a BT
and associated linear problem
(a similar result also appears in \cite{new}).
None of these authors wrote a BT
explicitly as a canonical
transformation with parameter,
although (without parameter)
this was done for a
non-autonomous version in
\cite{thesis}.
For the Lax matrix $L$ of the
generalised $(n+1)$-body H\'{e}non-Heiles
system
we have $\Delta=-16u-8q_{n+1}$
so that the extra term $B(u)$ is given by
$$
B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-4p_{n+1} & E \\
-16u-8q_{n+1} & 4p_{n+1}
\end{array}\right),
\quad
E=-16u^{2}+8q_{n+1}u
-4q_{n+1}^{2}-\sum_{j=1}^{n}
q_{j}^{2}-4c.
$$
The equations of motion for $h$ imply that the
squares of the first $n$ coordinates
$q_{j}^{2}$ satisfy the Ermakov-Pinney
equation (\ref{eq:pinney}) for $m=m_{j}$
with
$$
V=q_{n+1}
$$
and eigenvalue $a_{j}$. Thus the BT for the
system can be calculated directly by
applying the Darboux-Crum
transformation to $V=q_{n+1}$, to yield
$\tilde{V}=\tilde{q}_{n+1}$, and
applying (\ref{eq:trans}) to each $q_{j}^{2}$
for $j=1,\ldots,n$.
After some calculation the generating function for
this canonical transformation is found to be
$$
F(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}
\left(
Z_{j}+\frac{m_{j}}{2}\log\left[
\frac{Z_{j}-m_{j}}{Z_{j}+m_{j}}\right]\right)
+
\frac{16}{5}y^{5}+4(q_{n+1}+\tilde{q}_{n+1})y^{3}
$$
$$
+\left(2q_{n+1}^{2}+2q_{n+1}\tilde{q}_{n+1}
+2\tilde{q}_{n+1}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}
(q_{j}^{2}+\tilde{q}_{j}^{2})+2c\right)y,
$$
where we have found it convenient
to use the quantities $Z_{j}(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j})$ and
$y(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
Z_{j}^{2}=m_{j}^{2}+
(\lambda-a_{j})q_{j}^{2}\tilde{q}_{j}^{2},
\label{eq:zeb}
\end{equation}
and
$$
y=-\sqrt{\lambda-\frac{1}{2}(q_{n+1}+\tilde{q}_{n+1})}.
$$
In order to check the spectrality property,
we have explicitly found that
the eigenvalue of $L(\lambda)$ with
eigenvector $\Omega=(y,1)^{T}$ can be written as
$$
\mu(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)
=-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{Z_{j}}{\lambda-a_{j}}-
\frac{1}{y}\frac{\partial F}{\partial y},
$$
which precisely equals
$-2\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda}$ as
required.
\subsection{Garnier system}
\noindent
For the Garnier system the $t$ flow is
generated by the Hamiltonian
$$
h=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}p_{j}^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{j=1}^{n}q_{j}^{2})^{2}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(a_{j}q_{j}^{2}+
\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{2}}\right).
$$
This differs from the traditional Garnier system
as in \cite{us, wojc, zeng}
by the inclusion of extra inverse square terms.
The Newton equations for the $q_{j}$ are
$$
q_{j,tt}+2(\sum_{k}q_{k}^{2})q_{j}=
a_{j}q_{j}-\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{3}},
$$
so clearly for the standard restricted flows of KdV
\cite{zeng}, when $m_{j}=0$, each
$q_{j}$ is an eigenfunction
of a Schr\"{o}dinger operator
with potential
$$
V=2\sum_{j}q_{j}^{2}
$$
and eigenvalue $a_{j}$, while in general
$q_{j}^{2}$ is a product of eigenfunctions
satisfying the Ermakov-Pinney equation
\cite{pinney} for $m=m_{j}$.
The Lax matrix of the Garnier system has
$\Delta=1$, so $L$ takes the form
(\ref{eq:gaulax}) with
$$
B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & u-\sum_{j}q_{j}^{2} \\
1 & 0 \end{array}\right).
$$
Applying the Darboux-Crum
transformation we obtain a new
potential
$$
\tilde{V}=2\sum_{j}\tilde{q}_{j}^{2},
$$
and the corresponding BT induced on the
Garnier system is equivalent to gauging
$L$ by the matrix $M$ of the form
(\ref{eq:emm}) with
$$
y=-\sqrt{\lambda-\sum_{j}
(q_{j}^{2}+\tilde{q}_{j}^{2})}.
$$
Finally we can calculate the generating function
for this BT, which may be written as follows:
$$
F(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(
Z_{j}+\frac{m_{j}}{2}\log\left[
\frac{Z_{j}-m_{j}}{Z_{j}+m_{j}}\right]\right)
-\frac{1}{3}y^{3},
$$
where $y(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j})$ is as above
and $Z_{j}$ is given by the same
expression (\ref{eq:zeb}) as for
H\'{e}non-Heiles. In \cite{us} we derived
this generating function for the special
case $m_{j}=0$ when the logarithm terms
do not appear. To check spectrality
we notice that $L(\lambda)$ has eigenvalue
$$
\mu(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)
=-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{Z_{j}}{\lambda-a_{j}} +y
$$
with eigenvector $\Omega$, and so we see that
$\mu=-2\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda}$.
\subsection{Neumann system on the sphere}
\noindent
For the Neumann system the $t$ flow is
generated by
$$
h=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}p_{j}^{2}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(a_{j}q_{j}^{2}+
\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{2}}\right).
$$
Once again this has extra inverse square terms
compared with the standard Neumann system
\cite{ragn, wojc}. The Poisson bracket for
this system is modified by constraining
the particles to lie on a sphere, so that
\begin{equation}
(q,q)\equiv\sum_{j}q_{j}^{2}=const, \qquad
(q,p)\equiv\sum_{j}q_{j}p_{j}=0
\label{eq:constr}
\end{equation}
which results in the non-vanishing
Dirac brackets
\begin{equation}
\{p_{j},q_{k}\}=\delta_{jk}-
\frac{q_{j}q_{k}}{(q,q)}, \quad
\{p_{j},p_{k}\}=\frac{q_{j}p_{k}-q_{k}p_{j}}{(q,q)}.
\label{eq:dirac}
\end{equation}
With this bracket the Hamilton equations are
$q_{j,t}=p_{j}$ and (\ref{eq:pini}) with
$$
V=(q,q)^{-1} \sum_{j}\left( p_{j}^{2}+a_{j}q_{j}^{2}
-\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{q_{j}^{2}}\right).
$$
The Lax matrix for the Neumann system
arises by setting $\Delta=0$, which
in (\ref{eq:gaulax}) gives the following matrix $B$:
$$
B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & (q,q) \\
0 & 0 \end{array}\right).
$$
In fact if we start from the linear system
(\ref{eq:linsys}) and leave $V$ unspecified
then (\ref{eq:pini}) as well as the constraint
$(q,q)_{t}=0$ are consequences of the Lax
equation, and together these are sufficient to
determine the form of $V$; this is also how
the equations for the
constrained Neumann system arise in
a Lagrangian approach \cite{ragn}.
Given that the phase space is now
degenerate with two Casimirs given by
(\ref{eq:constr}),
it would appear that the standard sort
of generating function will no longer be
appropriate for describing a BT. It turns out
that we can apply the Darboux-Crum
transformation
as before, and transform the quantities $q_{j}^{2}$
according to (\ref{eq:trans}). In this way we obtain
new variables $\tilde{q}_{j}(q_{k},p_{k})$ and
$\tilde{p}_{j}(q_{k},p_{k})$, which are naturally
written with the use of the quantity $y(q_{k},p_{k})$
given by the first formula in (\ref{eq:ynewold});
on the Lax matrix this transformation arises
by gauging with $M$ as in (\ref{eq:emm}).
Similarly the transformation can be inverted to give
$q_{j}(\tilde{q}_{k},\tilde{p}_{k})$ and
$p_{j}(\tilde{q}_{k},\tilde{p}_{k})$ written in
terms of $y(\tilde{q}_{k},\tilde{p}_{k})$ given
by the right hand formula of (\ref{eq:ynewold}).
However, it would still be nice to write a
generating function for this transformation.
We have found that if we formally take
$$
F(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(
Z_{j}+\frac{m_{j}}{2}\log\left[
\frac{Z_{j}-m_{j}}{Z_{j}+m_{j}}\right]
+\frac{1}{2}y(q_{j}^{2}-\tilde{q}_{j}^{2})\right)
$$
with $Z_{j}$ given by (\ref{eq:zeb}) as usual,
and regard $y$ as a sort of Lagrange
multiplier (independent of the coordinates
and $\lambda$), then we do indeed
obtain the correct expressions
$$
p_{j}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial q_{j}}, \qquad
\tilde{p}_{j}=-\frac{\partial F}{\partial\tilde{q}_{j}},
$$
but these contain $y$ which is unspecified. If we
then require that the constraints (\ref{eq:constr})
are preserved under the BT applied from old to new
variables or vice-versa, then in either direction
the constraints are preserved if and only if $y$
satisfies a quadratic equation with solution
given respectively by the formulae
(\ref{eq:ynewold}). Alternatively if we
require spectrality then second
component of the equation
$L(\lambda)\Omega=\mu\Omega$ gives
$$
\mu(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)
=-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{Z_{j}}{\lambda-a_{j}}=
-2\frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda}
$$
as required,
while the first component gives
(after making use of the formula
(\ref{eq:zeb}) and the BT)
$$
\mu=-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{Z_{j}}{\lambda-a_{j}}
+\frac{1}{y}\sum_{j}(q_{j}^{2}-\tilde{q}_{j}^{2}).
$$
Hence spectrality requires that the second term
vanishes, and so the first constraint
(\ref{eq:constr}) is preserved; the preservation
of the second constraint is then an
algebraic consequence of the BT.
Thus we see that for this BT we can write
the new variables as functions of the
old and vice-versa, but a formula for
$y(q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j};\lambda)$ is lacking.
Also this discretization of the Neumann
system is apparently new, since it is exact
(preserving the Lax matrix for the continuous
system) unlike the Veselov or Ragnisco
discretizations discussed in \cite{ragn}.
\section{Conclusions}
\noindent
It would also be interesting to
look at BTs with parameter in the
non-autonomous case \cite{thesis}, where deformation
with respect to the B\"{a}cklund parameter
would probably have to be
introduced (corresponding to the
associated isomonodromy problem).
\section{Acknowledgements}
\noindent
ANWH thanks the Leverhulme Trust for providing
a Study Abroad Studentship in Rome,
and is grateful to J.~Harnad and Y.~Suris
for useful conversations.
VBK acknowledges the support from the EPSRC and
the support from Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
for his visit to Rome.
The authors would also like to thank the
organisers of the meeting {\it Integrable
Systems: Solutions and Transformations}
in Guardamar, Spain (June 1998) where
some of this work was carried out.
|
\section{Introduction}
\medskip
Supersymmetry provides a promising
solution to the gauge hierarchy problem afflicting the standard model
(SM). However, it is clear that supersymmetry must be
broken at low energies. The specific mechanism for transmitting
supersymmetry breaking effects is important in determining the
low-energy experimental signatures. Currently, there are two known ways
that supersymmetry breaking effects appear in the low-energy Lagrangian.
In gravity-mediated scenarios~\cite{grav},
supersymmetry is broken in a hidden sector
and transmitted gravitationally to the observable sector fields. While
this scenario is elegant and simple, it suffers from the supersymmetric
flavor problem. Alternatively, in gauge-mediated
scenarios~\cite{gaugemed}, supersymmetry
breaking is transmitted via gauge forces and this scenario provides
an appealing solution to the supersymmetric flavor problem. Both of these
alternative scenarios have distinct experimental signatures.
We consider a third scenario for
transmitting supersymmetry breaking to the observable sector.
In this scenario, rescaling anomalies in the supergravity Lagrangian
give rise to soft mass parameters for the observable sector
fields~\cite{randall,giudice}. Unlike
the gravity-mediated or gauge-mediated scenarios, these anomaly
contributions will always be present if supersymmetry is broken.
We will refer to the case in which the anomaly-induced masses
are dominant as the anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB) scenario.
In this scenario the gaugino mass is proportional to the corresponding
gauge beta function while the scalar masses (and $A$-terms) depend on the
anomalous dimensions of the corresponding scalar fields. One of the
distinctive features of the AMSB scenario is the gaugino mass spectrum, with
the Wino being the lightest supersymmetric particle. Similarly, the
squark mass spectrum is unique but unfortunately the slepton mass spectrum
is tachyonic. This can be cured by adding a positive, non-anomaly mediated
contribution~\cite{randall}. Some phenomenological consequences of this
scenario have been recently presented in ref.~\cite{feng}. A different and
very interesting approach to cure the tachyonic mass spectrum problem has been
suggested in ref.~\cite{pr}.
A distinctive feature of AMSB is that the gravitino is much heavier
than the gauginos and squarks. This is cosmologically attractive
because the gravitino problem can be ameliorated.
Moreover, gravitino decays can produce a
present Wino energy density close to the critical value. The neutral
Wino is therefore a good dark-matter candidate, in spite of its negligible
thermal relic density.
\section{The anomaly-induced mass spectrum}
The anomaly-induced soft terms~\cite{randall,giudice} are always present
in a broken supergravity theory, regardless of the specific form of
the couplings between the hidden and observable sectors. They are linked
to the existence of the superconformal anomaly. Indeed they explicitly
arise when one tries to eliminate from the relevant Lagrangian the
supersymmetry-breaking auxiliary background field by making a suitable
Weyl rescaling of the superfields in the observable sector. Their origin
has been discussed from various point of views in
refs.~\cite{randall,giudice,pr}. Here we give a heuristic
derivation of the
essential results, and make some comments on their phenomenological
relevance.
The effect of supersymmetry breaking can be described by a flat-space
chiral superfield $\Phi$, with background value
\begin{equation}
\Phi =1-m_{3/2} \theta^2.
\label{phiback}
\end{equation}
This field acts as a compensator of the super-Weyl transformation. In other
words, by choosing suitable couplings of $\Phi$ to the observable fields,
the theory is made superconformal invariant.
Let us consider a supersymmetric gauge theory with no mass parameters
at the classical level. This does not appear at first sight to be relevant
to the minimal
supersymmetric model which contains a mass term -- the Higgs mixing mass
$\mu$ -- seemingly even in the limit of exact supersymmetry. Actually,
the $\mu$ term can be viewed as an effect of
supersymmetry breaking~\cite{gmas},
and therefore we set it to zero for the moment. Mechanisms for generating
$\mu$ in AMSB scenarios have been discussed in refs.~~\cite{randall,giudice,pr}.
At the quantum level, there is always the need to introduce a mass parameter,
which is the renormalization scale $\mu$ (not to be confused with the
Higgs mixing parameter). In the presence of a compensator field $\Phi$
for super-Weyl transformations, it is natural to expect that the
renormalization scale $\mu$ is promoted to a superfield, according to
\begin{equation}
\mu \rightarrow \mu / \sqrt{\Phi^\dagger \Phi} .
\label{cont}
\end{equation}
The replacement of $\Phi$ with its background value given in Eq.~(\ref{phiback})
generates a specific set of supersymmetry-breaking terms.
The simplest way to obtain the form of the supersymmetry-breaking terms is
to employ the technique developed in ref.~\cite{gr}. The main idea is that
when certain parameters of a supersymmetric theory are ``analytically
continued" into superspace, the renormalization-group (RG) flow of the
modified theory is completely determined by the properties of the original
theory. In particular, if a parameter is continued into a
supersymmetry-breaking background field, the RG properties of the exact
supersymmetric theory determine the form of the soft terms. The
prescription given in Eq.~(\ref{cont}) is a specific example of such a
continuation. We can then make use of the general expressions of the
gaugino masses $M_\lambda$, scalar masses $m_{\tilde Q}$, and
trilinear couplings $A_{Q_i}$ in terms of derivatives of
the field wave-functions~\cite{gr},
\begin{eqnarray}
M_\lambda &=&-\frac{1}{2} \left. \frac{\partial \ln S}{\partial \ln \Phi}
\right|_0 F_\Phi \\
m_{\tilde Q}^2&=& -\left. \frac{\partial^2 \ln Z_Q}{\partial \ln \Phi
\partial \ln \Phi^\dagger}
\right|_0 F_\Phi^\dagger F_\Phi \\
A_{Q_i} &=& \left. \frac{\partial \ln Z_{Q_i}}{\partial \ln \Phi}
\right|_0 F_\Phi .
\end{eqnarray}
The symbol ``$|_0$" denotes setting to zero the Grassmann coordinates,
$\theta =\bar \theta =0$. Here $S$ and $Z_Q$ are the gauge and matter field
wave-functions, with $S$ related to the gauge coupling constant
by Re$(S)|_0=g^{-2}/4$. Using Eq.~(\ref{cont}) and $F_\Phi =-m_{3/2}$, see
Eq.~(\ref{phiback}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
M_\lambda &=&
-\frac{g^2}{2}\frac{d g^{-2}}{d \ln \mu} m_{3/2}
=
{\beta_g\over g} m_{3/2}
\label{gaugdef}
\\
m_{\tilde Q}^2&=&-{1\over 4}
\frac{d^2 \ln Z_Q}{d(\ln \mu)^2} m_{3/2}^2=
-{1\over 4}
\left({\partial\gamma\over\partial g}\beta_g +
{\partial\gamma\over\partial y}\beta_y\right)m_{3/2}^2
\label{squarkdef}\\
A_{y}&=&\frac{1}{2}
\sum_i \frac{d\ln Z_{Q_i}}{d\ln \mu} m_{3/2}=
-{\beta_y\over y} m_{3/2} .\label{adef}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the sum $\sum_i$ extends over the fields involved in the Yukawa
superpotential term with coupling constant $y$, and
we have used the renormalization group functions
$\gamma(g,y)\equiv {d \ln Z/d\ln\mu}$, $\beta_g(g,y)\equiv
{d g/d\ln\mu}$, and $\beta_y(g,y)\equiv {d y/d\ln\mu}$.
\subsection{Features of the anomaly-induced soft terms}
The soft terms in Eqs.~(\ref{gaugdef})--(\ref{adef}) are determined by
the anomalous dimensions of the fields or, in other words, by the
violation of the Weyl symmetry in the quantum theory given by the conformal
anomaly. Indeed, the supergravity prescription in Eq.~(\ref{cont}) is
sufficient to determine the complete form of the soft terms, by means
of the technique of ref.~\cite{gr}.
The form of the soft terms in Eqs.~(\ref{gaugdef})--(\ref{adef})
is particularly interesting because it is invariant under RG
transformations. This means that the analytic continuation into
superspace given by Eq.~(\ref{cont}) defines a consistent RG trajectory
for the soft terms. The phenomenological appeal of this form of the soft
terms resides precisely in this crucial property. In particular, it
entails a large degree of predictivity, since all soft terms can be
computed from known low-energy SM parameters and a single mass scale,
$m_{3/2}$. Also, it leads to robust predictions, since the RG invariance
guarantees complete insensitivity of the soft terms from ultraviolet
physics. As demonstrated with specific examples in ref.~\cite{giudice},
heavy states do not affect the low-energy parameters in
Eqs.~(\ref{gaugdef})--(\ref{adef}), since their effects in the
beta-functions and threshold corrections exactly compensate each other.
This means that the gaugino mass prediction in
Eq.~(\ref{gaugdef}) is valid irrespective of the GUT gauge group in which
the SM may or may not be embedded. However, exceptions to ultraviolet
insensitivity appear in the presence of gauge singlet superfields~\cite{pr}.
The insensitivity from ultraviolet physics not only leads to robust
predictivity, but also provides a solution to the supersymmetric flavor
problem. Indeed the unknown physics which breaks the flavor symmetry at a
high-energy scale $\Lambda_F$ and determines the Yukawa couplings does not
leave any visible trace in the anomaly-mediated
soft terms. Recall that in gauge mediation
the flavor problem is solved by making the soft terms insensitive to any
physics above the messenger scale $M$. The parameter $M$ is unknown, and
is chosen such that $M<\Lambda_F$. The soft terms vanish above the
scale $M$ and therefore their low-energy values are finite and
have a logarithmic dependence on $M$. In contrast, in anomaly mediation
the soft terms do not vanish at any scale (below the Planck mass $M_{P}$),
but their
values at low energies are not influenced by physics at any intermediate
scale.
In order to preserve the attractive properties of the anomaly-mediated
soft terms, we have to make sure that other forms of communication of
supersymmetry breaking to the observable sector do not give larger
contributions. In ordinary gravity mediation, one makes use of
tree-level supersymmetry-breaking communication which, in general, dominates
over the loop effects of anomaly mediation. If there are no gauge-singlet
superfields with scalar vacuum expectation value of order $M_{P}$,
then the theory does not contain operators of the form
\begin{equation}
\int d^2\theta {X\over M_P}
{\rm Tr}{\cal W}^\alpha{\cal W}_\alpha +
{\rm h.c.},
\end{equation}
where $X$ is the Goldstino superfield. Gaugino masses are only generated
by higher-dimensional operators and are at best
of order $m_{3/2}^{3/2}/M_P^{1/2}$.
In particular, this is in general
true in theories with dynamical supersymmetry breaking. In this case, the
anomaly-mediated effects give the dominant contributions to gaugino
masses~\cite{giudice}.
It appears at first difficult to forbid or suppress
tree-level gravity contributions to scalar masses, which are obtained by
couplings in the K\"ahler potential between
visible sector fields $Q$ and the Goldstino multiplet $X$,
\begin{equation}
\label{directcoupling}
\int d^4\theta {1\over M_P^2} X^\dagger X Q^\dagger Q.
\end{equation}
However, the suppression is possible if the
K\"ahler potential has the specific structure
\begin{equation}
K=-3 M_P^2\ln(1-{f_{\rm vis}\over 3 M_P^2} -{f_{\rm hid}\over 3 M_P^2}),
\label{kaler}
\end{equation}
where $f_{\rm vis}$ and $f_{\rm hid}$ are functions of only
visible and hidden fields, respectively.
This structure could be the result of the
underlying fundamental theory such as string theory. However,
it is not clear how such a special form of the K\"ahler
potential can be stable against radiative corrections.
A very interesting possibility,
pointed out in ref.~\cite{randall},
is that the supersymmetry-breaking and visible sectors reside on different
branes embedded into a higher-dimensional space and
separated by a sufficiently large distance. In this case, the
structure in Eq.~(\ref{kaler}) is guaranteed by the geometry and not by
a symmetry.
Thus, all the low-energy soft
parameters will arise from anomaly-induced effects.
Unfortunately, it turns out that the pure scalar mass-squared anomaly
contribution is negative for the sleptons~\cite{randall}.
In order to avoid this problem
we need to consider other positive soft contributions to the spectrum.
This can arise in a number of ways,
but any of the solutions will spoil the most attractive feature of anomaly
mediation, {\it i.e.} the RG invariance of the soft terms
and the consequent ultraviolet
insensitivity. This is, in our opinion, the most disappointing aspect
of these scenarios. Nevertheless, there are various options to cure this
problem without reintroducing the flavor problem. An example is the
inclusion of contributions from fields propagating in the bulk space
between the two branes~\cite{randall}. Another interesting
possibility is a combination of gauge- and anomaly-mediated contributions,
discussed in ref.~\cite{pr}.
The necessary cure for the slepton masses may completely upset also the
mass relations for the other particles (as in the case of the model
of ref.~\cite{pr}).
However,
here we will simply
parametrize the new positive contributions to the scalar
squared masses with a common mass parameter $m_0$,
assuming that the extra terms do not
reintroduce the supersymmetric flavor problem.
We will see that many of the phenomenological
features of an anomaly-induced mass spectrum do
not crucially depend on the details of the contributions $m_0$.
\subsection{Defining a minimal model}
\bigskip
In the AMSB scenario, as discussed above,
the necessary mass parameters are the gravitino mass,
$m_{3/2}$, and the common scalar mass
$m_0$, which is required to correct the negative mass-squared of the
sleptons. The low-energy soft mass spectrum will be
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{spectroscopy}
M_\lambda &=& {\beta_g\over g} m_{3/2}, \\
m_{\tilde Q}^2&=&-{1\over 4}
\left({\partial\gamma\over\partial g}\beta_g +
{\partial\gamma\over\partial y}\beta_y\right) m_{3/2}^2 +m_0^2,
\label{budda} \\
\label{spectroscopy3}
A_{y}&=&-{\beta_y\over y} m_{3/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The expressions for the superpartner masses of
the minimal particle content and soft parameters are given in the Appendix.
We will see that this soft-mass spectrum will give rise to distinctive
features which differ from the usual gravity-mediated and gauge-mediated
scenarios.
Since our working framework is a theory with anomaly-mediated masses
and extra universal contributions to the scalar masses, we operationally
construct the full supersymmetric spectrum from four input parameters,
\begin{equation}
m_{3/2}, \, m_0, \, \tan\beta, \, {\rm sign}(\mu ).
\end{equation}
We treat the $\mu$ and $B_\mu$ masses as derived quantities that combine
with other terms in the scalar potential to reproduce correct electroweak
symmetry breaking (EWSB). This procedure is done with the one-loop effective
potential. Also, we assume that Eq.~(\ref{budda}) is valid
at the GUT scale. As previously discussed, the introduction of the
scalar mass $m_0$ breaks the RG invariance, and therefore we must define
a scale for the boundary condition Eq.~(\ref{budda}).
Notice, however, that at the one-loop
level with Yukawa couplings neglected, the squark and slepton squared masses
are renormalized additively. Therefore, in this case, we do not need to
specify at which scale Eq.~(\ref{budda}) is valid. However this is not
true, for instance, for the stop and Higgs mass parameters.
We find that electroweak symmetry breaking can be accommodated
with the above framework. Successful EWSB correlates
with values of $|\mu|$ typically
between 3 to 6 times the Wino mass as long as $m_0$ is not significantly
higher than the anomaly-mediated contributions to the squark masses.
Otherwise, $|\mu|$ can be larger. The relative size of $\mu$ with
respect to $M_2$ becomes important when considering mass splitting
among the degenerate Wino triplet states. This will be considered in more
detail in the next section.
In Fig.~\ref{spectrum} we demonstrate
a subset of superpartner masses using a generically chosen set of
input parameters, $m_{3/2} =36\tev$, $\tan\beta =5$, and $\mu < 0$.
The choice of $m_{3/2}=36\tev$ determines the gaugino masses to
be $M_1=333\gev$, $M_2=119\gev$, and $M_3 =850\gev$.
We vary $m_0$ to demonstrate its dependence in the scalar mass spectrum.
The squark masses are rather insensitive to values of
$m_0$ that raise the slepton masses above their anomaly-mediated
tachyonic values. The sleptons, $\tilde e_L$ and $\tilde e_R$,
are nearly equal in mass. The extraordinary degeneracy of these slepton
masses will be expounded upon in the following section.
In Fig.~\ref{spectrum} we also plot the lightest physical Higgs boson mass,
$m_h$.
This is roughly constant over the range of $m_0$, since this eigenvalue
admits only logarithmic sensitivity to supersymmetry breaking scales.
Requiring $M_2>90\gev$ and assuming $\tan\beta > 1.8$ (for perturbative
unification at the GUT scale), we find a lower bound on the lightest
scalar Higgs boson mass of $70\gev$. The lower bound exceeds $100\gev$
for $\tan\beta > 5$. The upper bound on the Higgs boson mass, assuming
$M_2<500\gev$ and $m_0<m_{\tilde q}$ is $125\gev$. However,
the squark masses are
above $3\tev$ when the bound is saturated. Since such high squark masses
are not welcome in the loop-corrected Higgs potential, the Higgs mass
is expected to be lighter than $125\gev$ in AMSB.
On the other hand, the pseudoscalar Higgs mass, $m_A$, depends linearly
on the supersymmetry breaking
scale, and therefore increases with $m_0$ as shown in the figure.
In the next section, we study a few of the unique features of the AMSB
spectrum, and how it impacts search capabilities at high-energy colliders.
\jfig{spectrum}{spectrum.ps}{
Masses of several states in the supersymmetric
spectrum as a function of $m_0$ with $m_{3/2} =36\tev$,
$\tan\beta =5$, and $\mu < 0$.
The gaugino masses for this choice are $M_1=333\gev$, $M_2=119\gev$,
and $M_3 =850\gev$.}
\section{Phenomenology}
\medskip
A unique feature of anomaly-mediated supersymmetry is the
gaugino mass hierarchy.
To compute the gaugino masses we include next-to-leading corrections coming
from $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_t \equiv y_t^2/4\pi$ two-loop contributions
to the beta-functions and weak threshold corrections enhanced by a
logarithm. In this approximation, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
M_1^{NLO}&=& M_1(Q)\left\{ 1+\frac{\alpha}{8\pi \cos^2\theta_W}
\left[ -21 \ln \frac{Q^2}{M_1^2} +11 \ln \frac{m_{\tilde q}^2}{M_1^2}
+9\ln \frac{m_{\tilde \ell}^2}{M_1^2}
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left. \left. \ln \frac{\mu^2}{M_1^2}
+\frac{2\mu}{M_1}\sin 2\beta \frac{m_A^2}{\mu^2-m_A^2}
\ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_A^2}\right] +\frac{2\alpha_s}{3\pi} -\frac{13\alpha_t}{66\pi}
\right\} \\
M_1(Q)&=&\frac{11\alpha (Q)}{4\pi \cos^2\theta_W} m_{3/2}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_2^{NLO}&=& M_2(Q)\left\{ 1+\frac{\alpha}{8\pi \sin^2\theta_W}
\left[ -13 \ln \frac{Q^2}{M_2^2} +9 \ln \frac{m_{\tilde q}^2}{M_2^2}
+3\ln \frac{m_{\tilde \ell}^2}{M_2^2}
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left. \left. \ln \frac{\mu^2}{M_2^2}
+\frac{2\mu}{M_2}\sin 2\beta \frac{m_A^2}{\mu^2-m_A^2}
\ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_A^2}\right] +\frac{6\alpha_s}{\pi} -\frac{3\alpha_t}{2\pi}
\right\} \\
M_2(Q)&=&\frac{\alpha (Q)}{4\pi \sin^2\theta_W} m_{3/2}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_3^{NLO}&=& M_3(Q)\left\{ 1+\frac{3\alpha_s}{4\pi}
\left[ \ln \frac{Q^2}{M_3^2} + F\left( \frac{m_{\tilde q}^2}{M_3^2}\right)
-\frac{14}{9}\right] +\frac{\alpha_t}{3\pi} \right\} \\
F(x)&=& 1+2x+2x(2-x)\ln x +2(1-x)^2\ln |1-x| \\
M_3(Q)&=&-\frac{3\alpha_s (Q)}{4\pi} m_{3/2} .
\end{eqnarray}
The higgsino corrections to $M_1$ and $M_2$ are proportional to
$\mu / M_{1,2}$ and can become very important in models with large $\mu$,
as discussed in ref.~\cite{giudice}. The NLO corrections are significant,
especially for $M_2$ where the $6\alpha_s/\pi$ contribution changes the
Wino mass by more than $20\%$.
The mass ratios of the gauginos $M_1$:$M_2$:$|M_3|$
are approximately $3.3:1:8.8$ at leading order. At NLO, these ratios
are changed to $2.8:1:7.1$.
This implies that a nearly degenerate
triplet of Winos ($\tilde W^\pm$, $\tilde W^0$) are the lightest
gauginos. We shall see below that the neutral $\tilde W^0$ is
the lightest in the triplet, and is a candidate lightest supersymmetric
partner (LSP). In an R-parity conserving theory the $\tilde W^0$
is stable and escapes detection at a high-energy collider. Therefore,
visible particles produced in association with the $\tilde W^0$ states will
be required to uncover evidence of supersymmetry.
It is also possible that the LSP is a sneutrino. This would be the case
if the additional contributions to the scalar masses were large enough to
generate a positive mass-squared for the sleptons but still
smaller than the Wino
mass. In this case,
Wino decays would generally produce leptons and sneutrinos in
the final state. We will consider this possibility in some detail
in sect.~\ref{seclep}.
\subsection{Mass splitting among Winos}
The first step in considering light Wino states is to calculate the
mass splitting between the charged and neutral states. For the
moment we shall ignore loop corrections and describe the tree-level splitting
that develops for light Wino states. Upon integrating out the heavy Bino
and Higgsino states, we are left with an effective theory with several
operators
that could shift the mass of the remaining chargino and neutralino states
to be different than $M_2$.
Operators of the form ${\cal O}=M_{ab}\tilde W^a\tilde W^b$
will generate mass splittings for the Winos only if $M_{ab}$ transforms
non-trivially under $SU(2)$.
Because of the symmetry property of the Majorana mass term, $M_{ab}$ must
have isospin 2, and
the lowest-dimensional operator which
generates a mass splitting is
\begin{equation}
{\cal O}=\frac{1}{\Lambda^3}(H^\dagger \tau^a H)\, (H^\dagger \tau^b H)\,
\tilde W^a\tilde W^b ,
\label{spin}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda\sim M_1,\mu$ and $H$ denote the Higgs doublets. Therefore,
we see from the above that all mass splittings
at tree-level must occur with $m_W^4/\Lambda^3$ suppression.
A more detailed formula for the tree-level mass splitting\footnote{To generate
a Wino mass splitting, it is also necessary to break the global custodial
$SU(2)_V$ defined such that the matrix $\Phi=\pmatrix{H^0_d & H^+_u\cr
H^-_d & H^0_u}$, constructed from the two Higgs doublets, transforms
as $\Phi \rightarrow V \Phi V^\dagger$ with $V$ unitary. The $\mu$ term is invariant,
since it can be written as $\mu \, {\rm det} \Phi$. The symmetry is preserved
by electroweak breaking, as long as $\tan \beta =1$, but it is broken
by hypercharge effects. Therefore
Eq.~(\ref{cazz}) has to vanish in the limit $\tan{\beta}\rightarrow 1$ and
$\tan \theta_W \rightarrow 0$.}
with $|\mu|\gg M_1,M_2,m_W$ is\footnote{Our sign convention for
$\mu$ is set by $W=\mu(H_u^0H_d^0-H_u^+H_d^-)$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\tilde \chi^\pm_1}-m_{\tilde \chi^0_1} & = &
\frac{m_W^4\sin^22\beta}{(M_1-M_2)\mu^2}
\tan^2\theta_W
+ 2\frac{m_W^4 M_2 \sin 2\beta}{(M_1-M_2)\mu^3 }
\tan^2\theta_W \nonumber \\
& &\quad + \frac{m_W^6\sin^3 2\beta}{(M_1-M_2)^2\mu^3}
\tan^2\theta_W (\tan^2\theta_W -1) + {\cal O}(\frac{1}{\mu^4}).
\label{cazz}
\end{eqnarray}
When this formula is valid and $\mu$ is determined by the electroweak-breaking
condition, the mass splitting is negligible compared to
the charged pion mass -- an important mass scale for the phenomenology
of Wino decays.
In our numerical analysis, we will always calculate
the chargino and neutralino mass splittings from the exact formula and
not from the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{cazz}), given here only for
illustrative purposes. Notice also that, in the
large $\tan\beta$ limit, the Wino mass difference becomes
\begin{equation}
m_{\tilde \chi^\pm_1}-m_{\tilde \chi^0_1} =
\frac{M_2 m_W^4}{2\mu^4}\left(1+\frac{2M_2\tan^2\theta_W}{M_1-M_2}\right)
+ {\cal O}(\frac{1}{\mu^6}),~~~~{\rm for}~\tan\beta \rightarrow \infty .
\end{equation}
In this limit the mass difference has a further suppression
factor, $M_2/\mu$ because the necessary chiral flip cannot originate from
the Higgsino mass.
The dominant
contribution to the Wino mass splitting
does not come from the tree-level result described above, but
rather due to one-loop corrections in the
chargino and neutralino mass matrices.
We have done a full numerical calculation of the one-loop corrected
chargino and neutralino mass matrices using the formulae
of ref.~\cite{pierce}. For the anomaly-mediated spectrum, with only positive
mass-squared additional contributions to all the scalar masses,
we find that
the gauge-boson loop corrections dominate the mass splitting. This is because
in the typical anomaly-induced mass spectrum the squark masses are heavy
and the $\mu$ parameter is large. Consequently, following the argument
that led us to Eq.~(\ref{spin}), we infer that their contribution to the
Wino mass splitting is suppressed by $M_W^4/\Lambda^3$. On the other hand,
the effect of gauge-boson loops cannot be described by local operators.
Isolating this contribution in the limit of large $\mu$, we find (see also
refs.~\cite{cheng,feng})
\begin{equation}
\label{gaugediff}
\Delta_\chi\equiv m_{\tilde\chi_1^\pm} - m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}
={\alpha M_2\over\pi\sin^2\theta_W}
\left[f(m_W^2/M_2^2)-\cos^2\theta_W
f(m_Z^2/M_2^2)\right]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f(x)\equiv-{x\over 4}+{x^2\over 8}\ln x+{1\over 2}(1+{x\over 2})
\sqrt{4x-x^2}
\left[{\rm arctan}{2-x\over\sqrt{4x-x^2}}-{\rm arctan}{x\over\sqrt{4x-x^2}}
\right].
\end{equation}
In the limit that $M_2\rightarrow\infty$, the expression in
Eq.~(\ref{gaugediff})
simply becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{loop split}
\Delta_\chi= \frac{\alpha\, m_W}{2(1+\cos\theta_W)}
\left[1-{3\over 8\cos\theta_W}
{m_W^2\over M_2^2}+{\cal O}\left({m_W^3\over M_2^3}\right)\right],
\end{equation}
which has the asymptotic limit $\Delta_\chi=\alpha\, m_W/[2 (1+\cos\theta_W)]
\simeq 165$ MeV.
It may appear odd that the mass splitting should asymptote to a constant
value as
$M_2$ gets arbitrarily massive. This behavior can be understood in momentum
space as an infrared mismatch between the self-energies of
$\tilde W^+$ and $\tilde W^0$ regulated by $m_W$.
Or, equivalently, since
$SU(2)$ is a good theory for short distances $r\ll m_W^{-1}$, we can
calculate the Coulomb energy of the charged state for large distances
$r\gsim m_W^{-1}$ (infrared region) to obtain a mass splitting
of approximately $\alpha m_W$. The exact prefactors are given
in Eq.~(\ref{loop split}).
In Figs.~\ref{split_tb2} and~\ref{split_tb40}
we show the total calculated mass splitting
as a function of $M_2$ for $\tan\beta =2$ and~10. In our numerical
calculation, we include the full one-loop result and we do not use the
approximate expressions given in Eq.~(\ref{gaugediff}).
The solid curves, from top to bottom, represent
$\mu=2M_2$, $\mu=3M_2$, $\mu=5M_2$, and $\mu=\infty$. The dashed curves
are the same except that $\mu <0$.
The dot-dashed curve is
the charged pion mass $m_{\pi^\pm}$. As $\tan\beta$ increases the
sign of $\mu$ becomes less and less relevant in the calculation of
the mass splitting. When $\tan\beta =40$ the solid and dashed curves
are irresolvable.
\jfig{split_tb2}{split_tb2.ps}{\protect
The mass splitting as a function of $M_2$ for
$\tan\beta =2$. The solid curves, from
top to bottom, represent
$\mu=2M_2$, $\mu=3M_2$, $\mu=5M_2$, and $\mu=\infty$. The dashed curves
are the same except for the opposite sign of $\mu$. The dot-dashed curve is
the charged pion mass $m_{\pi^\pm}$.}
\jfig{split_tb40}{split_tb10.ps}{\protect
The mass splitting as a function of $M_2$
for $\tan\beta =10$. The solid curves, from
top to bottom, represent
$\mu=2M_2$, $\mu=3M_2$, $\mu=5M_2$, and $\mu=\infty$. The dashed curves
are the same except for the opposite sign of $\mu$. The dot-dashed curve is
the charged pion mass $m_{\pi^\pm}$.}
In an anomaly-mediated spectrum with radiative electroweak symmetry
breaking, the
typical relation between $M_2$ and $\mu$ is $3\lsim |\mu|/M_2\lsim 6$.
This is true as long
as the squark masses are not increased significantly beyond their
anomaly-mediated baseline values from the universal mass
contributions that lift the
slepton mass-squared to positive values. This is also acceptable from naive
fine-tuning arguments. Larger values of $\mu$ lead to an unnatural
Higgs potential. For $|\mu|/M_2= 5$ we
find from Figs.~\ref{split_tb2} and~\ref{split_tb40}
that the mass splitting is significantly
above $m_{\pi^\pm}$ such that $\tilde W^\pm \rightarrow \tilde W^0\pi^\pm$ is
kinematically allowed and is the dominant decay mode.
This remark is also
true even for extraordinarily large values of $\mu$ as long as $M_2\gsim
80\gev$.
\subsection{Finding supersymmetry with dileptons}
The precise calculation of the mass splitting is crucial since in
ref.~\cite{gunion} it was demonstrated that if
$m_{\pi^\pm}\lsim m_{\tilde \chi^\pm_1}-m_{\tilde \chi^0_1} \lsim 1\gev$
then the $\tilde W^\pm$ will decay too fast to use a quasi-stable charged
particle analysis, with dedicated triggers.
However, the decays are not prompt, and so analyses
of events triggered by other means could see a stiff charged particle
track that
subsequently terminates in the vertex detector. The difficulty is triggering
the event.
One way to trigger such events is to produce the Winos in associated production
with a standard model particle, such as a gluon at hadron colliders or
a photon at $e^+e^-$ colliders. Triggering on high-$p_T$
monojets or high-energy photons at these colliders then may be an
effective way
to trigger the events and save them for future
analysis~\cite{gunion,thomas,feng}.
At the analysis
stage a kink in the vertex detector, or a terminating stiff track,
would then indicate a non-SM underlying
process.
Here we pursue another direction for discovery. We can
utilize production and subsequent decays of other SUSY particles as a way
to trigger on the events and learn more about the theory. For example, if
sleptons or squarks are produced in a hadronic collision, they will
cascade decay
to high-$p_T$ SM particles and charged and/or neutral Winos. The SM particles
can be used for the trigger, and the cascade decays can be used to
learn something
about the spectroscopy of the theory.
Our example process is left-handed slepton and sneutrino production at the
Tevatron which
cascades into $l^\pm l^\mp+X_{D}$, where $X_D$
is a displaced vertex from
one
or two $\tilde W^\pm \rightarrow \tilde W^0\pi^\pm$ decays. These displaced vertices
are heavy charged particle tracks which stop in the vertex detector and produce
very soft pions that may or may not be detectable.
The dilepton events are produced through
\begin{eqnarray}
p\bar p \rightarrow \tilde \nu_L\tilde l^{\pm}_L & \rightarrow &
l^\pm l^\mp \tilde W^\pm\tilde W^0
\rightarrow l^\pm l^\mp +X_D+E^{\rm miss}_T \\
p\bar p \rightarrow \tilde \nu_L\tilde \nu_L & \rightarrow &
l^\pm l^\mp \tilde W^\pm\tilde W^\mp
\rightarrow l^\pm l^\mp +X_D+E^{\rm miss}_T .
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{likesign} we plot the total cross-section of such events for one
flavor ($\mu^\pm\mu^\mp+X_D$)
at the $\sqrt{s}=2\tev$ Tevatron. We
require
the pseudo-rapidity to be within $|\eta|<2$ for both leptons, and we
require the leading lepton to have $p_T>10\gev$, and the next lepton to have
$p_T>5\gev$.
The total rate presented in Fig.~\ref{likesign} is calculated
at leading order.
We have included a total of 50\% suppression of the naive LO result
from jet veto and lepton identification efficiency.
Our conclusion based on Fig.~\ref{likesign} is that left-handed sleptons with
mass
less than $200\gev$ would be discovered at the Tevatron if
$M_2\lsim m_{\tilde \nu_L}-10\gev$ (for leptons to have high enough $p_T$ for
triggering) and if the Tevatron reaches at least $30\xfb^{-1}$ integrated
luminosity. This result is based on the requirement that more than 10
$l^\pm l^\mp+X_D$ events will occur for each flavor.
We conservatively
choose a 10 event requirement in order to ensure that our
mass reach conclusion will remain valid if the dilepton identification
efficiency were to be
as low as $50\%$ for the $p_T$ acceptance cuts given above.
Other modes such as $\mu^\pm +X_D$ are
possible in $\tilde \nu_L$ and $\tilde \mu_L$ production, and could confirm
and extend the mass reach capabilities of the dilepton mode.
\sfig{likesign}{likesign.ps}{Dilepton signal from
left-handed smuon and sneutrino production at the Fermilab Tevatron
with $2\tev$ center of mass energy and $M_2=90\gev$.
Acceptance cuts of the leptons are
described in the text. The different curves are for $\tan\beta =1$,
which makes $m_{\tilde \mu_L}=m_{\tilde \nu_L}$, and for $\tan\beta = \infty$
which maximizes the hypercharge $D$-term splitting such that
$m_{\tilde \mu_L}^2=m_{\tilde \nu_L}^2+m_W^2$.
With $30\xfb^{-1}$ the Tevatron will record more
than 10 such events for each lepton flavor if $m_{\tilde \nu_L}<200\gev$.}
The dilepton signal discussed above is special since it is
essentially background
free with the displaced vertices present. The possibility
of prompt Wino decays arises
if $\mu$ is sufficiently light to yield a chargino/neutralino mass
splitting above $1\gev$. This would make the charged Wino decay promptly into
a neutral Wino plus other states too soft to admit into the event description.
Also, if the top squarks are reduced from additional negative
scalar mass sources, the
mass splitting could be greatly enhanced by loop corrections involving
third family sfermions and fermions. In these
cases, special triggers or analyses based on decay kinks of the charged
Wino could not be relied upon, but the dilepton signal would
remain useful.
\subsection{Degeneracy of sleptons}
Another striking feature of the anomaly-mediated model with additional
universal scalar terms is the near degeneracy of the left and right sleptons
of the first two generations. The mass-squared splitting is
somewhat insensitive to $m_0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ersplit}
\Delta_{\tilde e} & = & m^2_{\tilde e_L}-m^2_{\tilde e_R} =
(11\tan^4\theta_W-1)\frac{3}{2}M_2^2
+ \left(-\frac{1}{2}+2\sin^2\theta_W\right) m^2_Z\cos 2\beta \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\quad\quad\quad
+\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left( \frac{9}{5}g_1^2 M^2_1 - 3g_2^2 M_2^2\right)
\ln \frac{m_{\tilde e_R}}{m_Z} \nonumber \\
& \simeq & 0.037
\left( -m_Z^2\cos 2\beta+M_2^2 \ln \frac{m_{\tilde e_R}}{m_Z} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The first term is the tree level anomaly-induced splitting, the second
term is the hypercharge $D$-term splitting induced by electroweak
breaking, and the third
term is the one loop, leading log mass splitting induced by renormalizing
the masses to their own scale.
It is a numerical accident that the value of $\sin^2\theta_W$
is such
that the $M_2^2$ coefficient in the first term of Eq.~(\ref{ersplit})
is nearly zero. If,
\begin{equation}
\label{sin squared}
\sin^2\theta_W=\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{11}}=0.2317
\end{equation}
then the tree-level
coefficient of $M_2^2$ would be identically zero. The actual
value of $\sin^2\theta_W(m_Z)$ is $0.2312\pm 0.0003$~\cite{PDG} in
the $\overline {MS}$ scheme and is extraordinarily close to the value
in Eq.~(\ref{sin squared}) required to make the $M_2^2$ coefficient in the
tree-level mass splitting vanish.
It is also a numerical accident that the hypercharge $D$-term
coefficient is suppressed since $\sin^2\theta_W\simeq 1/4$.
Although the coefficient is not
as spectacularly suppressed as the $m_{3/2}^2$ coefficient, it is
multiplied
by a fixed scale $m_Z^2$. Therefore, for a given value of $\tan\beta$
the mass squared difference remains constant regardless of how
heavy the sleptons may be.
The degeneracy of the slepton can be characterized by the fractional
difference,
\begin{equation}
\frac{m_{\tilde e_L}-m_{\tilde e_R}}{m_{\tilde e_R}}
= -1 +\sqrt{ 1+\frac{\Delta_{\tilde e}}{m^2_{\tilde e_R}}}
~\simeq \frac{1}{2}\frac{\Delta_{\tilde e}}{m^2_{\tilde e_R}} .
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{diff} we plot contours of the relative mass splitting in the
$M_2$-$m_{\tilde e_R}$ plane. The mass splitting is less than
a few percent over most of parameter space. It exceeds 5\% only
when $M_2>350\gev$. However, the squark masses in this case
are over $2\tev$, which induces a considerable
fine-tuning in the one-loop Higgs potential.
Therefore, it is not expected that $M_2$ is so high, implying that
the slepton mass differences should be no more than a few percent
over the relevant parameter space.
\jfig{diff}{diff.ps}{Contours of $100\% \times
(m_{\tilde e_L}-m_{\tilde e_R})/m_{\tilde e_R}$
in the $M_2$-$m_{\tilde e_R}$ mass plane with large
$\tan\beta$, which maximizes the mass splitting.}
The resolution of slepton masses from end-point lepton
distributions of the slepton decays
is approximately $2\%$ at an $e^+e^-$ or a muon
collider~\cite{NLC report}.
Note that at a polarized linear collider it will not be difficult to
determine that both left and right sleptons are being produced
even if they are degenerate. This can be accomplished most effectively
by comparing
total rate of sleptons production with the asymmetry of production
for polarized beams~\cite{NLC report}.
Degenerate sleptons are not expected in
the usual supergravity or gauge-mediated scenarios, where
$m_{\tilde e_R}$ is generally lighter
than $m_{\tilde e_L}$. An exception to this is in the
minimal supergravity model with $m_0\gg m_{1/2}$. However,
given the current limits on $m_{1/2}$ from gaugino searches
at the Tevatron and LEP, degenerate sleptons will only
occur at very high mass.
The above discussion is based on the assumption that the additional
contributions to the slepton masses are universal. Since the
anomaly-mediated mass differences is accidentally negligible,
the degeneracy of the sleptons becomes a test of
the additional mass contributions. Other approaches
to the slepton tachyonic problem do not necessarily imply
degenerate slepton mass eigenstates~\cite{pr}.
\subsection{LEP2 Signals} \label{seclep}
\bigskip
At LEP2 many signatures are possible in the AMSB scenario. The charged Winos
have a large production cross-section as long as they
are kinematically accessible and as long as the sneutrino $t$-channel
amplitude does not significantly interfere destructively with gauge
boson $s$-channel amplitudes. Production of charginos at LEP has been
the topic of many studies in supersymmetry phenomenology at LEP~\cite{leprep}.
However, most of these studies have assumed that the LSP, the lightest
neutralino, is more than a few GeV below the lightest chargino mass.
In AMSB this is no longer the case. We expect that the lightest neutralino
and charginos form a nearly degenerate $SU(2)$ triplet, as discussed
in previous sections.
Since the chargino is only slightly above the neutralino in mass, the
process $e^+e^-\rightarrow \tilde W^+\tilde W^-$ will be accompanied by very
soft visible final states from decays such as $\tilde W^+\rightarrow \pi^+\tilde W^0$.
These soft final states cannot be triggered on, which has led
others~\cite{gunion,thomas,feng}
to suggest triggering on initial state photon radiation and then
searching for soft, displaced tracks at the analysis level. However,
there are
other potential signatures of supersymmetry when Winos are the lightest
gauginos. To enumerate them we must consider the other states in the
supersymmetric spectrum which may be produced in collisions or as
decay products of Wino production. In the AMSB scenario, the
degenerate left and right sleptons and the sneutrino are the most
important states at LEP after the gauginos. The ratio of their masses
to the Wino masses is unknown in our framework, but it is more natural
that they be somewhat light in order to keep the Higgs scalar potential
from being fine-tuned. Therefore, considering phenomenological implications
of light sleptons at LEP is useful.
There are many permutations to the
relative ordering of $M_2$, $m_{\tilde \nu_L}$, and
$m_{\tilde e}\equiv m_{\tilde e_{L,R}}$. Recall that the relationship
between $m_{\tilde e}$ and $m_{\tilde\nu_L}$ is
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\tilde e_L}=m^2_{\tilde\nu_L}-m^2_W\cos 2\beta.
\end{equation}
We can provide the
general phenomenological features using a graph in the $M_2$-$m_{\tilde\nu_L}$
plane for LEP2 running at $\sqrt{s}=200\gev$.
The results of the present and future experimental analyses combining
the searches at LEP2 in different channels will be best presented as
exclusion or discovery regions in the $M_2$-$m_{\tilde\nu_L}$
plane.
The LEP1
limit of Wino masses is slightly above
$m_Z/2$, and the limit on sneutrino masses is slightly below
$m_Z/2$; therefore, we begin the axes of Fig.~\ref{m2msnu} at $m_Z/2$.
The lines represent kinematic boundaries. For example, the top dashed
line is where $m_{\tilde e}=\sqrt{s}/2$, and for all $m_{\tilde\nu_L}$
values above that line, $\tilde e\tilde e$ production is not possible.
The precise locations of the
dashed lines depend on the choice of $\tan\beta$, which we choose
to be $\tan\beta =3$ for this figure.
\bfig{m2msnu}{m2msnu.ps}{Signatures of the AMSB scenario at LEP2.
Each blocked region has a unique mass hierarchy among $\tilde \nu_L$,
$\tilde e_L$ and $M_2$, and therefore leads to different signatures
which are contained within the parenthesis. The meaning of ``$(\gamma )$'',
for example, is $e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma \tilde W^+\tilde W^-\rightarrow \gamma +\mE$.
We assume, as is justified by EWSB analysis,
that $M_2$ is very close to the mass of the nearly degenerate lightest
charginos and neutralino. The mass splitting between $m_{\tilde \nu_L}$
and $m_{\tilde e}$ is due to a hypercharge $D$ term, and its value
is calculated with $\tan\beta =3$ for this figure.}
Each region in the figure
constitutes a different ordering of the mass eigenstates,
and will produce a different set of useful observables with which
to probe the theory. These observables are given inside the
parentheses. For example, in the small triangular region
surrounding the point $(M_2,m_{\tilde\nu_L})=(95\gev ,60\gev )$ one
can search for $\gamma +\mE$, $l^+l^-+\mE$, and up to four electrons
plus missing energy. Specific processes which lead to these signatures
include,
\begin{eqnarray}
e^+e^- & \rightarrow & \gamma \tilde \nu_L\tilde\nu_L \rightarrow \gamma +\mE \\
e^+e^- & \rightarrow & (\tilde W^+ \tilde W^-~{\rm or}~
\tilde l^-\tilde l^+)\rightarrow l^+l^-+\mE \\
e^+e^- & \rightarrow & \tilde W^0 \tilde W^0\rightarrow \tilde l^+ l^-\tilde l'^+ l'^-\rightarrow
l^+l^- l'^+l'^- +\mE.
\end{eqnarray}
Some of the leptons may be softer than others because of reduced
phase space in a decay of a massive sparticle into a lepton and a sparticle
with mass near its parent. Near the boundaries of the curves, it is often
the case that some leptons are not energetic enough,
and care must be taken in the analysis to identify them.
Finally, the stau sleptons may be lighter than the other sleptons, leading
to more $\tau$ lepton final states than other leptons. Although efficiency
in identifying $\tau$ leptons is smaller than the others, it is possible
at large $\tan\beta$ to have large mixing among the $\tilde \tau_L$
and $\tilde \tau_R$ sleptons to produce a mass eigenstate accessible to LEP
whereas the other sleptons are not.
\section{Gravitino cosmology}
\medskip
A distinctive feature of the AMSB scenario is that the gravitino
is much heavier than the supersymmetric partners of ordinary particles.
The reason for this is that the AMSB masses
are suppressed by a loop factor relative to
the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$.
In particular, one finds that the gravitino--Wino mass ratio is
$m_{3/2}/M_2 \simeq 300$.
A large gravitino mass is cosmologically advantageous for solving the
gravitino problem \cite{weinberg}. This problem occurs when
gravitino decay products disrupt the light element abundance during
nucleosynthesis. Even a period of inflation is not sufficient to solve
this problem since gravitinos are thermally produced
during the reheating phase of the universe~\cite{ellis}. Thus, in order
for the gravitino decay products to be harmless during
nucleosynthesis one either requires that the gravitino decays before
affecting nucleosynthesis or that the reheating temperature of the universe
be bounded from above.
The gravitino number density in units of the photon number density after
the inflationary epoch is~\cite{moroi}
\begin{equation}
\frac{n_{3/2}}{n_\gamma}(T)= 2\times 10^{-9} g_*(T)~ T_{13}( 1-0.03
\ln T_{13}) .
\end{equation}
Here $T_{13}$ is the reheating temperature after inflation
in units of $10^{13}\gev$
({\it i.e.}, $T_{13}\equiv T_R/10^{13}$ GeV),
and $g_*(T)$ counts the massless degrees of freedom at the
temperature $T$ including
a factor of $7/8$ for fermions and the dilution factor for frozen-out species.
The gravitino decay width is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{3/2} = {1\over 4}\left(N_g+{N_m\over 12}\right)
{m_{3/2}^3\over M_P^2} \simeq 5.1
\left({m_{3/2}\over 50~{\rm TeV}}\right)^3 {\rm sec}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Here $M_P=1.2\times 10^{19}$ GeV,
$N_g$ and $N_m$ are the number of gauge and matter decay channels,
and
we have summed over all the SM particle content
($N_g$=12, $N_m$=49).
Immediately after the gravitino decays, the temperature of the universe is
given by
\begin{equation}
T_D=\left( \frac{45\, \Gamma_{3/2}^2M_P^2}{4\pi^3g_*(T_D)}\right)^{1/4}=
2.7 \left( \frac{10.75}{g_*(T_D)}\right)^{1/4}
\left({m_{3/2}\over 50~{\rm TeV}}\right)^{3/2} {\rm MeV}.
\end{equation}
Therefore for $m_{3/2}\lsim 60$ TeV a detailed analysis of effects
of gravitino decay during nucleosynthesis is necessary.
The particular gravitino decay products that cause the
main interference during nucleosynthesis at early times ($\sim 1$ second)
are hadronic
showers~\cite{reno}. Photodissociations are not relevant at early stages
of the nucleosynthesis epoch
since the destructive photon-nucleus interactions are much less
probable than photon-photon interactions.
The overall effect of hadronic decay products is to convert protons
into neutrons, and consequently the $^4$He abundance is increased since
the additional neutrons that are produced are synthesised into $^4$He.
Thus, using the observational upper limit on
the primordial helium abundance $Y(^4{\rm He})<0.25$, we obtain an
upper bound on the reheat temperature~\cite{sarkar} which is
depicted in Fig.~\ref{reheat}.
\jfig{reheat}{reheat.ps}{The upper bound on the reheat temperature
as a function of the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ and the corresponding
Wino mass $M_2$. The observational limit upper limit on the
primordial helium abundance is $Y(^4{\rm He})<0.25$. Therefore,
the region above the line is excluded, and an upper bound on
$T_R$ results.}
For $m_{3/2}\lsim 40$ TeV, the typical bound on the reheat
temperature is $T_R\sim 10^{9}$ GeV. This
is typically less
constraining
than in the usual gravity-mediated
scenarios with weak-scale gravitino mass~\cite{sarkar}.
As the gravitino mass
increases, the upper bound on the reheat temperature becomes less significant,
and completely evaporates for $m_{3/2}\gsim 60$ TeV,
since the gravitinos decay well before the start of nucleosynthesis.
For $m_{3/2}\gsim 60$ TeV, we may be concerned that the entropy
produced by the gravitino decay excessively dilutes the baryon--to--photon
ratio obtained by a primordial baryogenesis mechanism. However, this is
never the case. Actually for
\begin{equation}
{m_{3/2}\over 50~{\rm TeV}} >8\times 10^{-4} \left(\frac{g_*(T_D)}
{10.75}\right)^{1/2}
T_{13}^2( 1-0.03\ln T_{13})^2 ,
\end{equation}
the gravitino decays before dominating the universe and the entropy release
is not dangerous. We have checked that, even when the gravitino
matter-dominates
the universe, the entropy production is not problematic. Therefore we conclude
that when $m_{3/2}\gsim 60$ TeV, there is no upper bound
on the reheat temperature arising from nucleosynthesis.
However, bounds on the reheating temperature
when $m_{3/2}\gsim 60\gev$ do come from
considerations of the Wino energy density.
The Wino thermal relic abundance $\Omega_{LSP}^{TH}$
does not play a significant cosmological
role. Indeed Wino annihilations into gauge bosons in the early
Universe are very efficient and lead to~\cite{giudice}
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{LSP}^{TH} h^2 \simeq 5\times 10^{-4} \left( \frac{M_2}{100~{\rm GeV}}
\right)^2 .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, a non-thermal production of LSPs is generated by the
gravitino decay~\cite{frie}. Since this decay occurs below the Wino freeze-out
temperature, the LSP abundance is easily determined by assuming that
each decaying gravitino produces a single Wino. The LSP is relativistic
at decay time and becomes non-relativistic at a typical temperature
$T\sim T_D M_2/m_{3/2}$, after red-shifting. The predicted relic abundance
is
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{LSP}^{G} h^2\simeq 30 \left(\frac{M_2}{100\, {\rm GeV}}\right)
T_{13}(1-0.03\ln T_{13}).
\end{equation}
The requirement for not
overclosing the universe
leads to a bound on the reheat temperature $T_R\lsim
10^{11}\gev$. Of course, if
R-parity is not conserved then this bound from LSP relic abundance is
no longer relevant.
In this case, for gravitino masses $m_{3/2}\gsim 60$ TeV,
one can then contemplate using
leptogenesis or even GUT baryogenesis mechanisms
to generate the baryon asymmetry of the
universe, consistently with the AMSB gravitino cosmology.
On the other hand, when $T_R\simeq 10^{10}$--$10^{11}\gev$
the relic abundance of
LSPs from gravitino decays is near critical density, providing a natural
source of dark matter.
Finally, we comment on another positive aspect of the heavy gravitino
cosmology.
We can avoid the cosmological Polonyi problem that arises in the
usual gravity-mediated scenario when the gauge singlet Polonyi field
acquires a Planck scale vacuum expectation value
but decays relatively late. In the AMSB
scenario there is simply no need for the Polonyi field since the
gaugino masses arise from a quantum anomaly.
\section{Conclusion}
\bigskip
In summary, anomaly-induced
masses are always present when supersymmetry is broken.
When these AMSB contributions dominate and
yield all the gaugino masses as well as adding to universal
scalar masses, a unique spectrum results which has important
differences from other models of supersymmetry.
Several of these unorthodox features that
arise in low-energy supersymmetry from
the AMSB scenario include,
\begin{itemize}
\item The ratio of gaugino
masses $M_1:M_2:|M_3|$ is approximately $2.8:1:7.1$ when
loop corrections are included, and $M_2\simeq m_Z$;
\item The lightest supersymmetric particle
is most often the Wino, but may also be the sneutrino;
\item Dilepton signals with displaced vertices are
are useful signals for this scenario at LEP and
Tevatron;
\item The anomaly-induced contribution to left and right slepton masses
is accidentally degenerate. This remains true if the
required, additional sources for slepton masses are universal;
\item LEP signatures are sensitive to the hierarchy of sneutrino, slepton
and Wino masses.
The searches in the different channels can be simply combined to give
exclusion plots in the $M_2$-$m_{\tilde\nu_L}$
plane;
\item The gravitino mass is much heavier than the masses of the
other sparticles. Consequently, the cosmological problem associated
with gravitino decays during nucleosynthesis
is alleviated over much of parameter space;
\item In spite of its negligible thermal relic abundance, neutral Winos can
form the galactic dark matter, since they are copiously produced,
below their freeze-out temperature, from the primordial gravitino
decays.
\end{itemize}
Discovery of several of the above
phenomenological implications is necessary to gain confidence that the AMSB
scenario is a proper description of nature.
\section*{Appendix}
Using Eqs.~(\ref{spectroscopy})-(\ref{spectroscopy3}),
the anomaly-mediated spectrum is
\begin{eqnarray}
\wompit{M_1} & = & \frac{33}{5} \frac{g_1^2}{16\pi^2} m_{3/2} \\
\wompit{M_2} & = & \frac{g_2^2}{16\pi^2} {m_{3/2}}\\
\wompit{M_3} & = & -3\frac{g^2_3}{16\pi^2}{m_{3/2}}\\
\womp{m^2_{\tilde t_R}} & = &
\left( -\frac{88}{25}g^4_1+8g_3^4 +2y_t\hat\beta_{y_t}
\right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2} \\
\womp{m^2_{\tilde b_R}} & = &
\left( -\frac{22}{25}g^4_1+8g_3^4+2y_b\hat\beta_{y_b}
\right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2}\\
\womp{m^2_{\tilde Q_3}} & = & \left( -\frac{11}{50}g^4_1-\frac{3}{2}g_2^4+8g^4_3
+y_t\hat\beta_{y_t}+y_b\hat\beta_{y_b} \right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2} \\
\womp{m^2_{H_u}} & = & \left( -\frac{99}{50} g^4_1 -\frac{3}{2}g^4_2
+3y_t\hat\beta_{y_t} \right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2} \\
\womp{m^2_{H_d}} & = & \left( -\frac{99}{50}g^4_1 -\frac{3}{2}g^4_2
+3y_b\hat\beta_{y_b} +
y_{\tau}\hat\beta_{y_\tau} \right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2} \\
\womp{m^2_{\tilde L_3}} & = & \left( -\frac{99}{50}g^4_1-\frac{3}{2}g_2^4
+y_{\tau}\hat\beta_{y_\tau}\right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2} \\
\womp{m^2_{\tilde \tau_R}} & = & \left( -\frac{198}{25}g^4_1 +2y_\tau
\hat\beta_{y_\tau}\right) \frac{m_{3/2}^2}{(16\pi^2)^2} \\
A_{y_t} & = & -\frac{\hat\beta_{y_t}}{y_t}\frac{m_{3/2}}{16\pi^2} \\
A_{y_b} & = & -\frac{\hat\beta_{y_b}}{y_b}\frac{m_{3/2}}{16\pi^2} \\
A_{y_\tau} & = & -\frac{\hat\beta_{y_\tau}}{y_\tau}
\frac{m_{3/2}}{16\pi^2} .
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat\beta_{y_t} & = & 16\pi^2\beta_{y_t} =y_t\left( -\frac{13}{15}g^2_1 -3g_2^2
-\frac{16}{3}g^2_3 +6y_t^2 +y_b^2 \right) \\
\hat\beta_{y_b} & = & 16\pi^2\beta_{y_b} =y_b\left( -\frac{7}{15}g^2_1-3g^2_2
-\frac{16}{3}g^2_3 +y_t^2 +6y_b^2+y_\tau^2\right) \\
\hat\beta_{y_\tau} & = & 16\pi^2\beta_{y_\tau} =y_\tau \left(
-\frac{9}{5}g^2_1-3g^2_2+3y_b^2
+4y_\tau^2 \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The first two generation squark and slepton masses are obtained by
appropriately changing the Yukawa couplings to first and second generation
Yukawa couplings.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect1}
Asymptotically free models gained importance both in High Energy
and in Condensed Matter Physics. This is obvious for the latter,
where the low dimensional phenomena invoke effective theories
below the upper critical dimension, $d=4$, which are super-renormalizable
and their Hamiltonians contain asymptotically free coupling constants only.
In the former case the the asymptotically free models can provide
structureless high energy physics where the cutoff can be pushed
away at will. What kind of non-perturbative mechanisms do we encounter as
we follow the renormalization group flow of an asymptotically
free model? To distinguish different
finite energy mechanisms we recall that unless the model
possesses unbroken scale invariance there are always
two scaling regimes, an ultraviolet and an infrared one
separated by a crossover at the characteristic scale of the model.
If there is a dimensional coupling constant, say a mass parameter
$m$, in the Lagrangian then the UV and IR scaling regimes
are separated by a crossover at $p=p_{cr}\approx m$ because
$m^2/p^2$ or $p^2/m^2$ is treated as a small quantity in the
UV or the IR side, respectively. The IR scaling laws are
trivial because the radiative corrections to the
evolution are suppressed by $p^2/m^2$ and what is left
is the scale dependence governed by the canonical dimensions
of the coupling constants. If there are no dimensional
coupling constants in the Lagrangian, i.e. the model
possesses classical scale invariance then a crossover
can be identified where one of the coupling constants reach
the value 1, $g(p_{cr})=1$. The expression for the dimensionless
running coupling constant $g(p)$ must contain a dimensional
parameter, usually called the $\Lambda$-parameter and
$p_{cr}\approx\Lambda_{\phi^4}$.\footnote{It is worthwhile noting that one can
introduce the $\Lambda$-parameter even in the presence of
any parameter with positive mass dimension in the Lagrangian
so long as the IR dynamics remains stable when this latter
is removed. In fact, let us write this parameter as $m^\ell$
where $m$ defined in this manner is the mass scale of the
model. The running coupling
constant depends on the ratio $m/p$, $g(p)=f(m/p)$ where
the limit $m\to0$ is convergent. In other words, the
evolution of the classically scale invariant system is recovered
as $p\to\infty$.}
Non-perturbative effects may originate in the IR
scaling regimes. The classically scale invariant models
at the lower critical dimension, such as the two-dimensional
sigma and the Gross-Neveu model do not support long range order.
Thus the IR scaling laws must contain a dynamically generated
mass scale, an effect generated by
the infrared or collinear divergences.
The asymptotically free coupling constants may generate
non-perturbative effects in the UV scaling regime, as well,
due to their growth. The question is whether the scale
parameter $\Lambda_{\phi^4}$
or the mass $m$ is reached first as we lower the cutoff.
The system remains perturbative for $m>\Lambda_{\phi^4}$ because
the IR scaling laws cut off the growth of the asymptotically
free coupling constants before they would reach a dangerously
large value. The dynamics of the modes $p<\Lambda_{\phi^4}$
becomes non-perturbative when $\Lambda_{\phi^4}>m$.
The four-dimensional Yang-Mills
models develop linearly rising potential
between static external charges. This is believed to
happen due to the large value of the asymptotically free
coupling constant at the ultraviolet side of the
crossover, indicated by the infrared Landau
pole in perturbative QCD. The quark masses are supposed to
play no important role in the vacuum structure and the
chiral limit $m\to0$ is assumed to be safe and convergent,
though non-perturbative.
The infrared singularities are easier to isolate than the non-perturbative
effects arising at the IR end of the UV scaling regime. It
has already been achieved for non-asymptotically free
models \cite{irqed} and superrenormalizable theories
\cite{jate}. The more complex non-perturbative features should arise
at the ultraviolet side of the crossover where no asymptotic
analysis is available.
The goal of the present paper is the study of the scaling laws
and their consequences at the IR end of the UV scaling regime.
According to our best knowledge this source of the non-perturbative
effects in asymptotically free theories
has not been studied before in a systematic manner.
The problem is rather involved and demanding, we restrict
ourselves to outline only the way the more detailed analysis
should be done.
In order to defuse the infrared problem we turn to the scalar model with
polynomial interaction in the phase where no spontaneous
symmetry breaking occurs. The term $\phi^n$ in the Lagrangian
of the $d$-dimensional scalar model is asymptotically
free for $n<2d/(d-2)$, so we have to trace the evolution
of a large number of coupling constants at low
dimensions. We present numerical evidences that
the polinomial interactions at the lower critical dimension
or below where infinitely many operators are relevant in the
UV scaling regime always become strong, non-perturbative.
The study of the asymptotically free three-dimensional $\phi^6$ model
can bring some light into the IR Landau pole problem of four-dimensional
gauge theories by considering the role of the non-renormalizable
couplings in the IR extrapolation of the UV scaling regime.
We will show that they affect considerably the evolution of the
relevant couplings. This points to the possibility that the
non-renormalizable couplings could suppress the Landau pole. The
full solution of the theory where all possible
coupling constants are followed
by the renormalization group equation should necessarily yield
a non-singular renormalization group flow so long as the theory
possesses local interactions. This suggests that the introduction of
the hadronic composite operators in QCD could defuse its
Landau pole problem \cite{polonyi95}.
Another issue addressed in this paper is the manner in which the
influence of the non-renormalizable operators on the dynamics
is suppressed and the universal physics is reached
as the cutoff is lowered. The usual argument based on the
linearization of the blocking relation is not
obviously applicable due to the presence of infinitely many
relevant operators. This question is discussed
in the framework of lattice regulation by
tailoring the Wegner-Houghton equation for lattice
regulated models. As a result, the approach to the
low energy physics can be compared for the momentum space
cutoff regularization in the continuum and for the lattice regularization,
and the universality, the regulator independence,
can be established well beyond the linearized approximation
of the blocking relations.
The organization of this paper is the following. The infinitesimal
renormalization group step, the Wegner-Houghton equation, is
described in Section II. The running coupling constants are
introduced and their evolution equations are given in Section III
for scalar models. The asymptotic UV evolution
is discussed in Section IV for $d=2,~3$ and 4. Section V is devoted
to the demonstration of the difficulties in finding a perturbative
model in $d=2$.
The Wegner-Houghton equation is derived in the lattice regularization
and its solution is presented in Section VI. Section VII is for
the conclusions.
\section{The Wegner-Houghton equation}
There are different ways the mixing of a large number of
operators can be traced down. The Wegner-Houghton
equation \cite{wh73},
which we use in the local potential approximation in this work,
is the simplest implementation of
the Kadanoff-Wilson blocking \cite{wrg} in the momentum space
and produces the cutoff dependence of the bare action along
the renormalized trajectory. Other methods work with the
effective action where the infrared cutoff dependence is
sought \cite{others}. Different schemes should agree in the
infrared limit where few long wavelength modes are left only
in the system. We shall make two approximations in computing
the blocked action, the truncation of the gradient expansion
at the leading order, the local potential approximation \cite{locp},
and the truncation of the Taylor expansion of the local potential
in the field variable \cite{trpot}.
The higher order terms of the gradient expansion are
non-renormalizable according to the power counting.
We believe that these coupling constants which are irrelevant
in the ultraviolet scaling regime do not modify our qualitative
conclusion.
The Wegner-Houghton (WH) equation~\cite{wh73} describes the evolution
of the effective action as the cutoff is lowered. As mentioned in the
Introduction we shall consider a scalar model with an intrinsic mass
scale which allows to clearly distinguish the UV and IR scaling regimes.
We derive the WH equation for a scalar field theory by using
a sharp momentum space cutoff~\cite{polonyi95,polonyi97}:
we will call this regularization procedure the \textit{continuum
regularization.} In Section~\ref{lattice} we consider an
alternative, the \textit{lattice regularization.}
Denote the bare action by $S_k[\phi]$, where $k$ is the UV cutoff. Then,
according to the usual Wilson-Kadanoff procedure,
\begin{equation}
e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}S_{k'}[\phi]}=\int\mathcal{D}\phi'\,
e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}S_{k}[\phi+\phi']}
\label{blocking}
\end{equation}
where $k'<k$ in the Euclidean space-time. The Fourier transform of the
fields $\phi(x)$ and $\phi'(x)$ is non-vanishing only for $p<k'$ and
$k'<p<k$, respectively. The right hand side is
evaluated by means of the loop expansion, so that Eq.~(\ref{blocking})
gives
\begin{equation}
S_{k'}[\phi]=S_k[\phi+\phi'_0]+\frac{\hbar}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\log\delta^2 S+{\cal O}(\hbar^2),
\label{loopexp}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\delta^2 S(x,y)=\frac{\delta^2 S_k[\phi+\phi'_0]}{\delta\phi'(x)
\delta\phi'(y)}\, ,
\end{equation}
and the saddle point, $\phi'_0$, is defined by the extremum condition
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta S_k[\phi+\phi'_0]}{\delta\phi'}=0,
\end{equation}
in which the infrared background field, $\phi(x)$, is held fixed.
It can be proved that the saddle point is trivial, $\phi'_0=0$, as long as
the matrix $\delta^2S(x,y)$ is invertible and the IR background field is
homogeneous, $\phi(x)=\Phi$.
Now, each successive loop integral in the $n$-loop contributions which are
not explicitly written in Eq.~(\ref{loopexp}) brings a suppression factor
\begin{equation}
\frac{k^d-k^{\prime d}}{k^{\prime d}}={\cal O}\left(\frac{k-k'}{k'}\right)
\end{equation}
due to the integration volume in the momentum space. Thus
$\delta k/k=(k-k')/k$
appears as a new small parameter which suppresses the higher loop contributions
in the blocking relation and the ``exact'' functional differential equation
obtained in the limit $\delta k\to 0$ includes the one-loop contribution
only. But we should bear in mind that the loop expansion had to be
used at the initial stage of the derivation so the resulting
``exact'' equation might be unreliable in the strong coupling
situation. All we know is that the loop corrections to the
evolution equation obtained in the one loop level are
vanishing.
We will use the gradient expansion for the action,
\begin{equation}
S[\phi]=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \int \mathrm{d}^d x\, U_n(\phi(x),\partial^{2n}),
\end{equation}
where $U_n$ is an homogeneous function of order $2n$ in the derivative.
In the leading order of this expansion, the so-called
local potential approximation, we have
\begin{equation}
S[\phi]=\int\mathrm{d}^dx \left[\frac{Z(\phi)}{2}(\partial_\mu\phi)^2+U(\phi)\right],
\label{localpotapprox}
\end{equation}
and furthermore the simplification $Z(\phi)=1$ will be used to derive a
simple differential equation for the potential $U$. This
local potential will be then the only function characterizing the
action. If we use now a homogeneous infrared background field,
$\phi(x)=\Phi$, we obtain from Eqs.~(\ref{loopexp}) and~(\ref{localpotapprox})
an equation for the
local potential $U_k(\phi=\Phi)$:
\begin{equation}
U_{k-\delta k}(\Phi)=U_k(\Phi)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}
\log[\square+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)]+{\cal O}(\delta k^2),
\label{WHeq}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the notation
\begin{equation}
U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)=\frac{\partial^2 U_k(\Phi)}{\partial\Phi^2},
\quad \square=-\partial_\mu\partial^\mu
\end{equation}
and the trace is taken in the subspace of the eliminated modes.
We can explicitly write the trace in momentum space and get
\begin{equation}
U_{k-\delta k}(\Phi)=U_k(\Phi)+\frac{1}{2}\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^d p}{(2\pi)^d}\log[p^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)]+{\cal O}(\delta k^2),
\end{equation}
where the integration extends over the shell $k-\delta k<p<k$. In the limit
$\delta k\to 0$ one then finds the differential equation
\begin{equation}
k\frac{\partial}{\partial k}U_k(\Phi)=-\frac{\Omega_d k^d}{2(2\pi)^d}
\log[k^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)],
\label{WHeqcont}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_d$ denotes the $d$-dimensional solid angle
\begin{equation}\label{solidc}
\Omega_d=\frac{2\pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}.
\end{equation}
The Wegner-Houghton equation~(\ref{WHeqcont})
represents the one-loop resummed
mixing of the coupling constants of the potential $U_k=\sum_n (g_n/n!)\Phi^n$.
In fact, an expansion of the logarithm in the second derivative of the
potential gives
\begin{equation}
k\frac{\partial}{\partial k}U_k(\Phi)=
-\frac{\Omega_d k^d}{2(2\pi)^d}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n}
\left(\frac{-U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)}{k^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)}
\right)^n,
\end{equation}
up to a field independent constant. This is the usual one loop resummation
of the effective potential~\cite{coleman73} except that the loop
momentum is now restricted to the subspace of the modes to be eliminated.
Actually, the fact that the r.h.s. includes the running potential
$U_k(\Phi)$ rather than the bare one, $U_\Lambda(\Phi)$, indicates that the
contributions of the successive eliminations of the degrees of freedom
are piled up during the integration of the differential equation and the
solution of the renormalization group equation resums the perturbation
series. The solution of the differential equation interpolates between the
bare and the effective potential as $k$ is lowered
from the original cutoff $\Lambda$ to zero.
Finally, let us note that the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{WHeqcont}) shows that
the restoring force for the fluctuations into the equilibrium is
proportional to the argument of the logarithm function. Thus a
nontrivial saddle point should be used when
\begin{equation}
k^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)\le0.
\label{broken}
\end{equation}
\section{Evolution of the coupling constants}
Our effective action is
\begin{equation}
S_k=\int \mathrm{d}^d x \left[\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu\phi(x))^2+
U_k(\phi(x))\right],
\end{equation}
and the initial condition for the evolution equation is given
at $k=\Lambda$. The potential $U_k(\Phi)$ is assumed to be
polynomial so it is expanded as
\begin{equation}
U_k(\Phi)=\sum_{n=0}^N \frac{1}{n!}g_n(\Phi_0)(\Phi-\Phi_0)^n.
\label{expansion}
\end{equation}
We study the model in the symmetric phase, where the saddle point is trivial,
$\Phi_0=0$. The polynomial structure of the potential
is consistent because we avoid the singularity of Eq.~(\ref{WHeqcont}) at
$k_\mathrm{cr}^2=-U_{k_\mathrm{cr}}^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)$
(recall Eq.~(\ref{broken})) which occurs in a region around $\Phi=0$ in the
symmetry broken phase~\cite{polonyi97}.
Taking the $n$-th derivative of Eq.~(\ref{expansion}) at $\Phi=0$
we obtain the
coupling constant $g_n(k)$, and define the corresponding beta function by
\begin{eqnarray}
g_n(k)&=&\frac{\partial^n}{\partial\Phi^n}U_k(\Phi)_{|\Phi=0},\nonumber\\
\beta_n&=&k\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} k}g_n(k)=
\frac{\partial^n}{\partial\Phi^n}k\frac{\partial}{\partial k}U_k(\Phi).
\end{eqnarray}
By taking the successive derivatives of Eq.~(\ref{WHeqcont}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\beta_n=-\frac{\Omega_d k^d}{2(2\pi)^d}\mathcal{P}_n(G_2,\ldots,G_{n+2}),
\label{betafunct}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
G_n=\frac{g_n}{k^2+g_2}
\label{bigg}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}_n=\frac{\partial^n}{\partial\Phi^n}
\log[k^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)]
\end{equation}
is a polynom of order $n$ in the variables $G_j$, $j=2,\ldots,n+2$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{polinomia}
\mathcal{P}_1&=&G_3, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_2&=&G_4-G_3^2, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_3&=&G_5-3G_3G_4+2G_3^3, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_4&=&G_6-4G_5G_3-3G_4^2+12G_3^2G_4-6G_3^4,\\
\mathcal{P}_5&=&G_7-5G_6G_3-10G_5G_4+20G_5G_3^2+30G_4^2G_3-60G_4G_3^3+24G_3^5,
\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_6&=&G_8-6G_7G_3-15G_6G_4-10G_5^2+30G_6G_3^2+
120G_5G_4G_3+30G_4^3\nonumber\\
&&-120G_5G_3^3-270G_4^2G_3^2+360G_4G_3^4-120G_3^6.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The coupling constants defined through Eq.~(\ref{expansion})
are dimensional parameters (the field variable $\phi$ has dimension
$(d-2)/2$). However, the corresponding dimensionless parameters have more
physical sense. We obtain them in the following way:
\begin{equation}
\tilde g_n(k)=k^{-n(1-\frac{d}{2})-d} g_n(k)=
(\Lambda\tilde{k})^{-n(1-\frac{d}{2})-d} g_n(k),
\label{dimensionless}
\end{equation}
where now $\tilde{k}$ runs from 1 to 0. Their beta functions are
\begin{equation}
\tilde\beta_n=-\left[n\left(1-\frac{d}{2}\right)+d\right]\tilde g_n
+k^{-n(1-\frac{d}{2})-d}\beta_n,
\label{bettil}
\end{equation}
where the first and the second term stands for the tree-level
and the loop corrections, respectively. One can see that the
super-renormalizable coupling constants follow
asymptotically free scaling law at the tree level.
\section{UV scaling laws and their extensions}
One can distinguish an ultraviolet
and an infrared scaling regime, for $k^2\gg |m^2(k)|$ and for
$k^2\ll |m^2(k)|$, respectively.
In the UV regime the scale dependence comes dominantly from the
$k^2$ term of the propagator, see the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{bigg});
the $k$-dependence is generated by the phase factor $k^d$
in the IR regime where $k^2$ could be neglected in the inverse propagator.
We will begin at the UV scale with the
usual $\phi^4$ potential ($g_2\equiv m^2$)
\begin{equation}
V_\Lambda(\phi)=\frac{1}{2} m^2\phi^2+\frac{1}{4!}g_4\phi^4+\frac{1}{6!}g_6\phi^6,
\end{equation}
and see how the different couplings are generated when we move towards the
IR regime.
One ignores the $g_2$ term in the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{bigg})
in the asymptotic UV regime and finds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{betafo}
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_2}{\mathrm{d} k}&=&-\frac{\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d}\,k^{d-3}g_4,\nonumber\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_4}{\mathrm{d} k}&=&\frac{\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d}\,k^{d-3}\left(
\frac{3}{k^2}g_4^2-g_6\right), \label{evolutions} \\
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_6}{\mathrm{d} k}&=&-\frac{\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d}\,3g_4k^{d-5}\left(
\frac{10}{k^2}g_4^2-5g_6\right),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last equation we omitted the contribution of $g_8$.
Consider the usual strategy in which the coupling constants $g_n$ are
neglected for $n>4$ and the resulting equation
is easy to integrate,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{g_4(k)}=\frac{1}{g_4(\Lambda)}+\frac{3\Omega_d
\left(1-\left(\frac{k}{\Lambda}\right)^{4-d}\right)}{(4-d)2(2\pi)^dk^{4-d}}.
\label{g4UVsc}
\end{equation}
This expression agrees with the result of the minimal
subtraction (MS), a scheme which proved to be specially
convenient in the ultraviolet scaling regime. It is based on the
analytical continuation of the loop integrals in the ultraviolet domain
so the resulting beta functions are mass independent, i.e.
the terms ${\cal O}(g_2/k^2)$ are neglected. When extrapolating to the infrared
regime we find erroneously the mass independent result $g_4\sim k^{4-d}$
($g_4\sim \log k$ in $d=4$), $g_4$ tends to zero as $k\to 0$.
This can be understood by inspecting (\ref{betafo}) where we find
large positive values in the infrared for $g_4\not=0$ (this
conclusion remains valid for finite $g_6$, as well). When the
mass term is retained the beta function assumes the correct behavior
and becomes ${\cal O}(k^d)$ in the infrared.
Note that the term with $g_6$ acts in the opposite manner
than $g_4$, c.f. the different signs in the right hand side of
(\ref{betafo}), so that it can change the evolution considerably.
It is instructive to look into the evolution of the dimensionless
coupling constant,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tilde g_4(k)}=\frac{\left(\frac{k}{\Lambda}\right)^{4-d}}
{\tilde g_4(\Lambda)}
+\frac{3\Omega_d
\left(1-\left(\frac{k}{\Lambda}\right)^{4-d}\right)}{(4-d)2(2\pi)^d}.
\end{equation}
For $4-d>0$ the one-loop $\omega=4-d$ universal critical exponent
is reached for $k$ values sufficiently below the cutoff
where $k/\Lambda\approx0$. The latter condition
is needed to get rid of the non-universal cutoff effects. The scaling
changes qualitatively as $d\to4$ because the non-universal
$k\approx\Lambda$ behavior is spread over the whole $k$ range
due to the smallness of $4-d$. This is what happens in the expansion
\begin{equation}
1-\left(\frac{k}{\Lambda}\right)^{4-d}\to(d-4)\ln\frac{k}{\Lambda},
\end{equation}
employed in the dimensional regularization scheme. This generalizes
to any dimension: the marginal coupling constant follows the
scaling law extended from the non-universal cutoff regime.
The evolution for $g_2$ is of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_2}{\mathrm{d} k}=-\frac{\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d}\,g_4 k^{d-3}.
\label{gtwoas}
\end{equation}
It predicts
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_2}{\mathrm{d} k}\sim k,~~~g_2\sim k^2+\text{const}
\end{equation}
in lack of any dimensional constant.
In the IR scaling regime we neglect the $k^2$ term in the denominator of
Eq.~(\ref{bigg}) and using Eqs.~(\ref{betafunct}) and~(\ref{polinomia}),
we get for $g_4$ (assuming again $g_6=0$),
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_4}{\mathrm{d} k}=\frac{3\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d}\,k^{d-1}\,\frac{g_4^2}{g_2^2}.
\label{g4IRsc}
\end{equation}
This evolution is much slower comparing with Eq.~(\ref{g4UVsc}).
In fact, for $d>1$ we have now a suppression factor $k^{d-1}$
which makes the coupling to stabilize at the attractive IR fixed point.
In the same way, we obtain for $g_2$
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} g_2}{\mathrm{d} k}=-\frac{\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d}\,k^{d-1}\,\frac{g_4}{g_2},
\label{g2IRsc}
\end{equation}
with a variation which is slower than that predicted by the UV
scaling and a suppression factor for $k\to 0$.
We see that the extraction of the scaling in the limit
$k\to 0$ from the UV scaling laws, which is the commonly accepted
practice in perturbation theory is incorrect when the MS scheme
is used. One has to come back to the complete scaling
laws in order to describe correctly the IR scaling.
Four-dimensional asymptotically free gauge models present an infrared
Landau pole in perturbation theory. But this behavior results from
the extrapolation from the UV scaling laws. As we have just
remarked, the IR limit of the UV regime is not correct in
general, and the mass term can change considerably the actual behavior
in the IR. Moreover, at the IR side of the UV regime, there are nonlinear
effects that make important the contribution of the
irrelevant (non-renormalizable) couplings (see Fig.~3 (b),
commented in the next Section),
therefore even the IR limit of the UV scaling can be influenced by these
couplings. These ideas have been considered qualitatively in the previous
paragraphs, after inspection of Eq.~(\ref{evolutions}). Let us now
examine them more quantitatively.
We take as an example of asymptotically free model the scalar theory in
three dimensions. We know from the epsilon-expansion result~\cite{wilson72}
that below four dimensions, the $\lambda\phi^4$ theory does not
present an infrared Landau pole, but a fixed point located at
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\lambda}^*=\frac{16\pi^2}{3}\epsilon,
\label{WFfixedpoint}
\end{equation}
at order $\epsilon=4-d$. This is the Wilson-Fisher fixed point. For
finite $\epsilon$, for example in two and three dimensions, we can get this
one-loop result from our beta functions of the dimensionless coupling constants
obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{bettil}) and~(\ref{betafunct}) in the asymptotic
UV regime (that is, ignoring $g_2$), which for the
$\tilde{g}_4$ coupling give
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\beta}_4=-(4-d)\tilde g_4+ 3\tilde g_4^2\frac{\Omega_d}{2(2\pi)^d},
\end{equation}
giving the IR fixed point
\begin{equation}
\tilde g_4^*=\frac{(4-d)2(2\pi)^d}{3\Omega_d}.
\end{equation}
Restricting ourselves to the $d=3$ case, we find
\begin{equation}
\tilde g_4^*=\frac{4\pi^2}{3}\simeq 13.15947.
\label{g4FP}
\end{equation}
However, in three dimensions $g_6$ is a marginal coupling, and it can be
generated by the RG flow, modifying the position of the
fixed point~(\ref{g4FP}). If we include $\tilde g_6$ in our analysis, we
get the beta functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\beta}_4&=&-\tilde g_4+\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_4^2-
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_6 \, ,\nonumber \\
\tilde{\beta}_6&=&\frac{-3}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_4\,(10 \tilde g_4^2-5\tilde g_6).
\end{eqnarray}
It is immediate to see that the zeros of these beta functions are at the point
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde g_4^*&=&4\pi^2\simeq 39.4784, \nonumber \\
\tilde g_6^*&=&32\pi^4\simeq 3117.091 .
\label{fixpe}
\end{eqnarray}
But now let us consider the inclusion of a non-renormalizable coupling, $g_8$.
The beta functions for the $(g_4,g_6,g_8)$ model are
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\beta}_4&=&-\tilde g_4+\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_4^2-
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_6 \, ,\nonumber \\
\tilde{\beta}_6&=&\frac{-3}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_4\,(10 \tilde g_4^2-5\tilde g_6)
-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\tilde g_8 \, , \label{betag8} \\
\tilde{\beta}_8&=&\tilde g_8-\frac{7}{4\pi^2}\,
(-90\tilde g_4^4+60\tilde g_4^2\tilde g_6-5\tilde g_6^2-4\tilde g_4\tilde g_8).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
From them, one obtains the fixed point
\begin{eqnarray}\label{fixpk}
\tilde g_4^*=\frac{4\pi^2}{210}\left(195 +
\sqrt{29625}\right) \simeq 69.01, \nonumber \\
\tilde g_6^*=-4\pi^2 \tilde g_4^* + 3\tilde g_4^{*2}\simeq 11563,
\label{fixed_point_g8} \\
\tilde g_8^*=15\tilde g_4^{*3}-60\pi\tilde g_4^{*2}\simeq 2.11\cdot 10^6.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
These values are also obtained in the numerical integration of
Eqs.~(\ref{betag8}), independently of the initial values for the different
couplings (if they are different from zero, which corresponds to the Gaussian
fixed point).
To assess the importance of this result, the difference between the
physics around the fixed points (\ref{fixpe}) and (\ref{fixpk}),
recall that the modification
of the irrelevant operator set at the cutoff influences the overall scale
of the model. Thus one has to consider dimensionless quantities
in comparing the two coupling constant regions. The most obvious
candidate, the dimensionless ratio between the mass and the four point
vertex, $g_2/g^2_4$, is trivially vanishing in our approximation.
But $g_6$ is dimensionless and its variation at the fixed points
indicates that no adjustment of the overall scale could bring the physics
of these two fixed points together.
As we have expected, the non-renormalizable coupling $g_8$
modifies the position of the fixed point without changing the blocking
procedure, turning to a situation of strong coupling dynamics in the IR.
This is because the linearity which one assumes to ignore the irrelevant
coupling constants is no longer valid in the strong coupling regime.
As $g_4$ and $g_6$ approach their large IR fixed point the linearization
fails and new scaling laws are found which in turn generate new relevant
operators \cite{polonyi97}, overlapping with $\phi^8$. Thus the
strong coupling dynamics may induce a new (and artificial) IR scaling
regime even if the UV scaling laws are extrapolated down to low energies.
Nothing unusual happens for infinitesimal
$\epsilon$ when one stays in the vicinity of the Gaussian fixed point.
In that case, linearity applies all along the RG flow from the Gaussian
fixed point to the Wilson-Fisher fixed point given by
Eq.~(\ref{WFfixedpoint}). However, as we have seen, its location is
changed for finite $\epsilon$ by
nonlinear effects produced in the flow from one fixed point to
the other. In the vicinity of this infrared fixed point (which,
we stress again, is artificial in the sense that it neglects the
influence of the mass term) we of course have again the classification
of relevant and irrelevant terms, which, in the case of three and
two dimensions, is different from the one obtained from power
counting. For example, this IR fixed point has in two dimensions
just the mass and the fourth order coupling as relevant parameters,
while higher order couplings are irrelevant.
It is well known that the poles of the fixed point
action at complex values of the field variable make the
Taylor expansion in the field unreliable \cite{trpot}. We do
not see any reason to reject a blocked action only because the
potential is diverging beyond a given field strength. This kind of
internal space singularity might only indicate a
maximal particle density in the system. We should stay
only sufficiently far from this limiting value of the field variable
when the evolution equation is truncated. We interpret the
difference of the two fixed points as an indication of the breakdown
of the simple universality which is based on the linearized flow
equation around the UV fixed point.
So far we considered the extrapolation of the UV scaling laws to the
IR regime. Does the conclusion concerning the importance of the
non-renormalizable coupling constant $g_8$ remains valid when the true
evolution equation, with $g_2\not=0$, is considered? The mass slows down
the evolution but this may happen ``too late'' and the strong coupling
effects can be found on the true renormalization group trajectory for
small enough renormalized mass, close enough to the critical point.
When the mass is large then crossover freezes the evolution of the
coupling constants ``earlier'' and the linearization remains valid.
To demonstrate this case recall
that the IR limit of the UV regime means a fixed point for the
dimensionless couplings. For a super-renormalizable coupling constant
such as $g_4$, which
has positive dimension, this would mean that the dimensional coupling goes to
zero when $k \to 0$. However, we know that for a relevant coupling, the
dimensionless quantity diverges when $k\to 0$, so that the dimensional coupling
will take a finite value at the IR.
This reasoning can be explicitly checked in
Fig.~1, in which we consider the $d=3$ scalar theory with
just one coupling, $g_4$. The white points follow the evolution of the
UV regime and its extrapolation to $k=0$. We observe that indeed the
dimensionless coupling reaches the fixed point given by Eq.~(\ref{g4FP}),
while the dimensional coupling goes to zero. However, if one considers the
complete beta function, i.e. retaining $g_2$ (black points),
the behavior is the same in the UV regime,
but then the true trajectory separates
from the IR limit of this regime and enters into the actual IR regime, which
implies a divergent dimensionless coupling at $k=0$,
and a certain finite value of the
dimensional coupling, as explained above. One can however see numerically
that this finite value is stable and almost does not change when one
introduces more and more non-renormalizable couplings in the RG evolution.
This is what one expects when the crossover captures the coupling
constants and slows down their evolution in the regime of linearizability
where the non-renormalizable couplings are unimportant.
In the same way, it might
well be that the IR Landau pole
observed in four-dimensional gauge theories is just an artifact of
a wrong IR limit or the truncation of the renormalized action.
First, the nature of the singularity can change
when one adds non-renormalizable couplings, and then the IR Landau
pole would be the reflection of the insufficient functional form of the
blocked action, and second, the true IR trajectory
can be quite different from the IR limit of the UV scaling.
\section{Asymptotic freedom and the perturbation expansion}
We examine in this Section the scaling laws in dimensions
$d=2,3$ and 4 from the point of view of the
applicability of the perturbation expansion.
As we have seen in the previous Section, in the RG
evolution of our model there are two asymptotic scaling regimes,
$k\to\infty$ and $k\to0$. The latter one is trivial
as mentioned above, because the beta functions
\eq{betafunct} are suppressed by the factor $k^d$
and the evolution of the dimensional coupling constants
slows down as $k\to0$. The asymptotic UV scaling is
however more involved.
The super-renormalizable (relevant) and
the renormalizable (marginal) coupling constants, $g_n$ with
$n<2d/(d-2)$ and $n=2d/(d-2)$ according to the power counting,
respectively,
follow their autonomous evolution, the universal
renormalized trajectory\footnote{Ignoring the triviality in $d=4$
where the tree level marginal
coupling constant $g_4$ is actually irrelevant due to the
radiative corrections.}.
The non-renormalizable (irrelevant) coupling constants
``forget quickly'' their initial value and take values which
are generated by the universal flow. This general trend
is demonstrated by the renormalization group flow
shown for $d=4$ and 3 in Figs.~2 and~3,
respectively. In those Figures the dimensionless coupling constants
are displayed
as the functions of the cutoff
which is measured in the units of the
initial cutoff value, $k\to k\Lambda$.
In the case of theories
with non-Gaussian asymptotically free couplings
(the case of our model for $d<4$), an excessive growth of
these couplings in the UV regime may produce a non-perturbative
situation in the infrared. We want to study this by comparing the
values of the couplings at $k=0$. To do so,
we will adopt the convention that a model with positive
renormalized mass square is non-perturbative in the vertex
$g_n\phi^n$ if the radiative correction ${\cal O}(g_n)$
to the self energy is stronger than the mass term, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\frac{\tilde g_n(k)}{((n-2)/2)! \, 2^{(n-2)/2}\tilde m^2(k)}\gg1
\label{pert_cond}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde m^2(k)=\tilde g_2(k)$.
In case this inequality were satisfied in the infrared
($k=0$),
this would mean a non-perturbative situation and the invalidity of
renormalized perturbation expansion.
We remark that we are
asking here about the validity of the perturbative condition
at the true, $k=0$,
infrared fixed point, where the RG flow ends.
We are not considering for example the situation at
the Wilson-Fisher IR fixed point
in $d<4$, which, as was explained in Section 4,
is the IR limit of the UV scaling behavior (a fixed point
which describes the behavior of the system at the end of
the UV regime), and not the
real IR fixed point if we ask for the behavior of the
system at energy
scales much lower than the mass $m(k)$ (for example, in
dimension two, we will see that at the
crossover, or the end of the UV regime, the high order
couplings start to take large values, while they are
irrelevant couplings for the Wilson-Fisher IR fixed
point; this is because the true RG flow separates from
the extrapolation of the UV flow, as was explicitely shown
in Fig. 1 in the case of $d=3$).
We now turn to a detailed analysis of the
situation at dimensions four, three and two.
Since the neglected higher order
vertices may influence the evolution while we lower the cutoff,
we have to address the problem of the
system of coupled equations numerically.
The evolution of a non-renormalizable coupling constant, $\tilde g_6$ in
four dimensions, is shown in Fig.~2. The irrelevance is
expressed by the independence of $\tilde g_6(k)$ on the initial value
$\tilde g_6(1)$ for $k\ll1$\footnote{The different initial value
for the non-renormalizable
coupling constants may induce a different overall scale factor.
This effect is very weak in our case due to the smallness of the
renormalizable coupling constants.}. The value given in the
leading order of the perturbation expansion,\footnote{Which is not
applicable for the strongly coupled case~\eq{fixpe}
or~\eq{fixpk}.} ${\cal O}(\tilde g_4^3)$,
is reached at $k\approx0.3$ for not too large values
of $\tilde g_6(1)$. Since the model is in the weak coupling regime
the evolution is rather slow after arriving at this universal
value if the cutoff is high enough to provide a long scaling
regime. In our case the scale window $0.3<k<1$ was insufficient
and the plateau is reduced into a peak at $k\approx0.3$ before the
crossover. But the bringing of $\tilde g_6(1)$
close to the universal
value creates a plateau even with this limited range of the scales
as it can be seen for $\tilde g_6(1)=9\cdot10^{-8}$. Such a
scale independence is the ultimate goal of the improved action
program~\cite{impr}.
As the initial value increases beyond the
plateau level the coupling constant decreases in a monotonous manner
as the cutoff is lowered. In order to check the critical exponent
coming from the linearized blocking we need a $\tilde g_6(k)$
larger than the universal value since the latter originates in the
nonlinear level, ${\cal O}(\tilde g_4^3)$.
The evolution follows the
linear relation $\tilde g_6\approx k^2$
for $k<1$ indicated by the dashed line in the
last plot of Fig.~2. The infrared scaling regime is
$0<k<0.1$ where $\tilde g_6(k)$ tends to zero with $k$ along the universal
trajectory. The theory remains perturbative in $d=4$ since it has no
relevant non-Gaussian coupling constant.
The three-dimensional renormalization group flow is depicted in Fig.~3.
The asymptotic infrared scaling laws are rather
simple, the super-renormal\-iz\-able coupling constants diverge,
the renormalizable one $n=6$ converges and the non-renormalizable
ones tend to zero in the infrared, $k\to0$. The ultraviolet
scaling law, above $k\approx0.1$ indicates the weak, radiative correction
generated relevance of $\tilde g_6$ for the given initial conditions,
$\tilde g_n(1)$. The insensitivity on the initial
condition $\tilde g_8(1)$ for $k<0.3$ seen in the last plot supports
the irrelevance of $\tilde g_8$. In fact, the evolution of
$\tilde g_8(k)$ follows the linearized scaling law as long as
its value is far form the universal ${\cal O}(\tilde g_4^4)$ value.
It is worthwhile noting that the non-renormalizable
coupling constants $\tilde g_n(k)$ always develop a peak of sign
$(-1)^{1+n/2}$ around the crossover, $k\approx0.1$. The appearance of the
peak can be understood as the result of the increase of
$|\tilde g_n(k)|$ from zero as the cutoff is lowered in the ultraviolet
scaling regime and the decrease in the infrared side of the crossover.
Non-perturbative phenomena may arise at the low energy
edge of the UV scaling regime due to the increase of the
asymptotically free coupling constants,
$g_4$ and $g_6$ if the scaling regime is long
enough and the initial value of the coupling constants
$\tilde g_4(1)$ and $\tilde g_6(1)$ are large enough.
There is however no problem in finding a perturbative,
asymptotically free theory in the infrared.
The parameter with the highest energy dimension in the Lagrangian
is $g_2=m^2$ for $d>2$. Thus $\tilde g_2$
is the largest among the dimensionless coupling constants
according to Eq.~\eq{bettil}, and it dominates the
action and renders the theory perturbative in the IR limit.
The comparison of this conclusion with Eq.~\eq{fixed_point_g8}
reveals the necessity of treating the IR scaling laws properly in
establishing the validity of the renormalized perturbation
expansion.
As $d$ approaches 2 more and more coupling constants become
super-renormalizable. The fastest increasing dimensionless
non-Gaussian coupling constant during the decrease of the
cutoff is $\tilde g_4$. The critical exponent, the measure of
the speed of the increase become degenerate for infinitely
many coupling constants when $d=2$. The specialty of the
lower critical dimension is the existence of infinitely
many super-renormalizable coupling constants, $\tilde g_n$,
with equal critical dimension. This degeneracy of the
dimensions evolves the non-Gaussian pieces of the action
with the same rate as the mass term on the tree level
and the theories are not obviously perturbative any more.
In other words, it remains for the radiative corrections,
the last term in the right hand side of Eq.~\eq{bettil}
to determine if the theory runs into weak- or
strong-coupling regime at the infrared.
The renormalization group equations were integrated out numerically
in two dimensions
with the initial conditions $(g_2^i=-0.001, g_4^i=0.01, g_n^i=0, n>4)$ to
find the evolution of the coupling constants. The result,
depicted in Fig.~4,
shows a marked increase at the low energy end
of the UV scaling regime. This increase originates from
the asymptotically free evolution. The relevant
behavior of a coupling constant is defined on the linearized
level of the blocking, i.e. in the leading order of the
perturbation expansion. This one-loop result can be
obtained by replacing the running coupling constants
in the beta functions by their initial values at the cutoff.
The local potential obtained in the one-loop approximation is
\begin{eqnarray}
U_k(\phi)&=&V_\Lambda(\phi)+\frac{1}{2}\int_{k<p<\Lambda}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 p}{(2\pi)^2}
\log[p^2+V_\Lambda^{\prime\prime}(\phi)]= \nonumber \\
&&\frac{1}{8\pi}\left\{[\Lambda^2+V_\Lambda^{\prime\prime}(\phi)]
\log[\Lambda^2+V_\Lambda^{\prime\prime}(\phi)]- \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left.[k^2+V_\Lambda^{\prime\prime}(\phi)]
\log[k^2+V_\Lambda^{\prime\prime}(\phi)]-\Lambda^2+k^2\right\},
\label{oneloop}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
V_\Lambda^{\prime\prime}(\phi)=m^2(\Lambda)+\frac{g_4(\Lambda)}{2}\phi^2.
\end{equation}
The comparison of the numerical solution with the one-loop
evolution is shown in Fig.~5.
The one-loop formula~(\ref{oneloop}) cannot be extended down
to $k=0$, because
there will be a value of $k$ such that $k^2+m^2(\Lambda)=0$, since
$m^2(\Lambda)$ is negative. But we only want to compare the results in
the perturbative regime. So we have stopped the evolution in
Fig.~5 at $k\sim 0.3$. One can also see an increase in the
one-loop solution at small $k$ which accumulates and drives
the system non-perturbative at lower values of $k$.
The numerical results of Fig.~4 show that the
initial conditions $(g_2^i=-0.001, g_4^i=0.01, g_n^i=0, n>4)$
correspond to a non-perturbative system. Can we find
initial conditions which yield perturbative dynamics?
In order to answer this question the left hand side
of the inequality \eq{pert_cond} is plotted against
the initial value for $g_2$ on Fig.~6,
for the different couplings up to $N=20$,
at a value of $g_4^i=0.001$. The result does not
change qualitatively for different values of bare $g_4$.
It supports the general trend of having the systems more
perturbative when the Gaussian part of the action is
increased. The higher order
coupling constants tend to grow faster but it seems that $g_n$
can be brought into the perturbative regime for sufficiently
large initial mass square. At $g_2^i=0.01$, for example, all
the couplings are perturbative, and this perturbative character is
more pronounced for the high couplings. However, the separation between the
values of the l.h.s. ratio of Eq.~\eq{pert_cond} at
$g_2^i=0.01$ is smaller
as we go to higher couplings, and one can ask whether it has got a
limiting value or the trend can be reversed for a sufficiently
high order coupling. Indeed, Fig.~7 reveals that
this happens for the $n=24$ coupling ($N=26$),
which suggests that one will
have a non-perturbative situation also at this value of
bare $g_2$ going to a sufficiently high order coupling constant.
The situation is the same, even stronger, below two dimensions:
the existence of an infinite number of relevant couplings makes
that one cannot assure perturbativity by looking to a finite
number of couplings, no matter what the initial conditions are.
We take this and similar other failures in finding a
perturbative theory observed at different initial conditions as a
strong numerical indication of the non-perturbative nature of
{\em any} two and lower dimensional scalar field theory with
polynomial interaction.
\section{Lattice Wegner-Houghton equation}
\label{lattice}
The previous Sections dealt with the renormalization group flow
at finite scales. We address now a different, asymptotic problem,
the manner the sensitivity on the initial values
of the irrelevant coupling constants is suppressed
during the renormalization.
This question is usually rendered trivial
by the universality argument. But there are two reasons to
suspect that such a reasoning which is based on the linearization
of the blocking relation might be oversimplified; both are
related to an infinite set of operators.
The reason motivating a more careful check of the
universality, mentioned in the Introduction, is that the
models at or below the lower critical dimension contain
infinitely many relevant operators. It is not obvious whether
the sum over the interaction vertices is always convergent
enough to make the linearization of the blocking relation
a reliable approximation.
Another potential problem shows up if one changes infinitely
many irrelevant terms in the action by choosing another regulator.
Let us compare the momentum space cutoff in the continuum with
the lattice regularization. The propagator is a monotonic
function of the momentum in the continuum. This is not the case
on the lattice. In fact,
the fermion doubling problem on the lattice~\cite{nogo} results
from the periodicity of the propagator in the first Brioulline zone,
the appearance of $2^d-1$ new maxima in the propagators in the UV,
non-universal regime. The existence of a maximum of the
propagator in the UV regime contradicts an assumption
of the studies of the continuum models, namely that the propagator
decreases monotonically as $p\to\infty$, and renders the perturbation
expansion non-universal for lattice fermionic models~\cite{reisz}.
There is no species doubling for bosons but
their propagator remains periodic on the lattice and we find
$2^d-1$ lattice extrema in the UV regime. The existence of these
extrema is an evidence of the slowing down in the decrease of the
propagator as the momentum approaches the boundary of the first
Brioullin zone. This in turn indicates the weaker suppression
of the high energy modes compared to the continuum regularization.
Does this mean that the UV scaling laws are different in the
continuum than on the lattice? We shall find an affirmative
answer to this question but this result does not contradict
the universality.
Some words of caution are in order at this point. One would object the
interpretation of the modification of the cutoff as the introduction
of new irrelevant coupling constants by recalling that the theory
ceases to be renormalizable in the presence of the non-renormalizable
(irrelevant)
couplings. The resolution of the apparent paradox is based on the
difference between the ways
the renormalization group is used in Statistical
and High Energy Physics. We are interested in the dynamics close
to the cutoff in Statistical Physics and this is respected
by the employment of the blocking which keeps the {\em complete}
dynamics unchanged below the actual cutoff. The price of this
precision is the appearance of the infinitely many irrelevant
coupling constants in the action. We seek the dynamics at
finite, fixed scales in High Energy Physics. Since the cutoff is
sent to the infinity this boils down the problem of keeping
the physics cutoff independent {\em far from the cutoff} only.
The obvious gain of such an ease of the conditions is the
freedom from the adjustment of the non-renormalizable
parameters. Thus one can remove the cutoff when the non-renormalizable
parameters are present in the action without any problem\footnote{Ignoring
again the possibility of the triviality,
the appearance of an UV Landau pole.} as long as the
renormalization conditions are imposed far from the cutoff.
The lattice regularization of the scalar model can be described
by using the momentum space as the introduction of the non-renormalizable
higher order derivative terms,
\begin{eqnarray}
(\partial_\mu\phi)^2&\longrightarrow&
\frac{4}{a^2}(\sin\frac{a\partial_\mu}{2i}\phi)^2\\
&=&\left(\sum\limits_{\ell=0}^\infty
\frac{1}{(2\ell+1)!}\left(\frac{a}{2}\right)^{2\ell}\partial^{2\ell+1}
\phi\right)^2.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The cutoff dependence of the non-renormalizable coupling constants
follows a tree-level relation arising from the Taylor expansion
of the sine function. This is sufficient to establish convergent
physics at finite scales when $a\to0$~\cite{reisz}, a claim to
be verified in this Section numerically by means of the implementation of
the Wegner-Houghton scheme on the lattice. But this convergence
can not rule out a modification of the scaling laws in the
asymptotical UV regime. In fact, we shall find a new scaling regime
between the region where the usual universal UV scaling is observed
and the UV fixed point. The only effect the different
adjustments of the non-renormalized coupling constants may leave on the
finite scale physics can be comprised in an overall scale factor.
It is rather straightforward to repeat the steps leading to
Eq.~\eq{WHeqcont} on the lattice. It is shown in the Appendix
that the only change required is the modification of the ``solid angle''
factor, $\Omega(k)$: the lattice evolution equation
\eq{WHeqlatt} is obtained from Eq.~\eq{WHeqcont} by replacing
Eq.~\eq{solidc} by Eq.~(\ref{omega3}). One recovers the continuum solid
angle for $d=2$, $\Omega_2=2\pi$, in Eq.~(\ref{omega3}) as $k\to0$,
thus the WH equations agree in the IR limit.
In fact, one sees numerically that the behavior of the evolution of the
different coupling constants in the lattice RG is qualitatively the same
as in the continuum case. But the question we are interested in
is the relation between the regularizations in the UV, where
the coupling constants are introduced, when the physics is the same
at finite scales. It is shown in the Appendix that there is a
natural relation between the cutoffs, $\Lambda^2=8/a^2$, which
matches the finite scale physics. We shall follow the renormalization
group flow in terms of the coupling constants whose dimension is removed
by the initial value of the cutoff,
\begin{equation}
g_n \longrightarrow g_n/\Lambda^2,
\label{rescaling}
\end{equation}
in order to avoid the singularities at $k=0$.
Let us consider $\lambda\phi^4$ lattice theory which can be studied
either numerically or analytically and whose properties can be matched
to those of the continuum theory by the adjustment of $g_2$ and $g_4$.
But the situation is more involved in two dimensions. The reason is again
that there are infinitely many renormalizable coupling constants
and one cannot match the finite scale physics by adjusting $g_2$ and $g_4$.
This is demonstrated in Fig.~8 where the lattice
model with the initial conditions $m^2(8)=g_2(8)=-0.001$, $g_4(8)=0.01$,
and $g_n(8)=0,~n>4$ (where we have already made the rescaling
Eq.~(\ref{rescaling})) was evolved in the infrared direction. As the system
reached $k=k_\mathrm{end}$ the continuum
WH equation was used to increase the cutoff. The result is a
``perfect matching'' of the models in the UV which gives the same low
energy physics in the IR. As we can see in Fig.~8, the lattice
$\lambda\phi^4$ model in two dimensions is {\em not} the continuum
$\lambda\phi^4$ theory. It contains contributions of infinitely many
renormalizable other coupling constants.
Of course, numerically we had to truncate the equations
at a certain coupling (here, at ${\cal O}(\Phi^{22})$) but we checked that these
``truncation effect'' hardly influences the values of the low order coupling
constants.
We have taken for the parameter $k^2_\mathrm{end}$
the value $k^2=0.3$ in Fig.~8, while the crossover
is at $k^2_\mathrm{cr}\sim 0.01$.
We had to use $k^2_\mathrm{end}>k^2_\mathrm{cr}$,
because the high order couplings have very large values at the crossover
which requires very fine discretization in the numerical
resolution of our differential equations to ensure that the way back to the
UV is done accurately. However, $k^2_\mathrm{end}$ should also be
sufficiently small that the flow be universal there, in other words
to make sure that the irrelevant lattice contributions are suppressed
for $k^2<k^2_\mathrm{cr}$.
The choice $k^2_\mathrm{end}>0$ introduces an uncertainty in the
matching. To assess it we repeated the ``go-return'' evolution
described above and checked the discretization errors for
$k^2_\mathrm{end}=0.8,~0.5$ and $0.3$.
After then we took the appropriate bare parameters at the
UV end points in both regularizations and followed the evolutions
down to $k=0$. The relative difference,
\begin{equation}
\Delta g_n\equiv
\frac{|g_n^\mathrm{CONT}(0)-g_n^\mathrm{LATT}(0)|}{|g_n^\mathrm{LATT}(0)|}
\label{relative}
\end{equation}
is shown in Table~1 for the different coupling constants
at $k=0$. The smallness of the deviation assures that
the IR behavior has practically been obtained with $k^2_\mathrm{end}=0.3$,
and one can trust the conclusions, the approach of the flow to a
universal curve, extracted from Fig.~8.
The first two plots in Fig.~8 show that the mass and the
quartic coupling constant run parallel in the SUV region of the lattice
regularization (see Appendix) and in the continuum. There is no
convergence between the two regularizations in this unusual scaling regime,
anticipated above. The approach to the universal curve starts
for $k^2<4$, below the SUV regime only. The fact that the renormalization group
flow converges to the universal one in the $2^{-d}$-th part
of the Brioullin zone only sets an unexpected high lower limit on the
lattice size when the continuum limit is sought in numerical simulations.
The higher order vertices seem to converge to the universal curve from the
very beginning but the difference between the two regularizations is
surprisingly large. The universal trajectory of the $\phi^4$ model is
reached later by the higher order vertices. This effect appears to be
a counterpart of the non-perturbative features seen in
Figs.~6,~7 and introduces a large uncertainty in
identifying two-dimensional models in different regularizations.
\section{Conclusions}
The renormalization group flow of scalar models with
polynomial interaction is considered in the first part of this paper
by solving the Wegner-Houghton equation numerically in the local
potential approximation for $d=2,~3$ and 4.
The numerical results showed in this paper suggest
that the length of the UV scaling regime which is
needed to generate non-perturbative dynamics in the infrared shrinks
to zero as the number of the asymptotically free coupling
constants tends to infinity. In other words, the
$\Lambda$-parameter tends to the cutoff as the
lower critical dimension is approached, $d\to2$.
Such a behavior limits considerably the values of the coupling
constants for a perturbative system in dimension 3
and renders {\em all} two- and lower dimensional field theories
with polynomial couplings non-perturbative.
This makes the understanding of the noncritical low
dimensional condensed matter systems more involved.
The one-dimensional models
belong to first quantized quantum mechanics and our result is
a manifestation of the failure of the convergence of the
perturbation expansion for an anharmonic oscillator.
Such a conclusion does not invalidate the well known results
for two-dimensional systems, such as the applicability of the
Bethe ansatz, bosonization and the availability of certain exact
information for models with conformal invariance. Instead, it makes
the asymptotic state structure and the relation between the
the dressed particles and the states created by the application
of the field operator from the vacuum more involved.
We found an interesting analogy between the infrared
Landau pole of the confining four-dimensional Yang-Mills theories
and the low dimensional scalar models which opens the possibility of
an unexpected, nontrivial structure in the asymptotic states in
the low dimensional scalar models. Viewed with interest in particle
physics our conclusion suggests that one can
avoid the IR Landau pole by following the evolution of the
non-renormalizable operators.
{\em How to find the non-renormalizable operators whose presence
stabilises the theories at low energies?}
It is well known that massive Lagrangians generate
trivial infrared scaling laws, i.e. the Gaussian mass term is
the only relevant operator in the infrared scaling regime.
This is because the fluctuations are exponentially
suppressed beyond the correlation length so the evolution
of the coupling constants slows down at the infrared side
of the crossover. The theories with dimensional
transmutation, i.e. dynamically generated scale parameter
or infrared instability only can support non-perturbative
dynamics in the IR scaling regime. Thus the operators
sought should be relevant in the IR regime, their growth
being fed by IR or collinear divergences. There are few
known cases only where the low modes are controlled
by non-renormalizable operators. These include
the four fermion contact term in solids inducing the BCS
transition~\cite{shankar}, the higher order derivative
terms in the action which generate inhomogeneous vacuua~\cite{afvac},
the common element being the onset of a Bose-Einstein
condensation~\cite{polonyi97}.
In the second part of the paper the infinitesimal renormalization
group scheme is generalized for lattice regularization. The matching of
the continuum and the lattice regularizations is carried out
numerically and the approach of the universal renormalization group flow
is demonstrated for the two-dimensional $\phi^4$ lattice model.
This result suggests that the naive argument for the universality,
which is based on the linearization of the blocking relations
remains valid in the presence of infinitely many relevant
operators. Other potential troublemakers, the infinitely
many higher order derivatives contained in the lattice
kinetic energy do generate a new,
``super UV'' scaling regime but universality is restored
at the IR end of the usual UV scaling regime. Another
use of the lattice regulated version of the Wegner-Haughton equation
is the estimate of the finite size effects in a non-perturbative manner.
This provides a useful check of the thermodynamic limit of the
numerical results obtained in general on small lattices.
\section*{Appendix}
The details of the derivation of the Wegner-Houghton
equation in the lattice regularization are given in this Appendix.
Let us consider the scalar field theory
regularized on a lattice of lattice spacing $a=1$.
We want to derive a WH equation similar to Eq.~(\ref{WHeqcont}).
We integrate over spherical shells in the momentum space for the
continuum regularization, because the propagator has spherical symmetry.
This is no longer the case on the lattice, where
we have
\begin{equation}
\square=\sum_{\mu=1}^d\hat p_\mu^2, \quad
\hat p_\mu=2\sin\frac{p_\mu}{2}.
\end{equation}
Let us see the surfaces of equal value of the lattice propagator
in two dimensions by performing the following change of variables:
\begin{equation}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
(p_x,p_y)\longrightarrow (p,\theta) \\
4\sin^2\frac{p_x}{2}+4\sin^2\frac{p_y}{2}=p^2 \\
\tan\theta=\frac{\sin (p_y/2)}{\sin (p_x/2)}
\end{array}
\right\}
\label{chvar}
\end{equation}
We can see in Fig.~9 the form of the curves of constant propagator
for several values of $p^2$. $p$ can be identified
as the ``momentum scale'' that runs from the cutoff at $p^2=\Lambda^2=8$ to
the IR $p^2=0$. It is also clear in that figure that the value $p^2=4$
separates two regimes, still in the ultraviolet region, that we could call
super-UV (SUV), for $8>p^2>4$, and normal-UV regimes. For $p^2\sim 0$,
the lines are spheres, and our change of variables~(\ref{chvar}) reduces to
the usual relation between cartesian and polar coordinates.
The absolute value of the Jacobian of the transformation~(\ref{chvar})
is found to be
\begin{equation}
J=\frac{J_\mathrm{p}}{\sqrt{\left(1-\frac{p^2}{4}\cos^2\theta\right)
\left(1-\frac{p^2}{4}\sin^2\theta\right)}},
\end{equation}
where $J_\mathrm{p}$ is the usual Jacobian for the polar change of
variables, $J_\mathrm{p}=p$. The transformation~(\ref{chvar}) can be
easily generalized to three and four dimensions; however, we can only
treat analytically the integral that appears in the derivation of the
WH equation in the $d=2$ case.
To derive the equivalent of the Wegner-Houghton equation~(\ref{WHeqcont})
in the bidimensional lattice regularization we will start from
Eq.~(\ref{WHeq}), and calculate the trace by integrating in momentum space
over a shell $k-\delta k<p<k$, where $p$ is the parameter we have introduced
in Eq.~(\ref{chvar}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\log[\square+U_k^{\prime\prime}]&=&
\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 p}{(2\pi)^2}\log[4\sin^2\frac{p_x}{2}+
4\sin^2\frac{p_y}{2}+U_k^{\prime\prime}]= \nonumber \\
&&\frac{1}{2(2\pi)^2}\int\mathrm{d}\theta\int_{k-\delta k}^k \mathrm{d} p\,\, J\,
\log[p^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}]\approx \nonumber \\
&&\frac{\delta k}{2(2\pi)^2} k \log[k^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}]\,\Omega(k),
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\Omega(k)=\int\mathrm{d}\theta\, \frac{8}{\sqrt{64-16 k^2+k^4\sin^2 2\theta}}.
\label{omegageneral}
\end{equation}
We have to distinguish two different regimes in making the integration:
\medskip
(i) $\underline{k^2<4.}\quad$
In this region the range of values for $\theta$ is
$(0,2\pi)$.
\begin{equation}
\Omega(k)=\int_0^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\theta\, \frac{8}{\sqrt{64-16 k^2+k^4\sin^2 2\theta}}=
\sum_{i=1}^4\Omega_i(k),
\end{equation}
where we have split the interval $(0,2\pi)$ into four intervals
$(0,\pi/2)$, $(\pi/2,\pi)$, etc. Let us consider $\Omega_1(k)$. With
the change of variable $x=\tan\theta$ and the notation
\begin{equation}
\bar k^2=4-k^2,
\end{equation}
this integral can be brought into the form
\begin{equation}
\Omega_1(\bar k)=\frac{1}{\bar k}\int_0^\infty
\frac{2\,\mathrm{d} x}{\sqrt{(x^2+b^2)(x^2+b^{-2})}},
\label{integral1}
\end{equation}
where $b^2=4/\bar k^2$. The integral in Eq.~(\ref{integral1}) is
related to the elliptic integral of the first kind~\cite{tablas80}
$F(\phi,t)$,
\begin{equation}
\Omega_1(k)=F\left[\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{k}{4}\sqrt{8-k^2}\right];\quad
F(\varphi,t)=\int_0^\varphi\frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha}{\sqrt{1-t^2\sin^2\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
The result is the same for the other integrals $\Omega_i$, $i=2,3,4$.
But $F(\pi/2,t)$ is a complete elliptic integral, which can be
expressed in terms of
the hypergeometric function~\cite{tablas80,tablas65}
\begin{equation}
F(\alpha,\beta;\gamma;z)=\frac{\Gamma(\gamma)}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+n)\Gamma(\beta+n)}{\Gamma(\gamma+n)}
\frac{z^n}{n!}
\label{hypfunct}
\end{equation}
as
\begin{equation}
\Omega(k)=2\pi F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;\frac{(8-k^2)k^2}{16}\right).
\label{omega1}
\end{equation}
\medskip
(ii) $\underline{4<k^2<8.}\quad$
This is the SUV region. We split again
the integral into four integrations in the corresponding quadrants.
By using the same change of variables as above, we have to calculate
\begin{equation}
\Omega_i(\bar k)=\int\frac{4\,\mathrm{d} x}{\sqrt{x^2(\bar k^4+16)-4\bar k^2(1+x^4)}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\bar k^2=k^2-4.
\end{equation}
Special care is needed at the limits of integration (recall
Fig.~9). It can be seen that the four integrals can be put
together in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(\bar k)&=&4\int_{\bar k/2}^{2/\bar k}
\frac{4 \,\mathrm{d} x}{\sqrt{x^2(\bar k^4+16)-4\bar k^2(1+x^4)}}=\nonumber \\
&&\frac{8}{\bar k}\int_{\bar k/2}^{2/\bar k}
\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\sqrt{(x-\bar k/2)(2/\bar k-x)(x+\bar k/2)(x+2/\bar k)}}.
\end{eqnarray}
This integral is related again~\cite{tablas80} to an elliptic integral
and an hypergeometric function:
\begin{equation}
\Omega(k)=\frac{32}{k^2}F\left[\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{8}{k^2}-1\right]=
\frac{16\pi}{k^2}F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1,\frac{(8-k^2)^2}{k^4}\right).
\label{omega2}
\end{equation}
\medskip
We would like to have a common expression for $\Omega(k)$ for both cases
(i) and (ii). From Eqs.~(\ref{omega1}) and~(\ref{omega2}), we find in fact
that the expressions differ in a factor 2 for $k^2=4$! The reason is that
actually our integral is divergent at this point. From Eq.~(\ref{omegageneral})
we see that the divergent integral is
\begin{equation}
\Omega(k^2=4)=\int_0^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\theta\, \frac{2}{|\sin 2\theta|}
\end{equation}
(in fact, the hypergeometric function~(\ref{hypfunct}) converges in general
only in the unit circle $|z|<1$~\cite{tablas80}).
We will see, however, that this divergence is
integrable during the RG evolution from $k^2=8$ to $k^2=0$,
and therefore it has no physical significance.
In order to have a consistent,
single expression for the cases $8<k^2<4$ and $4<k^2<0$, we will make use
of the following property of the hypergeometric functions~\cite{tablas80}:
\begin{equation}
F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1,z^2\right)=
\frac{1}{1+z}F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1,\frac{4z}{(1+z^2)^2}\right),
\quad 0\leq z<1.
\label{prop}
\end{equation}
Let us consider the expression~(\ref{omega1}) which is
valid for $k^2<4$. Using the property~(\ref{prop}) one finds,
\begin{equation}
\Omega(k)=2\pi F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1,
\frac{4z}{(1+z^2)^2}\right)=
2\pi(1+z)F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;z^2\right),
\label{useofprop}
\end{equation}
where we have set
\begin{equation}
\frac{4z}{(1+z^2)^2}=\frac{(8-k^2)k^2}{16}.
\end{equation}
This equation has two solutions for $z$ as a function of $k$:
\begin{equation}
z=\quad \frac{k^2}{8-k^2}\quad; \quad \frac{8-k^2}{k^2},
\end{equation}
but only the first one is admissible for Eq.~(\ref{useofprop}), because
it gives $z<1$ for $k^2<4$, while the second solution gives a
value greater than 1 in this region.
Now, if we define $\tilde{k}=8-k^2$, then we have
$z=(8-\tilde{k}^2)/\tilde{k}^2$, and Eq.~(\ref{useofprop}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\Omega(\tilde{k})=2\pi\frac{8}{\tilde{k}^2}
F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;z^2\right).
\end{equation}
Comparing this last expression with the result~(\ref{omega2}) for the
case $8<k^2<4$, we can finally write
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(k)&=&\frac{16\pi}{\bar k^2}
F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;z^2\right), \text{ with }
z=\frac{8-\bar k^2}{\bar k^2} \nonumber \\
&\text{and}&\begin{cases}
\bar k^2=k^2 & \text{if $k^2=8\ldots 4$},\\
\bar k^2=8-k^2 & \text{if $k^2=4\ldots 0$}.
\end{cases}
\label{omega3}
\end{eqnarray}
The hypergeometric function $F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;z^2\right)$
can be computed directly from its definition~(\ref{hypfunct}). One can
obtain a high precision in the evaluation of the series with a reasonable
number of terms (say, around 50) when $z$ is not very close to 1, say,
for $0.7>z>0$. For $1>z>0.7$ we have used the following alternative
formula~\cite{tablas65}
\begin{eqnarray}
F(\alpha,\beta;\alpha+\beta;z)&=&
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)}{(\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta))^2}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{\Gamma(\alpha+n)\Gamma(\beta+n)}{(n!)^2}
[2\psi(n+1)\nonumber\\
&&-\psi(\alpha+n)-\psi(\beta+n)-\log(1-z)](1-z)^n, \nonumber \\
&&(|\mathrm{arg}(1-z)|<\pi, |1-z|<1),
\end{eqnarray}
where~\cite{tablas65}
\begin{equation}
\psi(z)=\frac{\mathrm{d} \,\log\Gamma(z)}{\mathrm{d} z},
\end{equation}
which gives a better convergence for the function
$F\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;z^2\right)$ near $z=1$ because it
is a series in the variable $(1-z^2)$.
In conclusion, our generalization of the WH equation~(\ref{WHeqcont})
for a lattice regularization in two dimensions is
\begin{equation}
k\frac{\partial}{\partial k}U_k(\Phi)=
-\frac{\Omega(k) k^2}{2(2\pi)^2}\log[k^2+U_k^{\prime\prime}(\Phi)],
\label{WHeqlatt}
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the parameter $p$ of Eq.~(\ref{chvar}), and
$\Omega(k)$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{omega3}).
\section*{\protect Acknowledgements}
We wish to thank V. Branchina, S.B. Liao, J. Alexandre, H. Mohrbach,
E. Vicari and A. Pelissetto for useful discussions.
Work partially supported by the Spanish MEC, Acci\'on Integrada
hispano-francesa HF1997-0041, the French program, Actions Integr\'ees
franco-espagnol, Picasso 98064.
J.M.C. acknowledges support from the EU TMR program
ERBFMRX-CT97-0122. He also thanks the Spanish MEC, the CAI European
program and DGA (CONSI+D) for financial support.
|
\section{Neutrino Masses}
These lectures discuss how the universe serves as a learning ground
for massive neutrinos. Before doing so, let us briefly review some
experimental measurements of neutrino masses.
Upper bounds on neutrino masses from kinematic measurements in
laboratories continue to improve.~\cite{mass} For the $\tau$-neutrino,
$m_{\nu_\tau}< 18.2$ MeV from the decay channel $\tau \rightarrow 5\pi
+ \nu_\tau$. For the $\mu$-neutrino, $m_{\nu_\mu}< 170$ keV from
two-body pion decay. For the electron neutrino, the quantity
$m_{\nu_e}^2$ is measured in tritium beta decay by fitting the shape
of the energy spectrum near the endpoint. Experiments thus far have
yielded nonphysical negative values for $m_{\nu_e}^2$, indicating
unexplained systematic effects in the measurements. A conservative
upper bound is put at $m_{\nu_e}\approx 15$ eV. The spread in arrival
times of neutrinos from supernova explosions provides an independent
way to constrain the mass of the electron neutrino. Various limits
have been reported for SN 1987A; a conservative estimate is
$m_{\nu_e}< 23$ eV.~\cite{mass,mann}
\section{Properties of Cosmic Background Neutrinos}
\subsection{Temperature and Density}
For a brief 1 second after the big bang, neutrinos enjoy being part of
the thermal bath composed of photons, electrons, protons, neutrons,
and the associated anti-particles (after the quark-hadron era). The
weak interactions at this early time are rapid enough to keep these
particles in thermal equilibrium at a single temperature $T$. After 1
second, when $T$ drops below about 1 MeV, however, the neutrino
interaction rate becomes slower than the Hubble expansion, and
neutrinos become effectively collisionless and freely-streaming
particles whose trajectories are determined by the geodesic equations.
This event is commonly referred to as ``neutrino decoupling.'' As the
universe expands, the momenta and temperature of neutrinos are simply
redshifted, and the neutrino temperature is given by the familiar
formulas
\begin{equation}
T_\nu(a) = a^{-1}\,T_{\nu ,0}\,,\qquad
T_{\nu ,0}=\left( {4\over 11}\right)^{1/3} T_{\gamma ,0}
=1.947 K \,,
\end{equation}
where $a$ is the cosmic scale factor, the subscripts 0 denote the
present-day values, and the cosmic background photon temperature is
taken to be $T_{\gamma ,0}=2.728\,K$.~\cite{fix96}
An important feature of the neutrino distribution after decoupling is
that, although weak interactions are no longer rapid enough to keep
neutrinos in thermal equilibrium with other particle species,
neutrinos retain their equilibrium distribution as long as no other
physical processes (e.g., gravitational clustering; see Sec.~3) are
present to alter it. Therefore, to zeroth order in density and metric
perturbations, the phase space distribution $f_0$ of the cosmic
background neutrinos is of the simple Fermi-Dirac form
\begin{equation}
f_0(\epsilon)={g_s\over h_p^3} {1\over e^{\epsilon/
k_B\,T_{\nu,0}}+1}\,,
\label{fermi}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon=a(p^2+m_\nu^2)^{1/2}$ is the comoving energy,
$T_{\nu,0}$ is the neutrino temperature given by Eq.~(1), $g_s$ is the
number of spin degrees of freedom, and $h_p$ and $k_B$ are the Planck
and the Boltzmann constants.
The situation is further simplified if neutrino masses are $\ll 1$
MeV. Such neutrinos are highly relativistic at decoupling; their
energy $\epsilon$, and hence the distribution function $f_0$, are
independent of $m_\nu$ to a good approximation. One can easily show
that, as long as $m_\nu\ll 1$ MeV, the number density of the cosmic
background neutrinos is related to the neutrino temperature by
\begin{equation}
n_\nu(T_\nu) = {7g_s\over 8\pi^2}\zeta(3)
\left( {k_B\,T_\nu\over \hbar\,c}\right)^3 \,,
\end{equation}
where $\zeta(3)\approx 1.202$ is the Riemann zeta function of order 3.
This gives a present-day density of $\approx 113$ cm$^{-3}$ for every
neutrino species independent of their masses. (For comparison, the
present-day photon density is $\approx 412$ cm$^{-3}$.) It also
follows that the contribution of these neutrinos to the present-day
mass density parameter, $\Omega_\nu$, is related to their masses by
the simple relation
\begin{equation}
\Omega_\nu\,h^2 = {\Sigma_i m_i \over 93\, {\rm eV}}\,,
\end{equation}
where the index $i$ runs over all light, stable neutrino species
(e.g., $\nu_e, \nu_\mu$, and $\nu_\tau$), and the Hubble constant is
$H_0=100\,h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. One then arrives at the important
conclusion that in order for neutrinos not to close universe (i.e.
$\Omega_\nu\le 1$), the sum of neutrino masses must not exceed $93\,h^2$ eV.
This value is far below the current laboratory limits (see Sec.~1).
Cowsik \& McClelland~\cite{cm72} were the first to use such
cosmological arguments to place an upper bound on neutrino masses.
(Unfortunately, these ``hot dark matter'' models in which the mass
density is dominated by massive neutrinos have been found to produce
excessive large voids surrounded by large coherent sheets and
filaments that are not seen in the observable universe.~\cite{white83}
Modifications to this model will be discussed below.)
In the high mass regime, $m_\nu \gg 1$ MeV, there exists another
window where the neutrino contribution to the mass density parameter
$\Omega$ of the universe is subcritical. The argument is that
neutrinos with $m_\nu \gg 1$ MeV become non-relativistic long before
decoupling. Neutrino and anti-neutrino pairs cease to be created in
abundance once the thermal temperature drops below $m_\nu$, and the
neutrino density is suppressed by the Boltzmann factor
$e^{-m_\nu/k_B\,T}$. This large reduction factor in the relic
abundance allows neutrinos to have large masses without overclosing
the universe. A more careful calculation~\cite{lee} shows that an
$\Omega\le 1$ universe implies a {\it lower} limit of $\sim 2$ GeV if
these heavy neutrinos are Dirac, and $\sim 6$ GeV if they are
Majorana. Since this mass range is well above the current upper mass
bounds from laboratory measurements, it is of interest only when one
considers more exotic theories for neutrinos.~\cite{pgl}
\subsection{Kinematics and Free Streaming}
Let us now turn to the kinematics and the streaming properties of
neutrinos. In general, neutrinos of mass $m _\nu$ become
non-relativistic after a redshift of
\begin{equation}
z_{\rm rel} \approx {m_\nu c^2 \over 3k_B\,T_{\nu ,0}}
= 2\times 10^3 \left( {m_\nu \over 1\, {\rm eV}} \right) \,.
\end{equation}
This redshift has important implications for structure formation
because it dictates the time at which massive neutrinos begin to make
a transition from being radiation to matter. Note that this
transition occurs fairly early, before recombination if $m_\nu\go 1$
eV. The average momentum of the cosmic background neutrinos at
temperature $T_\nu$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\left< p \right > = 3.15\,k_B\, T_\nu/ c\,.
\end{equation}
In the non-relativistic regime ($p=m_\nu\,v$), the average neutrino
speed can be written as
\begin{equation}
\left< v \right> = 160\, {\rm km/s\ } \left( {1\, {\rm eV}\over
m_\nu} \right) \left( {T_\nu\over 1.947} \right) \,.
\label{vave}
\end{equation}
Since $T_\nu \propto a^{-1}\propto (1+z)$, massive neutrinos slow down
as time goes on. It is important to keep in mind that neutrinos with
a mass of several eV have slowed down to an average velocity below 100
km s$^{-1}$ today.
We also note that at the redshift of matter-radiation equality,
$z_{\rm eq} \sim 24000\,\Omega\,h^2$ (i.e. when the total energy
density in radiation in the universe equals that in matter), light
neutrinos with $1 < m_\nu < 10$ eV are zooming around with speeds
close to $c$. Such large thermal speeds prevent massive neutrinos
from clustering gravitationally during this epoch, and this is why light
neutrinos are referred to as hot dark matter (HDM). In contrast,
perturbations in cold dark matter (CDM), which by definition has
negligible thermal velocities, can grow unimpeded after $z_{\rm eq}$.
I will quantify the different clustering behavior of CDM and HDM
further in Sec.~3 and 4.
Since neutrinos cannot cluster appreciably via gravitational
instabilities on scales below the free streaming distance, this
introduces a characteristic length scale into the problem. This scale
is given by the free-streaming wavenumber (in comoving coordinates)
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm fs}^2= {4\pi G\rho\, a^2\over \left< v \right>^2 }\,,
\end{equation}
which is analogous to the Jeans length for a self-gravitating system
of density $\rho$. For $k<k_{\rm fs}$ (i.e. large wavelengths) , the density
perturbation in the neutrinos is Jeans unstable and grows unimpeded in
the matter-dominated era. For $k>k_{\rm fs}$, the density perturbation
decays due to neutrino phase mixing. A phase-space interpretation of
the free streaming property is that the phase mixing of collisionless
particles damps the growth of density perturbations.~\cite{bond83}
When the neutrinos are relativistic, $\left< v\right> \approx c\,$,
and the free-streaming distance is approximately the particle horizon,
which scales as $k_{\rm fs}(a) \propto a^{-1}$ (in the radiation-dominated
era). After the neutrinos become non-relativistic the relations
$\left< v\right> \propto a^{-1}m_\nu^{-1}$, $m_\nu\propto\Omega_\nu h^2$,
and $\rho\propto a^{-3} h^2$ then imply~\cite{ma96}
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm fs}(a)\propto a^{1/2}\Omega_\nu h^3\,.
\label{kfs2}
\end{equation}
As expected, the free-streaming distance ($\propto k_{\rm fs}^{-1}$)
decreases with time as the neutrinos slow down. This also implies
that neutrinos can cluster gravitationally on increasingly small
length scales at later times.~\cite{ma96} Such behavior has been seen
in cosmological numerical simulations and will be discussed in Sec.~4.
\section{Linear Perturbations in Neutrinos and Other Particles}
Thus far our discussion has focused on the properties of the smooth
cosmic background neutrinos, and Eqs.~(1)-(7) were derived under this
assumption. The universe today, however, is clearly far from being
homogeneous on scales of $\sim 100$ Mpc and below. Baryons and dark
matter in galaxies, clusters, and superclusters show a wide spectrum
of overdensities above the cosmic mean. The current theoretical
framework for the origin and evolution of these cosmic structures
rests upon the assumption that certain primordial fluctuations
(perhaps originated from quantum fluctuations of scalar fields during
the inflationary era) imprint a perturbation spectrum on all matter
and radiation. These fluctuations subsequently grow via gravitational
instabilities to give rise to the wide range of observed structures.
How are the cosmic relic neutrinos affected by all this?
To understand the growth of density perturbations in neutrinos as well
as other forms of matter and radiation, one would need to learn the
linear cosmological perturbation theory of gravitational instability.
A full description of this theory requires more time than is allocated
for these lectures. I will only sketch the theory below with emphasis
on the neutrino component. Interested readers should refer to the
pioneering work of Lifshitz, later reviewed in Lifshitz \&
Khalatnikov.~\cite{lifshitz} More modern treatments of various aspects
of this theory can be found in the textbooks by Weinberg and
Peebles,~\cite{text} in the reviews by Kodama \& Sasaki and Mukhanov,
Feldman \& Brandenberger,~\cite{review} and in the Summer School
lectures by Efstathiou, Bertschinger, and Bond.~\cite{school} A
complete description of this theory for all relevant particles is
given by Ma \& Bertschinger.~\cite{mb95} Here, I will only discuss the
essence of the theory and highlight the physical meaning of the key
results.
\subsection{Neutrino Phase Space}
Let us start with the neutrinos. The full phase space distribution
function of neutrinos can be written as
\begin{equation}
f(\vec{x},\vec{p},t)=f_0(p)+f_1(\vec{x},\vec{p},t)\,,
\end{equation}
where $f_1$ denotes perturbations to the Fermi-Dirac distribution
$f_0$ given by Eq.~(\ref{fermi}). Unlike the unperturbed term $f_0$
that depends only on $p$, $f_1$ can have complicated dependence on
time as well as positions $\vec{x}$ and the conjugate momenta
$\vec{p}$. The equations for neutrino temperature, number density
etc. discussed in Sec.~2 were obtained assuming $f=f_0$. A
non-vanishing $f_1$ would lead to perturbations in these quantities.
For example, the perturbed neutrino energy density is related to $f_1$
by
\begin{equation}
\delta\rho(\vec{x},t)= a^{-4}\int d^3 p\,\epsilon\,f_1(\vec{x},\vec{p},t) \,.
\end{equation}
Other quantities such as perturbations in the pressure and shear can
also be related to $f_1$.
It is in general difficult to compute and sample $f_1$ directly
because at a given time, it depends on six variables. A Monte Carlo
technique, or a ``general-relativistic $N$-body'' technique, has been
developed to evolve $f_1$ from redshift $z\sim 10^9$ shortly after
neutrino decoupling until $z\sim 10$ when nonlinear effects become
non-negligible.~\cite{mb94a} In this calculation, an ensemble of
neutrino simulation particles is initially assigned velocities drawn
from the Fermi-Dirac distribution, which is an excellent approximation
at $z\sim 10^9$. The trajectory of each neutrino simulation particle
is then followed by integrating the geodesic equations in the {\it
perturbed} background spacetime. The metric perturbation gives rise
to a nonzero $f_1$, and the particle positions and velocities at a
later time $t$ represent a realization of $f_1(\vec{x},\vec{p},t)$.
Results from this calculation have revealed that at $z\sim 15$,
positive correlations have developed in the rms neutrino velocities
and the overdensity, which would be absent if the phase-space
distribution were purely Fermi-Dirac (i.e. $f=f_0$). The more
spatially clustered neutrinos are found to move faster, possibly
resulting from an increase in the kinetic energy during gravitational
infalls.
\subsection{Evolution of Perturbed Density Fields}
The phase-space description above is applicable to all particle
species and is used in the full theory. The full,
general-relativistic version of the linear perturbation theory is
described by a set of coupled and linearized Einstein, Boltzmann, and
fluid equations. The variables include the metric perturbations to
the homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime,
and the phase-space perturbations in all relevant particle species
(e.g., photons, baryons, cold dark matter, massless and massive
neutrinos). The Einstein equations describe how the time evolution of
the metric perturbations is affected by the perturbations in the
density, pressure, shear, and higher-order moments of matter and
radiation. The Boltzmann and fluid equations, on the other hand,
describe the time evolution of the radiation and matter distribution
in the perturbed spacetime. Together, this theory describes the
growth of metric and density perturbations throughout the early
history of the universe, and it serves as the foundation for all
calculations of the linear power spectra for matter and
temperature variations imprinted on the cosmic microwave background.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=5.truein
\epsfbox{del.ps}
\caption{Time evolution of the perturbed energy density field,
$\delta=\rho/\bar{\rho}-1$, for five matter and radiation components
in a flat C+HDM cosmological model. (See text for model parameters.)
The results are from integration of the coupled Einstein and Boltzmann
equations. Since the equations are linearized, each $k$-mode evolves
independently. Two modes are shown here for illustration. In each
panel, the five curves represent $\delta$ for the cold dark matter
(solid), baryons (dash-dotted), photons (long-dashed), massless
neutrinos (dotted), and massive neutrinos (short-dashed),
respectively.}
\label{fig:del}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:del} illustrates a small subset of results that can be
obtained from numerical integration of these linearized equations. It
shows the time evolution of the perturbed energy density field,
$\delta=\delta\rho/\bar{\rho}=\rho/\bar{\rho}-1$, for the five
relevant particle species in a cold+hot dark matter (C+HDM) model.
This model assumes an Einstein-de Sitter universe containing a mixture
of CDM, HDM (i.e. massive neutrinos), baryons, photons, and massless
neutrinos. The density parameters in the first three components in
this model are $\Omega_c=0.75$, $\Omega_\nu=0.2$, and $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.05$, and the Hubble
parameter is taken to be $H_0=50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, or $h=0.5$.
From Eq.~(4), these parameters correspond to a neutrino mass of 4.7
eV. (For definiteness, this calculation has assumed that only one
type of neutrinos, presumably $\nu_\tau$, has a non-negligible mass.)
Two wavenumbers, $k=0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (top) and 1 Mpc$^{-1}$ (bottom),
are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:del} to demonstrate the intricate
dependence of $\delta$ on length and time scales. The overall
normalization of $\delta$ is set arbitrarily.
We observe several salient features in Figure~\ref{fig:del}. First,
the amplitudes of $\delta$ for all particles grow monotonically until
a critical time, after which different particle species exhibit very
different behavior. This critical time is the ``horizon crossing''
time, and it occurs when the horizon has grown large enough to
encompass the wavelength of a given mode of perturbation. A mode of
perturbation is therefore not in causal contact until horizon
crossing. Naturally, this occurs earlier for smaller wavelengths
(i.e. larger $k$). In Figure~\ref{fig:del}, one can indeed see that
the $k=1$ Mpc$^{-1}$ mode enters the horizon at $a\sim 10^{-5}$ while
the $k=0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$ mode enters the horizon a little after $a=
10^{-3}$. A point to keep in mind is that the behavior of $\delta$
before horizon crossing is strongly dependent on the choice of gauge.
The results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:del} are computed in the
so-called synchronous gauge, which is a popular choice due to
historical precedent.~\cite{lifshitz} See Mukhanov, Feldman \&
Brandenberger~\cite{review} and Ma \& Bertschinger~\cite{mb95} for
discussion of a more convenient gauge (the conformal Newtonian gauge).
The second feature in Figure~\ref{fig:del} to note is that after
horizon crossing, the photons (long-dashed) and baryons (dot-dashed)
exhibit rapid, coupled oscillations in the $k=1$ Mpc$^{-1}$ mode but
only the photons oscillate in the $k=0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$ mode. This
occurs because the former enters the horizon before recombination at
$a_{\rm rec} \sim 10^{-3}$, and the photons and baryons are coupled by
Thomson scattering and oscillate acoustically. The coupling is not
perfect. The friction of the photons dragging against the baryons
leads to Silk damping,~\cite{silk68} which is prominent in the bottom
panel of Figure~\ref{fig:del} at $a\sim 10^{-3.5}$. After
recombination, the baryons decouple from the photons and fall quickly
into the potential wells formed earlier by the CDM. This results in
the rapid growth of the dot-dashed curve in the bottom panel of
Figures~\ref{fig:del}. The mode with $k=0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$, on the
other hand, enters the horizon when the universe is neutral. The
baryons therefore grow like the CDM and do not oscillate. The
critical length scale demarcating these two regimes is the horizon
size at recombination $a_{\rm rec}$: $k_{\rm rec} \sim 0.03$
Mpc$^{-1}$.
The third feature to note in Figure~\ref{fig:del} is the rate of
growth of the CDM component (solid curve) after horizon crossing.
Close inspection shows that the CDM in the bottom panel grows more
slowly at $10^{-5}\lo a \lo 10^{-4}$ than later on, whereas in the
upper panel, the CDM simply grows with a power law after horizon
crossing. This is because the shorter wavelength mode ($k=1$
Mpc$^{-1}$) enters the horizon when the energy density of the universe
is dominated by radiation, and fluctuations in matter (e.g. CDM)
cannot grow appreciably during this era. The critical scale
separating continual and suppressed growth is the horizon size at the
time of radiation-matter equality $a_{\rm eq} \sim 4\times 10^{-5}
(\Omega h^2)^{-1}$: $k_{\rm eq} \sim 0.1$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for the
parameters of this model.
The fourth feature to note in Figure~\ref{fig:del} is the behavior of
the massive neutrinos (short-dashed). As discussed in Sec.~2,
neutrinos of masses within the cosmologically interesting range ($\sim
1$ to 10 eV) are highly non-relativistic today but were relativistic
at earlier times. This property is in fact evident in the top panel
of Figure~\ref{fig:del}: Careful inspection shows that at $a\approx
10^{-4}$, the density field $\delta$ in massive neutrinos is indeed
making a gradual transition from the upper line for the radiation
fields to the lower line for the matter fields. (More precisely, the
primordial perturbations are assumed to be ``isentropic'' here, which
leads to a perturbation amplitude that is a factor of $4/3$ higher for
radiation than matter.) The subsequent evolution of $\delta$ in
massive neutrinos for this mode ($k=0.01$ Mpc$^{-1}$) is very similar
to that of CDM. This is because it enters the horizon when the
thermal velocities of the neutrinos have decreased substantially; the
free-streaming effect is therefore unimportant. For the $k=1$
Mpc$^{-1}$ mode, on the other hand, the free streaming effect is
evident and the growth of $\delta$ in massive neutrinos is suppressed
until the characteristic free-streaming scale $k_{\rm fs}(a)$ given by
Eq.~(9) grows to $\sim k$. Afterwards, the short-dashed curve for
massive neutrinos is seen to grow again and catch up to the CDM.
Since $k_{\rm fs} \propto a^{1/2}$, the larger $k$ modes suffer more
free-streaming damping and $\delta$ for massive neutrinos can not grow
until later times. The damping in the massive neutrino component also
affects the growth of the CDM, slowing it down more for models with
larger $\Omega_\nu$ compared to the pure CDM model.
\subsection{Growth Rate and Power Spectrum}
I have used Figure~\ref{fig:del} computed for two particular $k$-modes
in a particular cosmological model to illustrate the physical meaning
of many key features in the evolution of the density field for matter
and radiation throughout the cosmic history. I will now discuss
general descriptions that can be conveniently used to characterize the
fluctuation amplitudes over a range of length scales for a variety of
cosmological models. For example, it is extremely useful to know the
dependence of $\delta$ and its time derivative on $k$ at a given time
for a wide range of models. The most basic quantity to use is the
linear power spectrum, $P(k,t)$, and the growth rate of the density
field, $f\equiv d\log\delta/d\log a$. ({\em Note: I am following the
convention of using $f$ to denote the growth rate; it should not be
confused with the phase-space distribution function of Sec.~2 and
3.1.}) The power spectrum quantifies the two-point statistics of
$\delta$, and for a Gaussian field, $P(k)$ represents its rms
fluctuations and completely specifies its statistical properties. The
power spectrum is therefore of fundamental importance in cosmology.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=3.7truein
\epsfbox[0 244 482 653]{f.ps}
\caption{Growth rate of the CDM density field, $f\equiv
d\log\delta/d\log a$, in four flat C+HDM models at $a=1$ (solid) and
0.1 (dashed). The four models assume different neutrino masses:
$m_\nu=1.2$, 2.3, 4.6, and 6.9 eV (from top down), corresponding to
$\Omega_\nu=0.05$, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. At small $k$, the CDM density field
in these models grows with the same rate ($\delta\propto a$) as in the
standard CDM model. At large $k$, the growth rate is suppressed
because a fraction of the energy density in C+HDM models is in the hot
neutrinos that exhibit less gravitational clustering. The suppression
at large $k$ becomes less severe at later times because the velocities
of the hot neutrinos decrease with time.}
\label{fig:f}
\end{figure}
Comparing the growth rate and power spectrum for models with and
without massive neutrinos is an effective way to illustrate the
effects of hot dark matter. In the standard CDM model with $\Omega=1$
and $h=0.5$ (neutrino mass is assumed to be zero), the CDM density
field grows as the expansion factor $a$ on all scales; therefore
$f=1$. As discussed in Sec.~2.2, massive neutrinos introduce an
additional length scale, the free-streaming distance, below which
fluctuations are washed out and the growth rate is retarded. The
growth rate is therefore more intricate in models with massive
neutrinos and is generally a function of the wavenumber $k$, neutrino
density parameter $\Omega_\nu$, and time. Figure~\ref{fig:f} illustrates
such dependence in four different C+HDM models that assume a mixture
of CDM and HDM. It shows that the growth is suppressed at large $k$,
and models with a larger fraction of energy density in HDM suffer
more. It also shows that the suppression becomes less severe at later
times.
One can gain some understanding of the behavior shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:f} by exploring two asymptotic regions that can be
solved analytically for C+HDM models with $\Omega_c+\Omega_\nu=1$: (1) Since HDM
behaves like CDM above the free-streaming distance, $f\rightarrow 1$
as $k\rightarrow 0$; (2) In the opposite limit of large $k$, the HDM
density field $\delta_h$ is severely dampened compared to the CDM
density field $\delta_c$ because of the neutrino effects. For
$\delta_h \ll \delta_c$, the time evolution of the CDM density field
is governed by the linearized fluid equation
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\delta_c}+{\dot{a}\over a}\dot{\delta}_c=1.5 H^2 a^2\Omega_c \delta_c\,,
\end{equation}
where the dots denote differentiation with respect to the conformal
time $\tau$. Since $Ha=2/\tau$ in the matter-dominated era, the
growing solution in this regime is easily shown to be~\cite{bond80}
\begin{equation}
f_\infty\equiv f(k\rightarrow\infty)
={1\over 4}\sqrt{1+24\Omega_c}-{1\over 4}
={5\over 4}\sqrt{1-{24\over 25}\Omega_\nu}-{1\over 4}\,.
\label{finfy}
\end{equation}
It is interesting to note that
\begin{equation}
f_\infty \approx \Omega_c^{0.6}
\end{equation}
is an excellent approximation to the equation above, especially for
the cosmologically viable range of $\Omega_\nu\lo 0.3$. Using these
analytic solutions in the asymptotic regimes and the scaling
dependence of the free streaming wavenumber $k_{\rm fs}$ in
Eq.~(\ref{kfs2}), one can construct a simple approximation for $f$ for
a wide range of model parameters. It is found that the growth rate
$f$ is well approximated by~\cite{ma96}
\begin{equation}
f \equiv {d\log \delta\over d\log a} = {1+ \Omega_c^{0.6}\,
0.00681\,x^{1.363} \over 1+0.00681\,x^{1.363}}\,,\qquad x\equiv
{k\over \Gamma_\nu h} \,,
\label{f}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_\nu$ is a shape parameter derived from Eq.~(\ref{kfs2}),
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_\nu=a^{1/2}\Omega_\nu h^2\,,
\end{equation}
$\Omega_c+\Omega_\nu=1$, and $k$ is in units of Mpc$^{-1}$. Note that
Eq.~(\ref{f}) depends only on the variable $x$ that characterizes the
neutrino free-streaming scale, and $\Omega_\nu$ (or $\Omega_c$) via $f_\infty$.
The fractional error of the fit relative to the numerically computed
values is smaller than 0.5\% for a wide range of parameters. The
seemingly complicated multi-parameter dependence of Figure~\ref{fig:f}
is succinctly incorporated in Eq.~(\ref{f}).
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=3.6truein
\epsfbox[0 130 482 653]{p.ps}
\caption{Power spectrum at $z=1.5$ for the perturbed matter density
field for three flat C+HDM models with $\Omega_\nu=0.1$, 0.2, and 0.3. The
solid curves show the linear $P(k)$ computed from the linear
perturbation theory; accurate analytical fitting formulas are given by
Eq.~(\ref{g}). The triangles show the nonlinear $P(k)$
computed from $N$-body simulations; accurate analytical approximations
are given by Eq.~(\ref{master}).}
\label{fig:pow}
\end{figure}
For the linear power spectrum, the slower time growth of $\delta$ at
$k > k_{\rm fs}$ for the C+HDM models shown in Figure~\ref{fig:f} indicates
a suppressed clustering amplitude on these scales. This effect is
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:pow}, which shows the density-averaged
power spectrum (i.e. $P=\{\Omega_c \sqrt{P_c}+\Omega_\nu \sqrt{P_\nu}\}^2$) for
three flat C+HDM models. In general, $P_\nu \ll P_c$ on small length
scales due to the neutrino thermal velocities, and the models with
higher $\Omega_\nu$ clearly have less power at large $k$ in accordance with
Figure~\ref{fig:f}. A good approximation for the relative $P(k)$ in a
flat C+HDM model (with $\Omega_\nu\lo 0.3$) and a pure CDM model $(\Omega_\nu=0$) is
given by~\cite{ma96}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {P(k,a,\Omega_\nu)\over P(k,a,\Omega_\nu=0)}
= \left( { 1+b_1\,x^{b_4/2}+b_2\,x^{b_4} \over 1+b_3\,x_0^{b_4} }
\right)^{\Omega_\nu^{1.05}}\,,\nonumber\\
&& x={k\over \Gamma_\nu} \,, \quad x_0=x(a=1) \,,
\label{g}
\end{eqnarray}
where the best-fit parameters are $b_1=0.004321, b_2=2.217\times
10^{-6}, b_3=11.63$, and $b_4=3.317$ for $k$ in units of Mpc$^{-1}$.
Analytical approximations for the separate cold and hot spectra $P_c$
and $P_\nu$ can be found in the same reference. More complicated
approximations for a wider range of parameter space have also been
proposed.~\cite{eh98}
\section{Nonlinear Gravitational Clustering of Neutrinos}
As far as cosmological structure formation is concerned, the main
difference between massive and massless neutrinos is that the former
can participate in the processes of gravitational clustering and hence
serves as a component of the dark matter in the universe. Massless
neutrinos, on the other hand, affect cosmology only through their
contribution to the radiation energy density. Any primordial
perturbations in massless neutrinos are damped out after horizon
crossing as a result of phase mixing (see dotted curves in
Figure~\ref{fig:del}), and the only remnant of this component is the
elusive $T_{\nu ,0}=1.947$ K background described in Sec.~2.
\subsection{Spatial Distribution of Neutrinos}
For massive neutrinos in models with a mixture of CDM and HDM, it is
interesting to ask: do the neutrinos fall in the CDM potential wells
and form a part of dark matter halos? One may naively think not
because neutrinos are too hot. Our discussion thus far, however,
indicates otherwise. We have seen in Eq.~(\ref{vave}) that neutrinos
slow down with the expansion of the universe. Those with a mass of
several eV are travelling with a speed much below the typical velocity
dispersions $\sim 200$ km s$^{-1}$ of stars in galaxies. They can
potentially be bound to galactic halos. In general, the extent to
which massive neutrinos can cluster gravitationally depends on their
mass and speed.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=5.truein
\epsfbox[80 144 592 718]{halo15.ps}
\caption{Spatial distribution of cold dark matter (middle) vs. hot
dark matter (bottom) particles in a simulated halo formed in a large
$N-$body run for the flat $\Omega_\nu=0.2$ C+HDM model. The top panels
shows the sum of cold and hot particles. Three redshifts are shown:
$z=2$, 1, and 0 (from left to right), corresponding to cosmic times of
2.5, 4.6, and 13 billion years. All boxes have the same physical
scale, $3.5\times 3.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc. The final halo at $z=0$ is
clearly a merger product of two dominant subhalos and several smaller
satellites at higher redshifts. The spatial distribution of the
massive neutrinos (4.7 eV) is visibly smoother than that of the CDM.}
\label{fig:halo}
\end{figure}
To illustrate this point further, let us examine results from
numerical simulations. Figure~\ref{fig:halo} shows the projected
spatial distribution of cold particles (middle), hot particles
(bottom), and the sum of the two (top) in a simulated dark matter halo
in a flat $\Omega_\nu=0.2$ C+HDM model ($m_\nu=4.7$ eV). Three redshifts
are shown (from left to right): $z=2, 1$ and 0 when the universe is
2.5, 4.6, and 13 billion years old, respectively. Each panel is
$3.5\times 3.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc in {\it physical} coordinates. The parent
simulation is a large $N$-body run with 23 million simulation
particles in a (100 Mpc)$^3$ comoving box.~\cite{mb94b} The dense halo
shown at $z=0$ is clearly formed from mergers of two smaller halos and
their satellites at higher redshifts, demonstrating the ``bottom-up''
hierarchical pattern of structure formation which is preserved in
C+HDM models with $\Omega_c > \Omega_\nu$. Massive neutrinos are visibly
clustered in the bottom panels, but their spatial distribution is
smoother than that of the CDM. In the smaller CDM clumps at $z\go 1$,
there are no discernible HDM halos at the same locations. The average
thermal speed of an ensemble of 4.7 eV Fermi-Dirac neutrinos at $z\go
1$ is $\go 70$ km/s (cf. Eq.~\ref{vave}). As discussed in Sec.~3.1,
when linear perturbations are taken into account, neutrinos in
overdense regions have even higher velocities. It is therefore not
surprising that the shallower potential wells of these small halos
cannot trap a substantial number of HDM particles.
The clustering of the 4.7 eV neutrinos shown in Figure~\ref{fig:halo}
should be compared with the constraint derived by Tremaine \&
Gunn,~\cite{tg79} which states that if cosmic neutrinos were to make
up the bulk of galactic and cluster halos, they must be more massive
than $\sim 10$ eV so that the Pauli exclusion principle is not
violated. The C+HDM models considered here assume $\Omega_c > \Omega_\nu$ so as
to preserve the successful hierarchical formation of structure in pure
CDM models. Dark matter halos such as in Figure~\ref{fig:halo} have a
substantial fraction of CDM, which in turn enhances the gravitational
infalls of massive neutrinos. The clustering of neutrinos in C+HDM
models is therefore more complicated.
\subsection{Nonlinear Power Spectrum}
The process of nonlinear gravitational clustering can be quantified
statistically. Here I will only discuss the lowest-order statistical
description given by the nonlinear power spectrum $P(k)$ of the matter
density field.
We have already discussed the linear power spectrum in Sec.~3.3. The
triangles in Figure~\ref{fig:pow} show the nonlinear $P(k)$ computed
from the particle positions in numerical simulations of three
C+HDM models. The hierarchical nature of gravitational collapse in
these models is illustrated by the fact that the high-$k$ modes have
become strongly nonlinear whereas the low-$k$ modes are still
following the linear power spectrum. The fact that the lowest several
$k$ modes are still linear at $z=0$ ensures that our choice of the
simulation box size (100 Mpc) is large enough to include all waves
that have become nonlinear at present.
The calculation of the fully evolved $P(k)$ for a given model is a
laborious task involving the execution of high-resolution $N$-body
simulations. Fortunately, some recent progress has been made in
constructing analytical fitting formulas for a wide range of
interesting models. The strategy is to examine the mapping between
the linear and nonlinear $P(k)$ for a small, selected set of models
with $N$-body data and then to extract systematic behavior for a wider
range of parameters. The work carried out thus far has investigated
scale-free models with a power-law power spectrum,~\cite{ham91,jain95}
pure CDM and CDM with a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ (LCDM)
models,~\cite{jain95,pd96,ma98} and C+HDM models.~\cite{ma98} The
proposed formulas typically have a functional form that is motivated
by analytical solutions in asymptotic regimes, but in order to obtain
accurate approximations, the coefficients are calculated from fits to
the nonlinear $P(k)$ computed from the numerical simulations.
These approximations have provided physical insight into the process
of nonlinear collapse and much practical convenience in incorporating
the prominent nonlinear effects illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:pow}.
The formula applicable for the widest range of cosmological models
thus far is given below. It maps the density variance
$\Delta(k)\equiv 4\pi k^3P(k)$ in the linear and nonlinear regimes
by~\cite{ma98}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\Delta_{\rm nl}(k)\over \Delta_{\rm l}(k_0)} = G\left({\Delta_{\rm l}(k_0) \over
g_0^{1.5}\,\sigma_8^\beta} \right) \,,\nonumber\\ &&
G(x)=[1+\ln(1+0.5\,x)]\,{1+0.02\,x^4 + c_1\,x^8/g^3 \over
1+c_2\,x^{7.5}}\,.
\label{master}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\Delta_{\rm l}$ and $\Delta_{\rm nl}$ are evaluated at different wavenumbers,
where $k_0=k\,(1+\Delta_{\rm nl})^{-1/3}$ corresponds to the pre-collapsed length
scale of $k$. The parameter $\sigma_8$ is the rms linear mass
fluctuation on $8\,h^{-1}$ Mpc scale at the redshift of interest, and
$\beta=0.7+10\,\Omega_\nu^2$. The functions $g_0=g(\Omega_{\rm m},\Omega_\Lambda)$ and
$g=g(\Omega_{\rm m}(a),\Omega_\Lambda(a))$ are, respectively, the relative growth factor for
the linear density field at present day and at $a$ for a model with a
present-day matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and a cosmological constant $\Omega_\Lambda$. A
good approximation is given by~\cite{lahav}
\begin{equation}
g ={5\over 2}\Omega_{\rm m}(a) [
\Omega_{\rm m}(a)^{4/7}-\Omega_\Lambda(a)+\left(1+ \Omega_{\rm m}(a)/2\right) \left(1+ \Omega_\Lambda(a)/70
\right)]^{-1}\,,
\end{equation}
and $\Omega_{\rm m}(a)=\Omega_{\rm m}\,a^{-1}/[1+\Omega_{\rm m}(a^{-1}-1) +\Omega_\Lambda(a^2-1)]$ and
$\Omega_\Lambda(a)=\Omega_\Lambda\,a^2/[1+\Omega_{\rm m}(a^{-1}-1)+\Omega_\Lambda(a^2-1)]$. The time dependence
is in factors $\sigma_8^\beta$ and $g$. For CDM and LCDM models, a
good fit is given by $c_1=1.08\times 10^{-4}$ and $c_2=2.10\times
10^{-5}$. For C+HDM, a good fit is given by $c_1=3.16\times 10^{-3}$
and $c_2=3.49\times 10^{-4}$ for $\Omega_\nu=0.1$, and $c_1=6.96\times
10^{-3}$ and $c_2=4.39\times 10^{-4}$ for $\Omega_\nu=0.2$.
\subsection{High-Redshift Constraints}
The C+HDM models discussed thus far are a class of models bridging
the much-studied albeit troubled pure CDM and pure HDM models.
They are parameterized by the neutrino density parameter $0<\Omega_\nu< 1$,
or equivalently, by the neutrino mass $0< m_\nu <93 h^2$ eV (see
Eq.~(4)). The original motivation for examining these mixed models is
to study whether the free-streaming effect introduced by the massive
neutrinos could suppress the growth of density perturbations below the
free-streaming scale, and thereby alleviate the problem of excess
small-scale clustering in the standard CDM model. As illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:pow}, massive neutrinos do indeed reduce the amplitude
of clustering at large $k$, and a larger $\Omega_\nu$ leads to smaller
high$-k$ power.
Any viable cosmological model that provides a good statistical match
to the local universe must also reproduce the appropriate evolutionary
history out to high redshifts. Although gravitational clustering on
galactic scales is indeed reduced in C+HDM models, providing a better
match to low-redshift observations,\cite{ma96,chdm} this suppression in the
clustering power at high redshifts has been found to pose serious
problems for some models. Studies based on semi-analytic theories and
dissipationless numerical simulations have shown~\cite{mb94b,dla} that flat
C+HDM models with $\Omega_\nu>0.2$ do not produce enough early structure to
explain the statistics of damped Ly$\alpha$ systems at redshift $z\ge
2$. More recent work~\cite{ma97} has included the effects of gas
ionization and dissipation in the theoretical calculations and has
compared the results to new data for damped Ly$\alpha$ systems at even
higher redshift $z\sim 4$. It is found that ionization of hydrogen in
the outskirts of halos and gaseous dissipation near the halo centers
tend to exacerbate the problem of late galaxy formation. The amount
of dense gas associated with the damped systems falls well below that
observed, even for the flat $\Omega_\nu=0.2$ C+HDM model. This has placed
an upper bound of $\sim 5$ eV on the sum of $\nu_e$, $\nu_\mu$, and
$\nu_\tau$ masses, which is much more stringent than the upper limits
given by current particle experiments (see Sec.~1).
Let us briefly discuss the limitations and uncertainties in these
calculations. Still debated is the nature of damped Ly$\alpha$
absorption -- whether it is due to intervening large, rapidly-rotating
disk galaxies~\cite{pw97} with circular velocities $\go 200$ km
s$^{-1}$, or infalling and randomly moving protogalactic gas clumps in
dark matter halos~\cite{haeh98} with virial velocities of $\sim 100$
km s$^{-1}$. When kinematic considerations are included, the latter
model may have problems balancing the high energy dissipation rate
caused by cloud collisions.~\cite{mm98} This uncertainty aside, in
either scenario, a host dark halo of velocity at least $\sim 100$ km
s$^{-1}$ is needed to reproduce the large velocity widths and
asymmetries of the observed low-ionization lines associated with
Ly$\alpha$ systems. Uncertainties associated with the finite
resolution of simulations have also been studied in some
detail.~\cite{gardner97} It is found that even when the contribution
from the numerically unresolved halos with velocities $v \lo 100$ km
s$^{-1}$ is included, the absorption incidence is increased by at most
a factor of 2. This is insufficient to erase the discrepancies
reported for flat C+HDM models with $\Omega_\nu > 0.2$. The upper bound on
neutrino masses from current cosmological studies is therefore $\sim
5$ eV.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I thank the organizers P. Langacker and K. T. Mahanthappa of the
TASI-98 School for their hospitality. This work was supported by the
National Scalable Cluster Project at the University of Pennsylvania,
the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, and a Penn
Research Foundation Award.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
In a recent paper \cite{Zhang} Zhang has proposed the idea that
the components of the electron-pair condensate and those of the
antiferromagnetic order-parameter form a five-component order
parameter in an approximately SO(5)-invariant theory.
Anisotropies small in comparison to the SO(5)-invariant
interaction break this symmetry. They depend in particular on the
chemical potential and thus on doping. This allows him to desribe
the transition from antiferromagnetism in the half-filled system
to superconductivity under moderately weak doping.
This phenomenological picture has been tested by numerical
calculations for small Hubbard-systems \cite{Hubbard,tJ-Hubbard}
and $t$-$J$-models \cite{tJ,tJ-Hubbard}, for which good agreement
with the predictions from Zhang's theory are obtained.
It has also been shown that spin-ladders observe SO(5)-symmetry
\cite{ladder1,ladder2} or even SO(8)-symmetry \cite{SO8}.
Returning to higher-dimensional systems, it is pointed out here
that Zhang's derivation of the effective interaction
$V_{\rm eff}$ based on his Hamiltonian $H_{\rm a}$ seems to be
not correct.
(Actually we struggled for quite a while trying to understand his
derivation).
However, the orthogonality constraint introduced several pages
after this 'derivation' gives the key to an effective interaction
very similar to that given by Zhang. After having established
this in sect. 2 it is shown in sect. 3, that the entropy contains
squares of these constraint terms.
Thus the orthogonality constraints are not strict requirements,
but their fulfillment maximizes the entropy and lowers the free
energy.
Finally in sect. 4 it is argued, that also in the ground-state
these constraints are likely to hold.
\section{Effective Interaction and the Orthogonality Constraint}
Zhang introduces a five-component order-parameter $n_i$,
$i=1..5$.
The operators associated with these components are given
explicitely in the appendix.
Two components, $n_1$ and $n_5$, describe the real part and
the imaginary part of the superconducting condensate, the
three other components $n_2$, $n_3$, and $n_4$, are the three
Cartesian components of the staggered magnetization.
He assumes that a strong interaction which may be described by
a Ginzburg-Landau interaction, leads to a symmetry breaking
below a critical temperature $T_c$ and has an SO(5) symmetry,
thus allowing both superconducting and antiferromagnetic
order.
This leading interaction is a function of
$\sum_i n_i^2$ only and does not give any preference to
superconducting or antiferromagnetic order.
In addition there is a weaker interaction $H_{\rm a}$ which
introduces anisotropy into the system
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm a} = \frac{L^2_{1,5}}{2\chi_c} +
\frac{L^2_{1,2}+L^2_{1,3}+L^2_{1,4}+L^2_{2,5}+L^2_{3,5}
+L^2_{4,5}}{2\chi_{\pi}}
+ \frac{L^2_{2,3}+L^2_{2,4}+L^2_{3,4}}{2\chi_s}
-\frac g2(n^2_2+n^2_3+n^2_4) -2\mu L_{1,5}.
\end{equation}
The $L_{a,b}$ are operators bilinear in the electron creation
and annihilation operators. They are given explicitely in
appendix A. $\mu$ is the chemical
potential. The operators $L$ obey $L_{b,a}=-L_{a,b}$ and the
commutator relations
\begin{equation}
[L_{a,b},L_{c,d}]=-i\delta_{b,c}L_{a,d}+i\delta_{a,c}L_{b,d}
+i\delta_{b,d}L_{a,c}-i\delta_{a,d}L_{b,c} \label{comm}
\end{equation}
of the orthogonal group SO(5), moreover the vector $n$ is
rotated by $L$,
\begin{equation}
[L_{a,b},n_c]=-i\delta_{b,c}n_a+i\delta_{a,c}n_c.
\end{equation}
The derivative terms of Zhang's
interaction are left out here, since only the global state is
investigated.
The effective potential is determined as the minimum of the
Hamiltonian
for given order-parameter $n_1$, ... $n_5$, which Zhang
normalizes to
\begin{equation}
\sum_i n_i^2 = 1. \label{norm}
\end{equation}
Since one considers the interaction
for a macroscopic system, all the components of $L$ and $n$
can be considered
as classical quantities and the obvious minimum is obtained
for $L_{1,5}=2\mu\chi_c$,
whereas all other components of $L$ vanish, which
yields what I call $V^{\rm naiv}_{\rm eff}$
\begin{equation}
V^{\rm naiv}_{\rm eff}(n) = -2\mu^2 \chi_c - \frac g2
(n^2_2+n^2_3+n^2_4).
\end{equation}
It would mean that the only effect of the chemical potential
is a lowering of the energy of the system, but it would have
no effect on an anisotropy in the order-parameter space.
This obviously is at variance with Zhang's claim
for the effective interaction
\begin{equation}
V^{\rm Zhang}_{\rm eff}(n) = -2\mu^2(n^2_1+n^2_5)
[\chi_c(n^2_1+n^2_5)+\chi_{\pi}(n^2_2+n^2_3+n^2_4)]
-\frac g2 (n^2_2+n^2_3+n^2_4).
\end{equation}
An indication that Zhang's Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{\rm a}&=&\sum_{a<b} \frac{\chi_{ab}}2 \omega_{ab}^2
+ V(n) \\
\omega_{ab}&=&n_a(\partial_{\tau}n_b-iB_{bc}n_c)
-(a\rightarrow b) \label{omega}
\end{eqnarray}
is not equivalent to $H_{\rm a}$, is obvious from
the fact that in Zhang's Lagrangian the only allowed rotations
are in the
plain spanned by $n$ and $\partial_{\tau}n - iBn$, whereas it
does not
permit a rotation around a second perpendicular plain (which
exists in 5
dimensions) as it should. Thus the description by
${\cal L}_{\rm a}$ is
incomplete.
However, several pages later he introduces the constraints
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e}n_cL_{d,e}=0. \label{ortho}
\end{equation}
These constraints, (although not proven in Zhang's paper,
since (\ref{omega})
is not granted) are the key for the effective interaction.
If they are
fulfilled, then one can conclude, that $L$ is of the form
\begin{equation}
L_{a,b} = c_a n_b -c_b n_a. \label{cn}
\end{equation}
(This can be found in the following way: If $n_1=1$, and all
other $n_i$
vanish, then one finds from (\ref{ortho}) $L_{a,b}=0$,
if both $a\not= 1$ and $b\not= 1$.
However $L_{a,1}=-L_{1,a}=c_a$ for $a\not= 1$ can be chosen
with arbitrary $c_a$. Thus one obtains in this special case
eq. (\ref{cn}). The relation (\ref{cn}) is form-invariant
under SO(5)-rotations. Thus it holds for general $n_i$.)
Eq. (\ref{cn}) has two consequences:
(i) One can now parametrize $H_{\rm a}$ in terms of the
$c_i$ and determine the minimum as one varies the coefficients
$c$. One finds the minimum for
\begin{equation}
c_2=c_3=c_4=0, \quad c_1=\frac{2\mu n_5}N, \quad
c_5=-\frac{2\mu n_1}N
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
N= \frac{n_1^2+n_5^2}{\chi_c}
+ \frac{n^2_2+n^2_3+n^2_4}{\chi_{\pi}}.
\end{equation}
{From} this one obtains the effective interaction
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm eff} = -2\mu^2 \frac{n_1^2+n_5^2}N -\frac g2
(n_2^2+n_3^2+n_4^2).
\end{equation}
For $\chi_c=\chi_{\pi}$ it agrees with
$V^{\rm Zhang}_{\rm eff}$.
If $\chi_c \not= \chi_{\pi}$, then the effective potentials are
different (actually in first order in $\chi_c-\chi_{\pi}$
there is still agreement), but many conclusions Zhang has
drawn will continue to hold.
(ii) The constraints imply, that out of the representations
$(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ the only allowed states have
representations of the form
$(\lambda_1,0)$. Let me explain this shortly.
The irreducible representations
of SO(5) are characterized by two (non negative) numbers
$(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$
with $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq 0$.
The first number is the largest
eigenvalue of one of the operators $L$, say $L_{1,2}$.
Next consider the subspace of the states in this
representation with this eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ for $L_{1,2}$.
Then $\lambda_2$ is the largest eigenvalue
of one of the operators $L$, that commutes with the first one,
which may be $L_{3,4}$ in this subspace.
Semiclassically, that is for large $\lambda_1$ and
$\lambda_2$, one may
replace the operators $L_{a,b}$ by their expectation values.
Then the
eigenvalues of the antisymmetric matrix $L$ are
$\pm i\lambda_1$,
$\pm i\lambda_2$ and 0. If $L$ has the form (\ref{cn}), then
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1 = \sqrt{\sum_i c_i^2 \sum_j n_j^2
- (\sum_i c_i n_i)^2}, \quad \lambda_2=0.
\end{equation}
Therefore the main problem left is to understand why the
orthogonality
constraints should hold. This will be done in the next section.
\section{Entropy as Source of the Orthogonality Constraint}
We claim that the orthogonality constraints are an effect of
entropy.
It will be shown that a system even without any interaction
has an entropic parts of the form
\begin{equation}
-\big(\epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e}n_cL_{d,e}\big)^2
\end{equation}
which make it favorable for the system to obey the
orthogonality constraints.
Thus (\ref{ortho}) is not a strict constraint, but if it is
fulfilled, then the entropy assumes a maximum.
\subsection{Entropy of the Heisenberg Antiferromagnet}
First consider the Heisenberg antiferromagnet as an example,
which Zhang has rightly mentioned in his paper. The Heisenberg
antiferromagnet consists of two sublattices with magnetizations
${\bf m}_1$ and ${\bf m}_2$. We expand the entropy in powers of
${\bf m}_1^2$ and ${\bf m}_2^2$.
Since the two sublattice-magnetizations describe the behaviour
on different sublattices, the entropy is a sum of
contributions on these sublattices
\begin{equation}
S=S_0-c_1({\bf m}_1^2+{\bf m}_2^2)-c_2\big(({\bf m}_1^2)^2
+({\bf m}_2^2)^2\big)-...
\end{equation}
Then denoting the homogeneous magnetization by ${\bf m}_0$ and
the staggered magnetization by ${\bf m}_{q_0}$ we may write
${\bf m}_1={\bf m}_0+{\bf m}_{q_0}$ and ${\bf m}_2={\bf m}_0-{\bf m}_{q_0}$
and obtain the entropy
\begin{equation}
S=S_0-2c_1({\bf m}_0^2+{\bf m}_{q_0}^2)
-2c_2\big({\bf m}_0^2+{\bf m}_{q_0}^2\big)^2
-8c_2\big({\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf m}_{q_0}\big)^2-...
\end{equation}
Thus if there is no coupling in the interaction between
${\bf m}_0$ and ${\bf m}_{q_0}$, the system prefers to have the
homogeneous and the staggered magnetization orthogonal to each
other due to the contribution
$-8c_2({\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf m}_{q_0})^2$ in the entropy.
Remember that the entropy enters
into the free energy with a minus sign ($F=E-TS$), and thus
${\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf m}_{q_0}=0$ will yield the minimum of the free
energy.
Thus there is not a strict constraint
${\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf m}_{q_0}=0$ for the Heisenberg antiferromagnet,
but there is a
term proportional to the square $({\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf m}_{q_0})^2$
in the free energy, which favors the constraint to be obeyed.
\subsection{The entropy}
It will now be shown that the entropy of the more general
SO(5)-invariant system contains terms of type
$(\epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e}n_cL_{d,e})^2$.
We will actually enlarge the system of operators $L_{a,b}$ to
those of an SO(8) (for details see in the appendix).
To determine the entropy we start from the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{\Omega} = \sum_{a,b} \Omega_{a,b} L_{a,b}, \quad
\Omega_{b,a}=-\Omega_{a,b}. \label{HOmega}
\end{equation}
where the set of our $L_{a,b}$ also includes the
$n_a=L_{a,0}$.
We do no longer use the normalization (\ref{norm}).
We note, that recently a U(4)-scheme including the operators
$L_{a,b}$ with $a,b=0..5$ and $L_{6,7}$ and their
sub-groups has been considered in \cite{U4} (note that SU(4)
is isomorphous to SO(6)).
The $\Omega$ are introduced as Lagrange multipliers and will
be adjusted to yield given expectation values of $L_{a,b}$,
and the entropy will be calculated up to fourth order in $L$.
$\Omega$ is an eight-dimensional antisymmetric real matrix.
Since the matrix is antihermitean, its eigenvalues
are purely imaginary and occur pairwise.
Thus the eigenvalue equation can be written
\begin{equation}
\sum_b \Omega_{a,b} (x^{(k)}_b \pm i y^{(k)}_b)
= \pm i \omega^{(k)} (x^{(k)}_a \pm i y^{(k)}_a)
\end{equation}
with $k=1..4$ and real vectors $x^{(k)}$ and $y^{(k)}$.
The vectors $x^{(k)}$ and $y^{(k)}$ are orthogonal to each
other.
If they are normalized, then $\Omega$ may be represented
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{a,b} = \sum_k \omega^{(k)} (x^{(k)}_a y^{(k)}_b
- x^{(k)}_b y^{(k)}_a).
\end{equation}
Next we perform a special orthogonal transformation, so
that $x^{(k)}$ and $y^{(k)}$ are oriented in appropriate
directions, e.g. so that $x^{(1)}$, $y^{(1)}$ point in the
5- and 1- direction, $x^{(2)}$, $y^{(2)}$ in the 2- and
3-direction, $x^{(3)}$ and $y^{(3)}$ in the 0- and
7-direction and $x^{(4)}$ and $y^{(4)}$ in the 4- and
6- direction, resp.
After this special orthogonal transformation $H$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\rm trans} &=& 2(\omega^{(1)} N^0_{0,1,1}
+ \omega^{(2)} N^0_{0,1,\sigma^z}
+\omega^{(3)} N^0_{0,g,1} -\omega^{(4)} N^0_{0,g,\sigma^z}) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{k,s} ( \omega^{(1)} +\omega^{(2)} s
+ \omega^{(3)} g(k) -\omega^{(4)} g(k) s) (c^{\dagger}_{k,s} c_{k,s}
- \frac 12). \label{Htrans}
\end{eqnarray}
(with $s=\pm 1$, $g(k)=\pm 1$, $g(k+q_0)=-g(k)$).
Thus for momenta $k$ and $k+q_0$ one has in total $2^4$
states constructed out of four single-particle states, which
may be either occupied or unoccupied and which contribute the
energies $\pm \frac 12 \epsilon_{s,g}$ depending on whether
the state is occupied or unoccupied
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{s,g} = \omega^{(1)} + \omega^{(2)} s
+ \omega^{(3)} g - \omega^{(4)} gs.
\end{equation}
Then we obtain for the partition function $Z$
\begin{equation}
\ln Z=\sum \ln(\exp(\frac 12\beta\epsilon)
+\exp(-\frac 12\beta\epsilon))
=\sum (\ln 2 + \frac{x^2}2 - \frac{x^4}{12} + O(x^6)),
\quad x=\frac{\beta\epsilon}2.
\end{equation}
Summation over the four states yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum x^2 &=& \beta^2 \sum_i \omega^{(i)2} \\
\sum x^4 &=& \frac{\beta^4}4 (\sum_i \omega^{(i)4}
+6 \sum_{i<j} \omega^{(i)2} \omega^{(j)2}
- 24 \omega^{(1)} \omega^{(2)} \omega^{(3)} \omega^{(4)} ).
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly we expand the entropy $S$
\begin{equation}
S=k_B \sum (\ln 2 - \frac{x^2}2 + \frac{x^4}4 + O(x^6))
\end{equation}
and determine the expectation value of the quantity $L^{(i)}$
conjugate to $\omega^{(i)}$ (only the first component is
given; the others are obtained by permutation),
\begin{equation}
L^{(1)} = \frac{\partial \ln Z}{2\beta\partial \omega^{(1)}}
= \frac{\beta}2 \omega^{(1)}
-\frac{\beta^3}{24}\big(\omega^{(1)3}
+ 3\omega^{(1)}(\omega^{(2)2}+\omega^{(3)2}+\omega^{(4)2})
-6\omega^{(2)}\omega^{(3)}\omega^{(4)} \big) + O(\omega^5)
\end{equation}
and express $\omega^{(i)}$ in terms of $L^{(i)}$,
\begin{equation}
\beta\omega^{(1)} = 2L^{(1)} + \frac 23\big( L^{(1)3}
+3L^{(1)}(L^{(2)2}+L^{(3)2}+L^{(4)2})
-6L^{(2)}L^{(3)}L^{(4)} \big) +O(L^5).
\end{equation}
In diagonal form one has $L^{(1)}=L_{5,1}$, etc.
Then $S$ for the subspace of the electrons with momenta $k$
and $k+q_0$ reads
\begin{equation}
S/k_B=4\ln2-2\sum_i L^{(i)2} -\frac 13 \big(\sum_i L^{(i)4}
+6\sum_{i<j} L^{(i)2} L^{(j)2}
-24L^{(1)}L^{(2)}L^{(3)}L^{(4)}\big) +O(L^6). \label{SLeig}
\end{equation}
Thus we have expressed the entropy in terms of the eigenvalues
$\pm i L^{(i)}$ of the $8\times8$-matrix $(L_{a,b})$ of the
expectation values $L_{a,b}$.
We will express it now by the matrix-elements of $L$.
First we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_i L^{(i)2} &=& -\frac 12 {\rm tr} L^2 = -\sum_{a<b} L_{a,b}^2,
\\
\sum_i L^{(i)4} &=& \frac 12 {\rm tr} L^4 = \sum_{a<b} L_{a,b}^4
+ 2 \sum_{a,b<c} L_{a,b}^2 L_{a,c}^2
+ 4\hspace{-5mm} \sum_{a<b,a<c<d,b\not=c,b\not=d}
\hspace{-11mm}
L_{a,c}L_{a,d}L_{b,c}L_{b,d}, \\
\hspace{-2mm} \sum_i L^{(i)4} + 2\sum_{i<j} L^{(i)2} L^{(j)2}
&=& \frac 14 ({\rm tr} L^2)^2
= \sum_{a<b} L_{a,b}^4 + 2\sum_{a,b<c} L_{a,b}^2 L_{a,c}^2
+2\hspace{-3mm} \sum_{a<b,a<c<d,b\not=c,b\not=d} \hspace{-6mm}
L_{a,b}^2 L_{c,d}^2, \\
L^{(1)}L^{(2)}L^{(3)}L^{(4)} &=& {\rm pf}(L),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\rm pf}(L)$ is the Pfaffian of $L$.
In our case the indices $a$, $b$ of the elements $L_{a,b}$ are
numbered from 0 to 7.
Then the Pfaffian (which is defined only for antisymmetric
matrices) is the sum $\sum_{k=1}^7 (-)^{k-1} L_{0,k} P_k$,
where $P_k$ is the Pfaffian of the matrix obtained from the
matrix $L$ by deleting the rows and columns with index 0 (that
is the first one) and index $k$.
One continues recursively until the Pfaffian of a matrix with
no entry is left, which is defined to equal 1.
(If one starts with a matrix of odd dimension, then
finally one arrives at the Pfaffian of the $1\times1$ matrix
with entry 0, since it has to be antisymmetric.
This Pfaffian is defined to equal 0.
Therefore the Pfaffian of a matrix of odd dimensions vanishes.)
We mention that the determinant of an antisymmetric matrix
equals the square of its Pfaffian.
For $2\times2$ and $4\times4$ matrices the Pfaffians read
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm pf}\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & L_{a,b} \\ -L_{a,b} & 0
\end{array} \right) &=& L_{a,b} \\
p_{a,b,c,d}:= {\rm pf} \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & L_{a,b} & L_{a,c} & L_{a,d} \\
-L_{a,b} & 0 & L_{b,c} & L_{b,d} \\
-L_{a,c} & -L_{b,c} & 0 & L_{c,d} \\
-L_{a,d} & -L_{b,d} & -L_{c,d} & 0
\end{array}\right) &=& L_{a,b} L_{c,d} - L_{a,c} L_{b,d}
+ L_{a,d} L_{b,c}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we have
\begin{equation}
S/k_B=4\ln 2 + {\rm tr} L^2 -\frac 13\big(\frac 34 ({\rm tr} L^2)^2
-{\rm tr} L^4 -24 {\rm pf}(L) \big).
\end{equation}
(Note that ${\rm tr} L^2$ is negative).
Further algebraic manipulations yield
\begin{eqnarray}
-{\rm tr} L^4 &=& -\frac 12 ({\rm tr} L^2)^2
+ 4\sum_{a<b<c<d} p_{a,b,c,d}^2, \\
24{\rm pf}(L) &=& 4\sum_{a<b<c<d,\, e<f<g<h}
\epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h}
\,p_{a,b,c,d} \,p_{e,f,g,h}.
\end{eqnarray}
Putting all the contributions together we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
S/k_B &=& 4\ln2 + {\rm tr} L^2 -\frac 1{12} ({\rm tr} L^2)^2 \nonumber \\
&-&\frac 43 \sum_{0<a<b<c} \big( p_{0,a,b,c}
- \sum_{d<e<f<g} \epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e,f,g} \, p_{d,e,f,g}
\big)^2 + O(L^6).
\end{eqnarray}
This corresponds to the separation of (\ref{SLeig}) into
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-5mm}S/k_B &=& 4 \ln 2 -2 \sum_i L^{(i)2}
- \frac 13(\sum_i L^{(i)2})^2 \nonumber \\
&-&\frac 43 \big( (L^{(1)}L^{(2)}-L^{(3)}L^{(4)})^2
+ (L^{(1)}L^{(3)}-L^{(2)}L^{(4)})^2
+ (L^{(1)}L^{(4)}-L^{(2)}L^{(3)})^2 \big) +O(L^6).
\label{SLeig2}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the entropy consists of a completely rotational invariant
contribution depending only on ${\rm tr} L^2$ and a negative sum of
squares of $p_{0,a,b,c} \pm p_{d,e,f,g}$.
Note that the sum over $d,e,f,g$ contains exactly one term
$\pm p$.
Thus a maximum of the entropy is reached, when the arguments
of all the squares vanish.
Provided $L_{a,b}$ vanishes if $a$ or $b$ equals 6 or 7 as
assumed in the SO(5) theory, then out of the 35 squares 20
vanish identically, 10 have the form
$\epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e} n_c L_{d,e}$, which when required to
vanish are Zhang's orthogonality constraints, and 5 have the
form $\epsilon_{a,b,c,d,e}L_{b,c}L_{d,e}$.
One can easily see from (\ref{cn}), that if Zhang's
orthogonality constraints are fulfilled, then also these
latter quantities vanish.
Thus the orthogonality constraints are not a strict
requirements, but their fulfillment lowers the free energy.
We mention, that the vanishing of the squares in the second
line of (\ref{SLeig2}) implies two types of solutions, either
one $L^{(i)}$ can be different from zero and the other
$L^{(j)}$ vanish, or all $|L^{(i)}|$ are equal, and the
product of the four $L^{(i)}$ is positive.
At half-filling (no doping) one has $L_{1,5}=0$.
Then in the antiferromagnetic state, that is for non-vanishing
components $L_{2,0}$, $L_{3,0}$, and $L_{4,0}$, but otherwise
vanishing components $L$, only one eigenvalue $L^{(i)}$ is
different from zero.
As soon as one has some doping $L_{1,5}$ is different from 0.
If the system is still antiferromagnetic, then more than one
eigenvalue differs from zero.
On the other hand, if the modes associated with $n_6=L_{6,0}$
or $n_7=L_{7,0}$ are massive, as assumed, then it costs energy
to have all four eigenvalues $L^{(i)}$ different from zero.
Then it becomes preferable to have the superconductiong
components $n_1=L_{1,0}$ and $n_5=L_{5,0}$ different from zero
and to have vanishing antiferromagnetism, since then
again one has only one nonvanishing eigenvalue $L^{(i)}$.
\section{Limits for the ground state}
The entropy argument given in the preceeding section can be
applied in the vicinity of the critical temperature.
At low temperatures the contribution of the entropy to the
free energy decreases, since it enters with the factor $T$.
Therefore we consider separately the situation at low
temperatures.
\subsection{Antiferromagnet}
Let us start with a simple consideration for the
antiferromagnet.
Assume again two sublattices with magnetization ${\bf m}_1$ and
${\bf m}_2$.
Assume they are restricted by upper bounds $|{\bf m}_1|\le 1$,
$|{\bf m}_2|\le1$.
Suppose now the system has a homogeneous magnetization
${\bf m}_0$.
If now a staggered magnetization parallel to ${\bf m}_0$ is
added, then apparently $|{\bf m}_{q_0}|\le 1-|{\bf m}_0|$.
If however the staggered magnetization is perpendicular to the
homogeneous one, then one has the weaker restriction
$|{\bf m}_{q_0}|\le \sqrt{1-{\bf m}_0^2}$.
Thus the antiferromagnetic interaction can act more strongly,
if the staggered magnetization is perpendicular to the
homogeneous one.
Thus again ${\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf m}_{q_0}=0$ is fulfilled.
\subsection{Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov ground state}
We have seen, that at low temperatures the bounds on the
appropriate quantities (order-parameters) are important for
the ordering of the ground-state.
Therefore we will consider the bounds of the eigenvalues
$\pm i L^{(i)}$ of the matrix $L$.
If for a fixed matrix $\Omega$ in (\ref{HOmega}) one takes the
low temperature limit $\beta\rightarrow\infty$, then normally
a pure Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov state instead of a mixed state
remains.
Depending on the sign of $\epsilon_{s,g}$ the occupation
number $n_{s,g}$ assumes one of its extremal values 0 and 1
in the diagonal representation $H_{\rm trans}$ (\ref{Htrans})
\begin{equation}
n_{s,g} = \frac 12 -\frac 12 {\rm sign} \epsilon_{s,g}.
\end{equation}
{From} this we obtain the eigenvalues $L^{(i)}$
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{(1)} &=& \frac 12 \sum_{s,g} n_{s,g} - 1 \\
L^{(2)} &=& \frac 12 \sum_{s,g} s\, n_{s,g} \\
L^{(3)} &=& \frac 12 \sum_{s,g} g\, n_{s,g} \\
L^{(4)} &=& \frac 12 \sum_{s,g} sg\, n_{s,g}.
\end{eqnarray}
Putting now $n_{s,g}=0$ or 1 in all combinations one finds two
types of solutions for $L^{(i)}$.
In the first class one $L^{(i)}=\pm 1$ and the other
$L^{(j)}=0$, whereas in the second class one has
$L^{(i)}=\pm \frac 12$ for all $i$ with the restriction for
the signs, that the product of all $L^{(i)}$ is positive.
One easily realizes that in all these cases the squares in the
second line of eq. (\ref{SLeig2}) vanish.
As a consequence
the orthogonality constraints are fulfilled for these states.
The eigenvalues obtained for the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov
ground-state are the extremal ones.
For correlated states these eigenvalues can only be reduced.
More precisely, the range of the set of possible eigenvalues
$L^{(1)}$, ... $L^{(4)}$ lies in the convex volume bounded by
the extremes given above.
For an interaction quadratic in the operators
$L$ the energy assumes extremal eigenvalues for extremal
eigenvalues $L$ in the case of symmetry breaking.
Without symmetry breaking the eigenvalues
would vanish.
We have argued before in favour of only one non-vanishing
eigenvalue $L^{(i)}$.
Reduced to SO(5) this would be $\lambda_1$, whereas
the second largest (vanishing one) is $\lambda_2$ of the
representation $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$.
These correspond to the representations ($\lambda_1$,0)
actually found in the numerical calculations
\cite{tJ,tJ-Hubbard}.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that the orthogonality constraints introduced by
Zhang in his SO(5)-theory of high$T_c$-superconductivity play
an important role in the mechanism for the transition from
antiferromagnetism to superconductivity as a function of
doping.
We have further shown that these constraints are
not strictly fulfilled, but that their fulfillment yields a
maximum of the entropy (for fixed $\sum L_{a,b}^2$).
At low temperatures the entropy plays a weaker role.
However, if the interaction drives the ground-state to the
case of extremal eigenvalues $L^{(i)}$, which may be very well
the case for an interaction bilinear in the operators $L$,
then again the orthogonality constraints are fulfilled.
We have expanded our scheme to a (mathematically natural)
SO(8)-scheme.
In this scheme two types of solutions for maximal entropy or
extremal eigenvalues appear.
Since the added degrees of freedom are probably massive,
only those solutions, for which one eigenvalue is different
from zero and the other ones vanish yield the minimum in the
free energy.
These considerations did not take the microscopic interaction
seriously into account.
Work in this direction has to be done.
{\bf Acknowledgment} I am indebted to Andreas Mielke and
J\"urgen Stein for useful comments.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Operators in an SO(8) space}
\subsection{Bilinear operators}
All the operators in the SO(5) theory are of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
N^+_{q,f,\gamma}&=&\frac 12 \sum_{k,s,t} f(k)
c^{\dagger}_{k+q,s} (\gamma \sigma^y)_{s,t} c^{\dagger}_{-k,t}, \\
N^0_{q,f,\gamma}&=&\frac 12 \sum_{k,s,t} f(k) \gamma_{s,t}
(c^{\dagger}_{k+q,s} c_{k,t} - \frac 12\delta_{q,0}\delta_{s,t}), \\
N^-_{q,f,\gamma}&=&\frac 12 \sum_{k,s,t} f(k)
c_{k+q,s} (\sigma^y \gamma)_{s,t} c_{-k,t}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the summation $k$ runs over the Brillouin zone.
The vector $q$ can either be 0 or $q_0$, where $2q_0$ is a
reciprocal lattice vector. The staggered magnetization is
described by the wave-vector $q_0$ as above.
The function $f(k)$ stands either for 1 or $g(k)$ with
$g(k)=g(-k)=-g(k+q_0)=\pm 1$.
Finally $\gamma$ is a hermitean two by two matrix. It may be
either the unit matrix or one of the Pauli matrices.
First we consider the symmetry of $N^+$. If we exchange the
two $c^{\dagger}$-operators, then we obtain
\begin{equation}
N^+_{q,f,\gamma} = N^+_{q,f(.+q),\sigma^y\gamma^T\sigma^y}.
\end{equation}
One has
\begin{equation}
f(.+q)=s_{q,f}f \mbox{ with }
s_{q,f}=\left\{ \begin{array}{c} 1 \mbox{ for } q=0
\mbox{ or } f=1, \\
-1 \mbox{ for } q=q_0 \mbox{ and } f=g. \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sigma^y\gamma^T\sigma^y = s_{\gamma} \gamma
\mbox{ with } s_{\gamma} = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} +1
\mbox{ for } \gamma=1 \\
-1 \mbox{ for Pauli matrices } \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
{From} this we conclude that only the six operators
$N^+_{0,1,1}$, $N^+_{0,g,1}$, $N^+_{q_0,1,1}$,
$N^+_{q_0,g,\sigma_\alpha}$ with $s_{q,f}s_{\gamma}=1$
are different from zero. The same holds for $N^-$.
The hermitean adjoint operators are
\begin{eqnarray}
(N^-_{q,f,\gamma})^{\dagger} &=& s_{q,f} N^+_{q,f,\gamma^{\dagger}}, \\
(N^0_{q,f,\gamma})^{\dagger} &=& s_{q,f} N^0_{q,f,\gamma^{\dagger}}.
\end{eqnarray}
We obtain for the commutators
\begin{eqnarray}
{[}N^+_{q,f,\gamma},N^+_{q',f',\gamma'}]&=&0, \\
{[}N^-_{q,f,\gamma},N^-_{q',f',\gamma'}]&=&0, \\
{[}N^-_{q,f,\gamma},N^+_{q',f',\gamma'}]
&=&-2N^0_{q'-q,ff'(.-q),\gamma\gamma'}, \\
{[}N^-_{q,f,\gamma},N^0_{q',f',\gamma'}]
&=&N^-_{q-q',f(.-q')f',\gamma\gamma'}, \\
{[}N^0_{q,f,\gamma},N^+_{q',f',\gamma'}]
&=&N^+_{q+q',f(.+q')f',\gamma\gamma'}, \\
{[}N^0_{q,f,\gamma},N^0_{q',f',\gamma'}]
&=&\frac 12(N^0_{q+q',f(.+q')f',\gamma\gamma'}
-N^0_{q+q',ff'(.+q),\gamma'\gamma}).
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Zhang's Operators}
The operators introduced by Zhang, which obey the commutator
relations (\ref{comm}) of an SO-group were
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{5,1}=&Q&=N^0_{0,1,1}, \\
L_{1+\alpha,1}=\frac 12 (\pi^{\dagger}_{\alpha}+\pi_{\alpha}), &&
\pi^{\dagger}_{\alpha}=N^+_{q_0,g,\sigma^{\alpha}}, \\
L_{5,1+\alpha}=\frac {-i}2 (\pi^{\dagger}_{\alpha}-\pi_{\alpha}), &&
\pi_{\alpha}=-N^-_{q_0,g,\sigma^{\alpha}}, \\
L_{1+\alpha,1+\beta}
=\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}S_{0,\gamma}, &&
S_{0,\gamma}=N^0_{0,1,\sigma^{\gamma}}, \\
n_1=L_{1,0}=\frac 12(\Delta^{\dagger}+\Delta), &&
\Delta^{\dagger}=iN^+_{0,g,1},\\
n_5=L_{5,0}=\frac i2(\Delta^{\dagger}-\Delta), &&
\Delta=-iN^-_{0,g,1},\\
n_{1+\alpha}=L_{1+\alpha,0}&=&S_{q_0,\alpha}
=N^0_{q_0,1,\sigma^{\alpha}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have added $n_a=L_{a,0}$ to the group, since they obey
the same commutator relations.
\subsection{Extension to operators obeying an SO(8) group}
Obviously one can expand the range of operators $L_{a,b}$ by
including the other operators $N$ introduced above so that any
pairs of particles, of holes or particle-hole pairs with total
momentum 0 or $q_0$ in the singlet and triplet channel appear.
This allows us to introduce components $L_{a,b}$ with $a,b=6$
or 7.
This expansion does not imply, that the symmetry group for the
phase transition will be enlarged.
Actually one expects that the new components of the
'order-parameter' stay massive at the transition and will not
contribute directly to the symmetry-breaking.
It is wellknown \cite{Lieb, Yang} that there are additional
operators adding or removing two electrons, $\eta^{\dagger}$ and
$\eta$, which commute with the Hubbard Hamiltonian, which
allows us by means of the commutator relations (\ref{comm})
to introduce
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{1,6}=\frac i2(\eta-\eta^{\dagger}), && \eta^{\dagger}=N^+_{q_0,1,1} \\
L_{5,6}=\frac 12(\eta^{\dagger}+\eta), && \eta=N^-_{q_0,1,1}, \\
L_{1+\alpha,6}&=&-N^0_{0,g,\sigma^{\alpha}}, \\
n_6=L_{6,0}&=&iN^0_{q_0,g,1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally there are 7 more operators left, which fulfill the
appropriate
commutator relations with
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{1,7}=\frac 12(\tilde{\eta}^{\dagger}+\tilde{\eta}), &&
\tilde{\eta}^{\dagger}=N^+_{0,1,1}, \\
L_{5,7}=\frac i2(\tilde{\eta}^{\dagger}-\tilde{\eta}), &&
\tilde{\eta}=N^-_{0,1,1}, \\
L_{1+\alpha,7} &=& iN^0_{q_0,g,\sigma^{\alpha}}, \\
L_{6,7} &=& -N^0_{q_0,1,1}, \\
n_7=L_{7,0} &=& -N^0_{0,g,1}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{\@startsection{section}{1}{\z@}{-3.25ex
plus -1ex minus -.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\normalfont\bfseries}}
\def\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}{-3.25ex
plus -1ex minus -.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\normalfont\itshape}}
\@addtoreset{equation}{section}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
\def\ps@mathphys{\addtolength{\headheight}{5pt}
\addtolength{\topmargin}{-15pt}
\addtolength{\headsep}{15pt}
\def\@oddhead{\hfil\begin{tabular}{r}
{\tt math-ph/9904009} \\ CPT-99/P.3809
\end{tabular}}
\let\@evenhead\@oddhead
\def\@oddfoot{\hfil\thepage\hfil}\let\@evenfoot\@oddfoot}
\makeatother
\font\twelvebb=msbm10 scaled 1200
\newfam\bbfam
\textfont\bbfam=\twelvebb
\def\fam\bbfam{\fam\bbfam}
\begin{document}
\thispagestyle{mathphys}
\begin{center}
{\baselineskip 20pt
{\large\bf On the Connes--Moscovici Hopf algebra associated to
the diffeomorphisms of a manifold}
\vskip 3ex
{\sc Raimar Wulkenhaar}
}
\vskip 1ex
{\it Centre de Physique Th\'eorique\\
CNRS-Luminy, Case 907\\
13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France}
\end{center}
\vskip 3ex
\begin{abstract}
For our own education, we reconstruct the Hopf algebra of Connes and
Moscovici obtained by the action of vector fields on a crossed product
of functions by diffeomorphisms. We extend the realization of that
Hopf algebra in terms of rooted trees as given by Connes and Kreimer
from dimension one to arbitrary dimension of the manifold. In
principle there is no modification, but in higher dimension one has to
be careful with the order of cuts. The order problem leads us to
speculate that in quantum field theory the sum of Feynman graphs which
corresponds to an element of the Connes--Moscovici Hopf algebra could
have a larger symmetry than the individual graphs.
\\[1ex]
\tabcolsep 0pt
\begin{tabular}{lll}
1991 MSC:~~{} & 16W30~{} & Coalgebras, bialgebras, Hopf algebras \\
& 57R25 & Vector fields, frame fields \\
& 57R50 & Diffeomorphisms \\
& 81T15 & Perturbative methods of renormalization
\end{tabular}
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
Recently two useful Hopf algebras were discovered -- by Alain Connes
and Henri Moscovici in noncommutative geometry \cite{cm2} and by Dirk
Kreimer in quantum field theory \cite{k1}. Connes and Kreimer showed
that both Hopf algebras are intimately related \cite{ck}, via the
language of rooted trees. Recently it was pointed out \cite{b} that
the same algebra of rooted trees appears in numerical analysis. We
refer to \cite{ck2} for a review of all these ideas.
For a physicist, the Hopf algebra ${\cal H}_K$ of Kreimer \cite{k1} is
not difficult to understand. The idea is to look at the divergence
structure of Feynman graphs. There is a natural splitting of a Feynman
graph $\gamma$ with non-overlapping subdivergences into two, given by
a product of selected subdivergences $\gamma_1\cdots \gamma_n$ and the
graph $\gamma\setminus(\gamma_1\cdots \gamma_n)$ left over from
$\gamma$ by shrinking all $\gamma_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$, to a point. This
is a standard operation in renormalization theory. Summing over all
possibilities gives a coproduct operation on the algebra of
polynomials in Feynman graphs. The unique antipode reproduces
precisely the combinatorics of renormalization, i.e.\ it produces the
local counterterms to make the integral corresponding to the divergent
Feynman graph finite.
The aim of this note is to review in some detail the construction of
the Hopf algebra found by Connes and Moscovici, in order to ease its
access for physicists interested in the Hopf algebra ${\cal H}_K$ of
renormalization. The construction requires only some basic knowledge
of classical differential geometry, which can be found in many books
on this topic, for instance in \cite{cd}. More precisely, one needs
the vertical and horizontal vector fields $Y$ and $X$ on the frame
bundle over an oriented manifold and their transformation behavior
under diffeomorphisms, as well as some familiarity with the
push-forward and pull-back operations. These requisites are derived in
section \ref{general}. New is the application of these vector fields
to the crossed product, see section \ref{cross}, which defines the
coproduct of $X,Y$ and leads to an additional operator $\delta$ on the
crossed product. The operators $X,Y,\delta$ generate a Lie algebra.
Its enveloping algebra ${\cal H}$ is a bialgebra with the coproduct
obtained before, and there exists an antipode making it to a Hopf
algebra, see section \ref{Lie}.
The final section is devoted to the transformation of the commutative
Hopf subalgebra ${\cal H}_{CM}$ of ${\cal H}$ into the language of
rooted trees so that we can compare it with ${\cal H}_K$. We
generalize the rooted trees given in \cite{ck} from dimension 1 to
arbitrary dimension of the manifold. This generalization is quite
obvious, but it has several consequences which are not visible in
dimension 1. An element of ${\cal H}_{CM}$ is a sum of decorated
planar rooted trees. The root is decorated by three spacetime indices
necessary to describe parallel transport whereas the other vertices
are decorated by a single spacetime index. This is closer to quantum
field theory, where the decoration is given by primitive Feynman
graphs without subdivergences. Interestingly, elements of ${\cal
H}_{CM}$ are invariant under permutations of the decorations, whereas
the individual trees representing Feynman graphs are not. This raises
the question whether the sum of Feynman graphs which corresponds to an
element of ${\cal H}_{CM}$ has a meaning in QFT.
\section{The geometry of the frame bundle}
\label{general}
In this section we are going to derive in some detail the following
well-known results on the principal fibre bundle $F^+$ of oriented
frames on an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$:
\begin{Proposition}
Let $\{x^\mu\}_{\mu=1\dots,n}$ be the coordinates of $x\in M$ within a
local chart of $M$ and $\{y^\mu_i\}_{\mu,i = 1,\dots n}$ be the
coordinates of $n$ linearly independent vectors of the tangent space
$T_xM$ with respect to the basis $\partial_\mu$. On $F^+$ there exist
the following geometrical objects, written in terms of the
local coordinates $(x^\mu,y^\mu_i)$ of $p \in F^+$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] an ${\fam\bbfam R}^n$-valued (soldering) $1$-form $\alpha$ with
$\alpha^i = (y^{-1})^i_\mu d x^\mu~,$
\item[(2)] a $gl(n)$-valued (connection) $1$-form $\omega$ with
$\omega^i_j = (y^{-1})^i_\mu ( d y^\mu_j + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\,
y^\alpha_j dx^\beta)$, where $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}$ depends only
on $x^\nu~,$
\item[(3)] $n^2$ vertical vector fields $Y^i_j = y^\mu_j \partial^i_\mu~,$
\item[(4)] $n$ horizontal (with respect to $\omega$) vector fields
$X_i = y^\mu_i ( \partial_\mu -
\Gamma^\nu_{\alpha\mu} y^\alpha_j \partial^j_\nu)~.$
\end{itemize}
A local diffeomorphism $\psi$ of $M$ has a lift $\tilde{\psi}:
(x^\mu,y^\mu_i) \mapsto (\psi(x)^\mu,\partial_\nu \psi(x)^\mu
y^\nu_i)$ to the frame bundle and induces the following
transformations of the previous geometrical objects:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $(\tilde{\psi}^* \alpha)\big|_p = \alpha\big|_p~.$
\item[(2)] $(\tilde{\psi}^* \omega)\big|_p = (y^{-1})^i_\mu
( d y^\mu_j + \tilde{\Gamma}^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\, y^\alpha_j dx^\beta)$ is
again a connection form, with
\\[0.5ex]
$\tilde{\Gamma}^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\big|_x
= ((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\mu_\gamma \,
\Gamma^\gamma_{\delta\epsilon}\big|_{\psi(x)} \,
\partial_\alpha\psi(x)^\delta
\partial_\beta \psi(x)^\epsilon + ((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\mu_\gamma \,
\partial_\beta \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\gamma ~,$
\item[(3)] $(\tilde{\psi}_* Y^j_i)\big|_p = Y^j_i\big|_p~,$
\item[(4)] $(\tilde{\psi}^{-1}_* X_i)\big|_p = y^\mu_i
( \partial_\mu - \tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu} y^\alpha_j
\partial^j_\nu)$ is horizontal to $\tilde{\psi}^* \omega~.$
\end{itemize}
\label{prpgen}
\end{Proposition}
The reader familiar with these notations can pass immediately to section
\ref{cross} on page~\pageref{cross}.
\subsection{Frame bundle}
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional smooth and oriented manifold. We are
going to consider the frame bundle $F^+$ over $M$ defined as
follows. Let $T_xM$ be the tangent space at a given point $x \in
M$. It is an $n$-dimensional vector space containing the tangent
vectors at $x$ of curves in $M$ through $x$. A base in $T_xM$ is given
by the $n$ tangent vectors $\partial_\mu:=\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^\mu}$ of the coordinate lines in $M$. If $x$ has
(in a given chart of its neighbourhood) the coordinates
$\{x^\mu\} \equiv(x^1,\dots,x^n)$, we compute the tangent vector to a
curve $C (t) = \{x^\mu(t)\}$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi(C(t))}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}
=\frac{d x^\mu}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} \; \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}
\phi \Big|_x~,
\end{equation}
where $\phi:M \to {\fam\bbfam R}$ (or ${\fam\bbfam C}$) is an arbitrary function on
$M$. According to Einstein's sum convention summation over pairs of
identical upper and lower indices is self-understood.
An arbitrary vector $Y_j \in T_xM$ can be decomposed with respect to
that basis, $Y_j = y^\mu_j \partial_\mu$. A frame at $x$ is now a set of $n$
linearly independent vectors $Y_j \in T_xM$, $j=1,\dots,n$,
parameterized by their coordinates $y^\mu_j$, where both $\mu$ and $j$
run from $1$ to $n$. Linear independence is equivalent to $\det y \neq
0$, and oriented frames have the same sign of $\det y$.
The (oriented) frame bundle $F^+$ is now given by the base space $M$
with the set of smooth (positively oriented) frames attached to
each point $x \in M$. A point in $F^+$ is thus (locally) given by the
collection
\[
(x,\{Y_j\})=(x^\mu, y_j^\mu)_{\mu,j=1,\dots,n}~, \qquad \det y > 0~,
\]
where $x^\mu$ are the coordinates of $x$ and the $y^\mu_j \in Gl^+(n)$
parameterize an oriented frame $\{Y_j\}_{j=1,\dots,n}$ at $x$. Here,
$Gl^+(n)$ is the group of $n \times n$ matrices with positive
determinant.
In the overlap of two charts $U_1,U_2$, a point $x \in U_1 \cap U_2
\subset M$ will have coordinates $x^\mu$ in $U_1$ and
$x^\nu{}'$ in $U_2$. The tangent vector $Y_i$ at a curve in $U_1 \cap
U_2$ through $x$ is given
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mbox{in $U_1$ by}\quad{} &
Y_i &= \frac{df(x^\mu(t))}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} = \frac{dx^\mu(t)}{dt}
\Big|_{t=0} \; \partial_\mu f~,
\\
\mbox{in $U_2$ by}\quad{} &
Y_i &= \frac{df(x^\nu{}'(x^\mu(t)))}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}
= \frac{dx^\mu(t)}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} \;
\frac{\partial x^\nu{}'}{\partial x^\mu} \;\partial_\nu' f~,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $f$ is an arbitrary function on $F^+$. Hence, the coordinates
$(x^\mu,y^\mu_j) \in U_1 \times Gl^+(n)$ and $(x^\nu{}',y^\nu_j{}')
\in U_2 \times Gl^+(n)$ label the same point in $F^+$ iff
$x^\mu,x^\nu{}'$ are the coordinates in $U_1,U_2$ of $x \in U_1 \cap
U_2$ and $y^\nu_j{}' = (\partial x^\nu{}'/\partial x^\mu) y^\mu_j$.
There is a natural action of $Gl^+(n)$ on a frame $\{Y_j\}$ at $x$: The
matrix $g^i_j \in Gl^+(n)$ maps the vector $Y_i \in T_xM$ into the new
vector $Y_i g^i_j=:Y'_j \in T_xM$, or~-- in coordinates~-- $y^\mu_i$
into $y^\mu_i g^i_j$. This $Gl^+(n)$-action extends naturally to the
frame bundle, making $F^+$ to a $Gl^+(n)$-principal fibre bundle:
\begin{equation}
g:\,(x^\mu,y^\mu_i) \mapsto (x^\mu,y^\mu_i g^i_j)~.
\label{right}
\end{equation}
The above action can be regarded as generated by a vector field
according to the following construction. Let $gl(n)$ be the Lie
algebra of $Gl^+(n)$. The exponential mapping assigns to $A \in gl(n)$
a curve $\exp(tA)$ in $Gl^+(n)$, which by (\ref{right}) induces a
field of curves through every point of $F^+$. This field of curves
provides us with a field of tangent vectors
\[
\frac{df(x^\mu,y^\mu_i [\exp (tA)]^i_j}{dt} \Big|_{t=0}
= \frac{\partial f}{\partial (y^\mu_k \delta^k_j)} \;
\frac{d (y^\mu_i [\exp (tA)]^i_j)}{dt} \Big|_{t=0}
= A^i_j y^\mu_i \frac{\partial}{\partial y^\mu_j} f ~,
\]
where $f$ is a function on $F^+$. Hence, each such vector field
associated to $A \in gl(n)$ is generated by the following (vertical)
vector fields
\begin{equation}
Y_i^j = y^\mu_i \frac{\partial}{\partial y^\mu_j} \equiv y^\mu_i
\partial^j_\mu~.
\label{Y}
\end{equation}
The vector field $A^\# = A^i_j Y^j_i$ associated to $A \in gl(n)$ is
called the fundamental vector field corresponding to $A$.
A somewhat tricky construction provides us with an ${\fam\bbfam R}^n$-valued
$1$-form $\alpha$ on $F^+$, sometimes called soldering form or
canonical $1$-form. A point $p =(x,\{y^\mu_j\}) \in F^+$ assigns to a
vector $\tilde{V} \in T_xM$ a vector $\Phi_p(\tilde{V}) \in {\fam\bbfam R}^n$
by decomposing $\tilde{V}$ with respect to the basis $Y_j=y^\mu_j
\partial_\mu$. Thus, $[\Phi_p(\tilde{V})]^j Y_j = \tilde{V}$. Now, the
${\fam\bbfam R}^n$-valued $1$-form $\alpha$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\alpha(V) \big|_p = \Phi_p (\pi_* V)~, \qquad V \in T_p F^+~.
\label{defalpha}
\end{equation}
By $\big|_p$ we denote the value of a differential form or a vector
field at the point $p \in F^+$. In (\ref{defalpha}), $\pi_*$ is the
differential of the vertical projection $\pi(x,\{y^\mu_j\}) = x$ which
projects the vector $V=V^\mu \partial_\mu + V^\mu_j \partial^j_\mu \in
T_p F^+$ into the vector $\pi_* V =V^\mu \partial_\mu \in
T_{\pi(p)}M$. In this notation we have $\pi_* V = V^\nu (y^{-1})^j_\nu
Y_j$, using the obvious definition $y^\mu_i(y^{-1})^i_\nu =
\delta^\mu_\nu$. This gives $[\Phi_p (\pi_* V)]^j = V^\nu
(y^{-1})^j_\nu$. On the other hand, decomposing $\alpha^i=\alpha^i_\mu
dx^\mu + \alpha^{ik}_\mu dy^\mu_k$ and using the definition
\[
dy^\mu_i(\partial^j_\nu) = \delta^j_i \delta^\mu_\nu~,\quad
dx^\mu(\partial_\nu) = \delta^\mu_\nu~,\quad
dy^\mu_i(\partial_\nu)=0~,\quad
dx^\mu(\partial^j_\nu) =0
\]
of the pairing between covectors and vectors, we have
$\alpha^j(V) = \alpha^j_\mu V^\mu + \alpha^{ji}_\mu V^\mu_i$, giving
\begin{equation}
\alpha^j = (y^{-1})^j_\mu \,dx^\mu~.
\label{alpha}
\end{equation}
The definition (\ref{defalpha}), although involving local coordinates
in the construction, is independent of the choice of charts. Indeed,
if $p \in F^+$ has the coordinates $(x^\mu,y^\mu_j)$ and $(x^\nu{}',
y^\nu_j{}')$ in two charts $U_1 \times Gl^+(n)$ and $U_2 \times
Gl^+(n)$ of $F^+$, with $y^\nu_j{}'=(\partial x^\nu{}'/\partial
x^\mu) y^\mu_j$, then $\pi_* V = V^\mu \partial_\mu \in T_{\pi(p)}
U_1$ and $\pi_* V = V^\nu{}' \partial_{\nu'} \in T_{\pi(p)}
U_2$, with $ V^\nu{}' = (\partial x^\nu{}'/\partial x^\mu)
V^\mu$. This means that $V^\mu (y^{-1})^j_\mu
= V^\nu{}' (y^{-1})^j_{\nu'} \in {\fam\bbfam R}$ give the same value for
$[\Phi_p (\pi_* V)]^j$.
\subsection{Connection}
A connection is the splitting of the tangent space $T_pF^+$ at $p \in
F^+$ into a direct sum of a vertical space $V_pF^+$ (generated by
$Y^i_j=y^\mu_j \partial^i_\mu$) and a horizontal space $H_pF^+$ such
that $H_{pg}F^+=R_{g*} H_pF^+$. In the last equation, $pg \in F^+$ is
the point obtained by the action (\ref{right}) of $g \in Gl^+(n)$ and
$R_{g*}$ is the induced push-forward of a vector in $T_pF^+$ to a
vector in $T_{pg}F^+$. If $V \in T_pF^+$ is the tangent vector of a
curve $p(t)$ in $F^+$ through $p$, then the push-forward $R_{g*}V$ is the
tangent vector of the curve $p(t)g$ through $pg$. Explicitly,
let $f$ be a function on $F^+$ and $V=V_j^\mu \partial^j_\mu+ V^\mu
\partial_\mu \in T_pF^+$ be tangent to the curve
$C=(x^\mu(t),y^\mu_j(t))$ at $p$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
Vf=(df(p)/dt)=\big((dx^\mu/dt)\partial_\mu
+ (dy^\mu_j/dt)\partial^j_\mu\big)f~.
\label{Vf}
\end{equation}
Then, the push-forward is given by
\begin{equation}
(R_{g*}V)f = \frac{df(p(t)\,g)}{dt} = \frac{dx^\mu(t)}{dt}\partial_\mu f
+ \frac{d (y^\mu_j(t)\, g^j_i)}{dt}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial \hat{y}^\mu_i}~,\qquad
\hat{y}^\mu_i := y^\mu_k g^k_i~.
\label{RV}
\end{equation}
Thus, we obtain
\begin{equation}
R_{g*}V= V_j^\mu g^j_i \,\widehat{\partial^i_\mu} + V^\mu \partial_\mu~,
\qquad \widehat{\partial^i_\mu} := \partial /\partial \hat{y}^\mu_i~.
\label{RgV}
\end{equation}
In practice the connection is most conveniently characterized by the
connection form $\omega$, a $gl(n)$-valued differential $1$-form with
the following properties: For a given matrix $A \in gl(n)$ let $A^\#=
A^i_j Y^j_i$ be the corresponding fundamental vector field. Then
$\omega$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\omega(A^\#) = A ~,\qquad
\omega\big|_{pg}(R_{g*} V) = g^{-1} \Big(\omega\big|_p(V) \Big)g~,
\label{omega}
\end{equation}
for $V \in T_pF^+$ and $g \in Gl^+(n)$. At the point
$p=(x^\mu,y^\mu_i)$, the components $\omega^i_j$ of the connection
form will have the decomposition
\[
\omega^i_j = W^{ik}_{j \mu} dy^\mu_k + W^{i}_{j\mu} dx^\mu ~,
\]
for certain functions $W$. From (\ref{Y}) we get immediately
\[
A^i_j \equiv \omega^i_j(A^\#) = W^{ik}_{j\mu} y^\mu_l A^l_k~,
\]
which gives $W^{ik}_{j\mu} = \delta^k_j (y^{-1})^i_\mu$. This
suggests the following ansatz
\begin{equation}
\omega^i_j = (y^{-1})^i_\mu ( d y^\mu_j + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha} y^\nu_j
d x^\alpha)~,
\label{om}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}$ is a so far undetermined function of
$x$ and $y$. Using (\ref{RgV}) we write down
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega^i_j\big|_{pg}(R_{g*}V)
&=& (g^{-1})_k^i(y^{-1})^k_\mu \big( d \hat{y}^\mu_j
+ \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}\big|_{pg}\, y^\nu_k g^k_j
d x^\alpha\big) \big( V_m^\nu g^m_l \widehat{\partial_\nu^l}
+ V^\mu \partial_\mu \big)
\\
&=& (g^{-1})_k^i(y^{-1})^k_\mu V_m^\mu g^m_j
+ (g^{-1})_k^i(y^{-1})^k_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}\big|_{pg} \,
V^\alpha y^\nu_k g^k_j ~.
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[g^{-1}\big(\omega\big|_{p}(V)\big)g\big]^i_j =
(g^{-1})_k^i(y^{-1})^k_\mu V_m^\mu g^m_j
+ (g^{-1})_k^i(y^{-1})^k_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}\big|_p \,
V^\alpha y^\nu_k g^k_j ~.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, the condition (\ref{omega}) tells us that
$\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}\big|_p=\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}\big|_{pg}$,
{\em which means that $\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha}$ depends only on the
base point $x$.}
Now, the horizontal vector fields $X_i$ associated to the connection
are defined as the kernel of $\omega$ and the dual of $\alpha$,
\begin{equation}
\omega^i_j (X_k)=0~,\qquad \alpha^j(X_i)=\delta^j_i~.
\end{equation}
These equations are easy to solve:
\begin{equation}
X_i = y^\mu_i (\partial_\mu
- \Gamma^\nu_{\alpha\mu} y^\alpha_j \partial^j_\nu)~.
\label{X}
\end{equation}
The torsion form $\Theta$ on $F^+$ is an ${\fam\bbfam R}^n$-valued
differential $2$-form defined as the covariant derivative of $\alpha$,
\begin{equation}
\Theta^i = d \alpha^i + \omega^i_j \wedge \alpha^j~.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{alpha}) and (\ref{om}) we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Theta^i &=& - (y^{-1})^i_\nu (y^{-1})^j_\mu \,d y^\nu_j \wedge dx^\mu
+ (y^{-1})^i_\mu ( d y^\mu_j + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha} y^\nu_j
d x^\alpha) \wedge (y^{-1})^j_\beta dx^\beta \\
&=& (y^{-1})^i_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha} d x^\alpha \wedge dx^\nu ~.
\end{eqnarray*}
The torsion vanishes iff the connection coefficients are symmetric,
$\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\alpha} =\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\nu}$.
\subsection{Diffeomorphisms}
Let $\psi$ be a local (orientation preserving) diffeomorphism of
$M$. By push-forward it maps a frame $\{Y_j\}$ at $x \in M$ into the
frame $\{\psi_* Y_j\}$ at $\psi(x) \in M$. If $Y$ is the tangent
vector at $x$ of a curve $C=\{x^\mu(t)\}$ through $x$, then $\psi_*
Y$ is the tangent vector at $\psi(x)$ of the curve
$\psi(C)=\{\psi(x(t))^\nu\}$. We evaluate both vectors on a function
$\phi$ on $M$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y \phi &=& \frac{d}{dt} \phi(x^\mu(t)) \Big|_{t=0}
= \frac{\partial \phi(x^\mu)}{\partial x^\mu} \:
\frac{dx^\mu(t)}{dt} \Big|_{t=0}
= (dx^\mu(t)/dt)\big|_{t=0} \:\partial_\mu \phi~,
\\
(\psi_* Y) \phi &=& \frac{d}{dt} \phi (\psi(x(t))^\nu) \Big|_{t=0}
= \frac{\partial \phi(\tilde{x}^\nu)}{\partial \tilde{x}^\mu} \:
\frac{\partial \psi(x)^\mu}{\partial x^\nu} \:
\frac{dx^\nu(t)}{dt} \Big|_{t=0} \\
&=& \partial_\nu \psi(x)^\mu\:
(dx^\nu(t)/dt)\big|_{t=0} \: \widetilde{\partial_\mu} \phi~,
\end{eqnarray*}
with $\tilde{x}^\mu = \psi(x)^\mu$ and $\widetilde{\partial_\mu}
=\partial/\partial \tilde{x}^\mu$. Recall that $\partial_\mu$ and
$\widetilde{\partial_\mu}$ are the bases of vector fields in $T_xM$
and $T_{\psi(x)}M$, respectively. Hence, if $y^\mu_j$ are the
coordinates of $Y_j \in T_xM$, then $\psi_* Y_j \in T_{\psi(x)}M$ has
the coordinates $\partial_\nu \psi(x)^\mu \, y^\nu_j$, with respect to
these bases. To summarize, the action $\tilde{\psi}$ on $F^+$ of a
diffeomorphism $\psi$ of $M$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\psi}: (\{x^\mu\}, \{y^\mu_i\}) \mapsto
(\{\tilde{x}^\mu := \psi(x)^\mu\}, \{\tilde{y}^\mu_i
:= \partial_\nu \psi(x)^\mu \, y^\nu_i\}) ~.
\label{psi}
\end{equation}
Note that the (right) action (\ref{right}) of
$Gl^+(n)$ on $F^+$ and the (left) action (\ref{psi}) on $F^+$ of a
diffeomorphism of $M$ commute with each other.
We consider now the effect of a diffeomorphism $\psi$ of $M$ on the
horizontal vector fields $X_i$. We use the following
\begin{Lemma}
The pull-back $\tilde{\psi}^* \omega$ of the connection form via the
action (\ref{psi}) of the induced diffeomorphism $\tilde{\psi}$ of
$F^+$ is again a connection form.
\end{Lemma}
{\it Proof.} We start from (\ref{Vf}) and compute
\begin{eqnarray}
(\tilde{\psi}_* V) f &=& \frac{d}{dt} f\Big(\tilde{x}^\mu(x^\nu(t)),
\tilde{y}^\mu_i(y^\nu_j(t),x^\nu(t))\Big)
\nonumber
\\
&=& \frac{\partial f}{\partial \tilde{x}^\mu}
\frac{\partial \psi(x)^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha} \frac{dx^\alpha}{dt}
+ \frac{\partial f}{\partial \tilde{y}^\mu_i} \Big(
\frac{\partial^2 \psi(x)^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha \partial x^\beta}
y_i^\beta \frac{dx^\alpha}{dt}
+ \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu \frac{d y^\alpha_i}{dt} \Big)
\nonumber
\\
&=& \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha \widetilde{\partial_\mu} f
+ \big( \partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \psi(x)^\mu y_i^\beta V^\alpha
+ \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha_i \big)
\widetilde{\partial^i_\mu} f~,
\label{psiV}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{\partial^i_\mu}= \frac{\partial}{\partial
\tilde{y}^\mu_i}$. For $V=A^\#$ we have $V^\mu=0$
and $V^\mu_i=A^j_i y^\mu_j$, see (\ref{Y}). This means
\begin{equation}
\big(\tilde{\psi}_* A^\# \big)\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}=
A^j_i \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu y^\alpha_j
\widetilde{\partial^i_\mu} =
A^j_i \widetilde{y^\alpha_j} \widetilde{\partial^i_\mu} = A^\#
\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}~.
\label{Ainv}
\end{equation}
{\it The fundamental vector field $A^\#$ is invariant under
diffeomorphisms.} This gives
\[
(\tilde{\psi}^*\omega)(A^\#)\big|_p=\omega(\tilde{\psi}_*A^\#)
\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} =\omega(A^\#) \big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} = A~.
\]
The second identity to prove is
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(\tilde{\psi}^* \omega)\big|_{pg}(R_{g*}V)\big|_{pg} =
g^{-1} \Big((\tilde{\psi}^* \omega)(V)\big|_p \Big) g \quad
\\
&& \Rightarrow \quad
\omega \big|_{\tilde{\psi}(pg)} \big( \psi_* \big((R_{g*}V)\big|_{pg}
\big) \big|_{\tilde{\psi}(pg)} \big)
= g^{-1} \Big( \omega\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} (\tilde{\psi}_* V)
\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} \Big) g ~.
\end{eqnarray*}
According to (\ref{RV}) we replace $V^\mu_i$ by $V^\mu_j g^j_i$ and
$y^\mu_i$ by $y^\mu_j g^j_i$ and insert this into (\ref{psiV}):
\[
\tilde{\psi}_* \big(R_{g*}V \big)\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(pg)}
= \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha \widetilde{\partial_\mu}
+ \big( \partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \psi(x)^\mu y_j^\beta V^\alpha
+ \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha_j \big) g^j_i
\widetilde{\widehat{\partial^i_\mu}} ~,
\]
where $\widetilde{\widehat{\partial^i_\mu}}=
\partial/\partial \widetilde{\widehat{y^\mu_i}}$ and
$\widetilde{\widehat{y^\mu_i}}= \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu
y^\alpha_j g^j_i$. We must now evaluate
\[
\omega^a_b \big|_{\tilde{\psi}(pg)} = (g^{-1})^a_c (y^{-1})^c_\gamma
((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\gamma_\delta \Big( d
\widetilde{\widehat{y^\delta_b}}
+ \Gamma^\delta_{\epsilon\zeta}\big|_{\psi(x)} \,
\partial_\eta\psi(x)^\epsilon y^\eta_d g^d_b \, d \widetilde{x^\zeta}
\Big)
\]
on the above vector:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \omega^a_b \big|_{\tilde{\psi}(pg)}
\big(\tilde{\psi}_* \big(R_{g*}V \big)\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(pg)} \big)
\nonumber \\
&&= (g^{-1})^a_c \Big\{(y^{-1})^c_\gamma
((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\gamma_\delta \Big( \big(
\partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \psi(x)^\delta y_d^\beta V^\alpha
+ \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\delta V^\alpha_d \big)
\nonumber \\
&&{} \hspace*{5cm}
+ \Gamma^\delta_{\epsilon\zeta}\big|_{\psi(x)} \,
\partial_\eta\psi(x)^\epsilon y^\eta_d \, \partial_\nu \psi(x)^\zeta
V^\nu \Big) \Big\} g^d_b ~.
\label{qed}
\end{eqnarray}
Taking $g=e$ (identity matrix), it is obvious that the term in braces
$\{~\}$ equals $\omega^c_d (\tilde{\psi}_* V)
\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}$, which finishes the proof of the
Lemma. \hfill \qed
\vskip 2ex
We can now rewrite the term in braces in (\ref{qed}) in a slightly
different way:
{\arraycolsep 0pt
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \omega^c_d (\tilde{\psi}_* V)\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}
= \big(\tilde{\psi}^* \omega^c_d\big) (V) \big|_p
\\ &&= (y^{-1})^c_\gamma V^\gamma_d + (y^{-1})^c_\gamma
((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\gamma_\delta \Big(
\partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \psi(x)^\delta
+ \Gamma^\delta_{\epsilon\zeta}\big|_{\psi(x)} \,
\partial_\beta\psi(x)^\epsilon
\partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\zeta \Big) y_d^\beta V^\alpha
\\
&&= (y^{-1})^c_\gamma ( d y^\gamma_d +
\tilde{\Gamma}^\gamma_{\beta\alpha}\big|_x\, y^\beta_d
d x^\alpha)(V^\nu_k \partial^k_\nu + V^\nu \partial_\nu)~,
\end{eqnarray*}}%
where $\tilde{\Gamma}^\gamma_{\beta\alpha}$ are the connection
coefficients of the connection $\tilde{\psi}^* \omega$.
This provides us with the following transformation law for the
connection coefficients:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Gamma}^\gamma_{\beta\alpha}\big|_x =
((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\gamma_\delta \,
\Gamma^\delta_{\epsilon\zeta}\big|_{\psi(x)} \,
\partial_\beta\psi(x)^\epsilon
\partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\zeta + ((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\gamma_\delta \,
\partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \psi(x)^\delta ~.
\label{Gamma}
\end{equation}
Now there is an immediate question to ask: Which are the horizontal
vector fields $\tilde{X}_i$ to the new connection form
$\tilde{\psi}^* \omega$? We have
\[
0 = (\tilde{\psi}^* \omega)\big|_p (\tilde{X}_i \big|_p) =
\omega \big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} (\tilde{\psi}_* \tilde{X}_i)
\big|_{\psi(p)} ~,
\]
which tells us
\begin{equation}
\tilde{X}_i \big|_p = \tilde{\psi}^{-1}_*
\big(X_i\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} \big) = y^\mu_i (\partial_\mu
- \tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu} \big|_x\,y^\alpha_j \partial^j_\nu)~.
\label{tX}
\end{equation}
The action (\ref{psi}) preserves the ${\fam\bbfam R}^n$-valued $1$-form
$\alpha$ given in (\ref{defalpha}) and (\ref{alpha}). Indeed, for $V =
V^\mu \partial_\mu + V^\mu_i \partial^i_\mu \in T_pF^+$ we compute
using (\ref{psiV})
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\tilde{\psi}^* \alpha^j)\big|_p (V) &=&
\alpha\big|_{\tilde{\psi}(p)} (\tilde{\psi}_*V)
\\
&=& (\tilde{y}^{-1})^j_\mu d \tilde{x}^\mu \Big(
\partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha \widetilde{\partial_\mu}
+ \big( \partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \psi(x)^\mu y_i^\beta V^\alpha
+ \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha_i \big)
\widetilde{\partial^i_\mu} \Big)
\\
&=& (\tilde{y}^{-1})^j_\mu \partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\mu V^\alpha
= (y^{-1})^j_\alpha V^\alpha \equiv \alpha^j\big|_p (V)~.
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Crossed product}
\label{cross}
The properties listed in Proposition \ref{prpgen} and derived
throughout section \ref{general} are the basis for the construction of
the Hopf algebra of Connes and Moscovici \cite{cm2}. The idea is
to apply the vertical and horizontal vector fields $Y^j_i$ and $X_i$
to a crossed product ${\cal A}$ defined below and to derive their
coproduct from
\begin{equation}
X_i (ab) = \Delta(X_i)\,(a \otimes b)~,\qquad
Y^j_i (ab) = \Delta(Y^j_i)\,(a \otimes b)~,\qquad a,b \in {\cal A}~.
\label{gendelta}
\end{equation}
We refer to \cite{m} for an introduction to Hopf algebras and related
topics.
Let $\Gamma$ be the pseudogroup of local (orientation preserving)
diffeomorphisms of $M$. We consider the crossed product of the algebra
$C^\infty_c(F^+)$ of smooth functions with compact support on the
frame bundle $F^+$ by the action of $\Gamma$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} = C^\infty_c(F^+) \mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft} \Gamma~.
\end{equation}
As a set, ${\cal A}$ can be regarded as the tensor product of
$C^\infty_c(F^+)$ with $\Gamma$. It is generated by the monomials
\begin{equation}
f U^*_\psi~,\qquad f \in C^\infty_c({\rm Dom}(\tilde{\psi}))~,\quad
\psi \in \Gamma~,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\psi}$ is the diffeomorphism of $F^+$ induced by $\psi
\in \Gamma$ according to (\ref{psi}). As an algebra, the
multiplication rule in ${\cal A}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2} := f_1 (f_2 \circ \tilde{\psi}_1)
U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1} ~.
\label{prod}
\end{equation}
In this formula, the function $f_1 (f_2 \circ \tilde{\psi}_1) \in
C^\infty_c(D_{\psi_1,\psi_2})$, with $D_{\psi_1,\psi_2}:= {\rm
Dom}(\tilde{\psi}_1) \cap \tilde{\psi}_1^{-1}({\rm Dom}
(\tilde{\psi}_2)) \subset F^+$, maps $p \in D_{\psi_1,\psi_2}$ into
$f_1(p) \,f_2 (\tilde{\psi}_1(p)) \in {\fam\bbfam R}$ (or ${\fam\bbfam C})$. The
star on $U_\psi^*$ refers to the contravariant multiplication rule $
U^*_{\psi_1} U^*_{\psi_2} = U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1}$. Associativity of
${\cal A}$ follows -- for appropriate support of the functions -- from
\[
\big(f_1 (f_2 \circ \psi_1)\big) (f_3 \circ (\psi_2\psi_1))
= f_1 \big((f_2 (f_3 \circ \psi_2)) \circ \psi_1 \big)~.
\]
We consider now the action of the vertical and horizontal vector
fields $Y^j_i$ and $X_i$ described in section \ref{general} on the
algebra ${\cal A}$. That action is simply defined as the action of the
vector fields on the functions,
\begin{equation}
Y^j_i ( f U_\psi^*) = Y^j_i (f) U_\psi^*~,\qquad
X_i ( f U_\psi^*) = X_i (f) U_\psi^*~.
\end{equation}
The interesting effects we are looking for are obtained by application
of these vector fields to the product (\ref{prod}). For any vector
field $V$ on $F^+$ we compute
\begin{eqnarray}
V(f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p
&=& V(f_1 (f_2 \circ \tilde{\psi}_1)) U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1} \big|_p
\nonumber \\
&=& \{V(f_1) \big|_p\; (f_2 \circ \tilde{\psi}_1) \big|_p
+ f_1 \big|_p \; V (f_2 \circ \tilde{\psi}_1) \big|_p\}
U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1}\nonumber \\
&=& V(f_1) U^*_{\psi_1} \big|_p\; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}
+ f_1\big|_p \; ((\tilde{\psi}_{1*} V) f_2 )
\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1} \nonumber \\
&=& V(f_1) U^*_{\psi_1} \big|_p\; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}
+ f_1\big|_p \; U^*_{\psi_1} U^*_{\psi_1^{-1}}
((\tilde{\psi}_{1*} V) f_2) \big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)}
U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1} \nonumber \\
&=& V(f_1) U^*_{\psi_1} \big|_p\; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}
+ f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \;
((\tilde{\psi}_{1*} V) f_2 )\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1^{-1}
\circ \tilde{\psi}_1(p)} U^*_{\psi_2} \nonumber \\
&=& V(f_1 U^*_{\psi_1}) \big|_p\; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}
+ f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \; \big(\tilde{\psi}_{1*}
(V\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1^{-1}(p)}) \big) f_2 U^*_{\psi_2} \big|_p~.
\label{Vab}
\end{eqnarray}
In the third line we have used the definition of the push-forward. In
the fifth line we have commuted $U^*_{\psi_1^{-1}}$ with the function
$(\tilde{\psi}_{1*} V) f_2$, evaluated at $\tilde{\psi}_1(p)$.
According to (\ref{prod}), after taking $U^*_{\psi_1^{-1}}$ to the
right we must evaluate the function $(\tilde{\psi}_{1*} V) f_2$ at
$\tilde{\psi}_1^{-1}(\tilde{\psi}_1(p))=p$. This means that the
original field $V$ to push forward must be taken at
$\tilde{\psi}_1^{-1}(p)$.
Taking for $V$ the vertical vector fields $Y^j_i$ and recalling their
invariance under diffeomorphisms (\ref{Ainv}), we obtain immediately
\begin{equation}
Y^j_i(ab) = Y^j_i(a) \,b + a\, Y^j_i(b) ~,\qquad a,b \in {\cal A}~.
\label{Yab}
\end{equation}
The behavior of the horizontal vector fields $X_i$ is very different,
because they do not commute with the diffeomorphisms. Eq.\
(\ref{tX}) tells us that if $X_i$ is horizontal to $\omega$, then
$X_i^{(\psi_1)}:=\tilde{\psi}_{1*}(X_i\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1^{-1}(p)})$ is
horizontal to $(\tilde{\psi}^{-1}_1)^*\omega$. We denote the
connection coefficients of $(\tilde{\psi}^{-1}_1)^*\omega$ by
$\hat{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu}$. We observe from (\ref{X}) and
(\ref{Y}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
(X_i^{(\psi_1)} -X_i )\big|_p =
(\Gamma^\nu_{\alpha\mu}\big|_x -\hat{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu}\big|_x)
y^\mu_i y^\alpha_j \partial^j_\nu &=&
(\Gamma^\nu_{\alpha\mu}\big|_x -\hat{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu}\big|_x)
y^\mu_i y^\alpha_j (y^{-1})^k_\nu Y^j_k|_p \nonumber \\
&=:&
\hat{\gamma}^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_1)}_p Y^j_k\big|_p~.
\end{eqnarray}
This gives from (\ref{Vab}) for the horizontal fields $X_i$
\begin{eqnarray}
X_i(f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p
&=& X_i(f_1 U^*_{\psi_1}) \big|_p \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2} \big|_p +
f_1 U^*_{\psi_1}\big|_p \; X_i^{(\psi_1)} (f_2 U^*_{\psi_2})\big|_p
\nonumber \\
&=& X_i(f_1 U^*_{\psi_1}) \big|_p \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2} \big|_p +
f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \big|_p \; X_i (f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p
\nonumber \\
&& + f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \big|_p \; \hat{\gamma}^k_{ij}
\big|^{(\psi_1)}_p Y^j_k (f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p \nonumber
\\
&=& X_i(f_1 U^*_{\psi_1}) \big|_p \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2} \big|_p +
f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \big|_p \; X_i (f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p
\nonumber \\
&& + f_1 \big|_p \hat{\gamma}^k_{ij} \big|^{(\psi_1)}_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)}
U^*_{\psi_1} \; Y^j_k (f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p ~.
\label{Xab}
\end{eqnarray}
Our goal is to express $\hat{\gamma}^k_{ij}
\big|^{(\psi_1)}_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)}$ in terms of some function
evaluated at $p$. From (\ref{alpha}) and (\ref{om}) we conclude
\begin{equation}
\omega^k_j \big|_p - ((\tilde{\psi}^{-1})^*\omega^k_j) \big|_p
= \hat{\gamma}^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi)}_p\; \alpha^i\big|_p~.
\label{hatgamma}
\end{equation}
We take this identity at $\tilde{\psi}(p)$ and apply $\tilde{\psi}^*$,
which gives
\begin{equation}
(\tilde{\psi}^* \omega^k_j) \big|_p - \omega^k_j \big|_p
= \hat{\gamma}^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi)}_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}\;
(\tilde{\psi}^* \alpha^i) \big|_p
= \hat{\gamma}^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi)}_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}\;
\alpha^i \big|_p~,
\label{hgp}
\end{equation}
using the invariance of $\alpha^i$ under diffeomorphisms in the last
step. Replacing in (\ref{hgp}) $\psi$ by $\psi^{-1}$ and comparing with
(\ref{hatgamma}) we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{\gamma}^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi)}_{\tilde{\psi}(p)}
= - \hat{\gamma}^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi^{-1})}_p
=: \gamma^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi)}_p =
(\tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu}\big|_x -
\Gamma^\nu_{\alpha\mu}\big|_x) y^\alpha_j y^\mu_i (y^{-1})^k_\nu~,
\label{gamma}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu}$ and $\Gamma^\nu_{\alpha\mu}$
are the connection coefficients of the connections
$\tilde{\psi}^*\omega$ and $\omega$, respectively. Since
$\tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\alpha\mu}$ is defined by the diffeomorphism
$\psi$, we define an operator $\delta^k_{ji}$ on ${\cal A}$
by
\begin{equation}
\delta^k_{ji} (f U^*_\psi)\big|_{p} = \gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi)}_p\;
f U^*_\psi\big|_{p}
\label{deltaf}
\end{equation}
and get from (\ref{Xab}) and (\ref{gamma})
\begin{equation}
X_i(ab) = X_i(a)\,b + a\,X_i(b) + \delta^k_{ji}(a)\,Y^j_k(b)~,\qquad
a,b \in {\cal A}~.
\label{Xiab}
\end{equation}
Next, we compute
\begin{equation}
\delta^k_{ji} (f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p =
\delta^k_{ji}(f_1 (f_2 \circ \tilde{\psi}_1) U^*_{\psi_2\psi_1}) \big|_p
= \gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_2\psi_1)}_p \,
f_1\big|_p \,f_2\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} U^*_{\psi_2\psi_1}~.
\label{deltaab}
\end{equation}
Starting with (\ref{hgp}) and (\ref{gamma}) we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_2\psi_1)}_p \;\alpha^i \big|_p
&=& (\tilde{\psi}_2\tilde{\psi}_1)^*(\omega^k_j
\big|_{(\tilde{\psi}_2\tilde{\psi}_1)(p)}) - \omega^k_j\big|_p
\\
&=& \tilde{\psi}_1^* \Big(
\tilde{\psi}_2^* (\omega^k_j
\big|_{(\tilde{\psi}_2\tilde{\psi}_1)(p)})
-\omega^k_j \big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} \Big)
+ \Big( \tilde{\psi}_1^*
(\omega^k_j\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} ) - \omega^k_j \big|_p \Big)
\\
&=& \psi_1^* \Big(\gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_2)}_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)}
\alpha^i \big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} \Big)
+ \gamma^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi_1)}_p \alpha^i\big|_p
\\
&=& \Big( \gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_1)}_p
+ \gamma^k_{ji} \big|^{(\psi_2)}_{\tilde{\psi_1}(p)} \Big)
\alpha^i\big|_p~.
\end{eqnarray*}
We used again the invariance of $\alpha^i$ under diffeomorphisms in
the last line. We insert this result into (\ref{deltaab}) and get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta^k_{ji} (f_1 U^*_{\psi_1} \; f_2 U^*_{\psi_2}) \big|_p
&=& \gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_1)}_p f_1\big|_p \,
f_2\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1}
+ f_1\big|_p \, \gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_2)}_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)}\,
f_2\big|_{\tilde{\psi}_1(p)} U^*_{\psi_2 \psi_1}
\\
&=& \gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_1)}_p f_1\big|_p U^*_{\psi_1}\;
f_2\big|_p U^*_{\psi_2}
+ f_1\big|_p U^*_{\psi_1} \;\gamma^k_{ji}\big|^{(\psi_2)}_p
f_2\big|_p U^*_{\psi_2}~,
\end{eqnarray*}
which means
\begin{equation}
\delta^k_{ji}(ab) = \delta^k_{ji}(a)\,b + a\,\delta^k_{ji}(b)~.
\label{delta}
\end{equation}
The equations (\ref{Yab}), (\ref{Xiab}) and (\ref{delta}) endow the
operators $X_i,Y_k^j$ and $\delta^k_{ji}$ with the structure of a
coalgebra, with the coproduct (\ref{gendelta}) given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(Y^j_k) &=& Y^k_j \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes Y^j_k~, \nonumber
\\
\Delta(X_i) &=& X_i \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes X_i + \delta^k_{ji} \otimes
Y^j_k~, \label{Delta}
\\
\Delta(\delta^k_{ji}) &=& \delta^k_{ji} \otimes 1
+ 1 \otimes \delta^k_{ji}~, \nonumber
\\
\Delta(1) &=& 1 \otimes 1~, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $1$ being the identity on ${\cal A}$. It is easy to check that
$\Delta$ is coassociative on the linear space
${\fam\bbfam R}(1,X_i,Y_k^j,\delta^k_{ji})$,
\begin{equation}
(\Delta \otimes {\rm id}) \circ \Delta = ({\rm id} \otimes \Delta)
\circ \Delta~.
\label{coass}
\end{equation}
\section{From Lie algebra to Hopf algebra}
\label{Lie}
Vector fields form a Lie algebra, so it is natural to investigate
whether $X_i,Y_k^j,\delta^k_{ji}$ generate a Lie algebra. We compute
the mutual commutators, starting with $Y^i_j$:
\begin{eqnarray}
[Y^i_j,Y^k_l] (fU^*_\psi) &=& (y^\mu_j \partial^i_\mu
y^\nu_l \partial^k_\nu - y^\nu_l \partial^k_\nu y^\mu_j
\partial^i_\mu ) fU^*_\psi
\nonumber
\\
&=& (\delta^i_l Y^k_j - \delta^k_j Y^i_l) (fU^*_\psi)~,
\\{}
[Y^k_j,X_i] (fU^*_\psi) &=& \big( y^\mu_j \partial^k_\mu
(y^\nu_i \partial_\nu - \Gamma^\beta_{\alpha\nu} y^\nu_i y^\alpha_l
\partial^l_\beta)
-(y^\nu_i \partial_\nu - \Gamma^\beta_{\alpha\nu} y^\nu_i y^\alpha_l
\partial^l_\beta) y^\mu_j \partial^k_\mu\big) fU^*_\psi
\nonumber
\\
&=& \delta^k_i X_j (fU^*_\psi)~,
\\{}
[Y^i_j,\delta^k_{lm}] (fU^*_\psi) &=& \big( y^\mu_j \partial^i_\mu
(\tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\beta\alpha}{-} \Gamma^\nu_{\beta\alpha})
y^\beta_l y^\alpha_m (y^{-1})^k_\nu -
(\tilde{\Gamma}^\nu_{\beta\alpha}{-}\Gamma^\nu_{\beta\alpha})
y^\beta_l y^\alpha_m (y^{-1})^k_\nu y^\mu_j \partial^i_\mu \big)
fU^*_\psi \nonumber
\\
&=& (\delta^i_l \delta^k_{jm} + \delta^i_m \delta^k_{lj} -
\delta^k_j \delta^i_{lm}) ( fU^*_\psi)~.
\label{Ydel}
\end{eqnarray}
So far we have considered the most general connection on $M$, even
with torsion. But now, the commutator of horizontal vector fields
\begin{eqnarray}
[X_i,X_j] &=& R^k_{lij} Y^l_k + \Theta^k_{ij} X_k~, \\
R^k_{lij} &=& (y^{-1})^k_\sigma y^\rho_l y^\mu_i y^\nu_j \big(
\partial_\nu\Gamma^\sigma_{\rho\mu}-
\partial_\mu\Gamma^\sigma_{\rho\nu} + \Gamma^\beta_{\rho\mu}
\Gamma^\sigma_{\beta\nu} - \Gamma^\beta_{\rho\nu}
\Gamma^\sigma_{\beta\mu} \big)~, \nonumber \\
\Theta^k_{ij} &=& (y^{-1})^k_\rho y^\mu_i y^\nu_j \big(
\Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu} - \Gamma^\rho_{\nu\mu}\big)~, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
leads to curvature $R$ and torsion $\Theta$, i.e.\ not to structure
`constants'. Torsion can be avoided by the choice of the connection,
but we would be forced to include $R^k_{lij} Y^l_k$ and its repeated
commutators with $X_m$ in the list of generators of the Lie algebra we
are looking for. To avoid these terms we follow \cite{cm2} and
restrict ourselves to a {\it flat} manifold. Locally this is always
possible, and globally it is achieved via the {\it Morita
equivalence}. For a locally finite cover of the manifold $M$ by charts
$U_\alpha$, let $N=\coprod U_\alpha$ be the disjoint union of the
charts. Moreover, let $\Gamma'$ be the pseudogroup of local
diffeomorphisms of $N$. Without giving the proof we recall from
\cite{cm2} that the two algebras ${\cal A} = C^\infty_c(F^+(M)) \mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft}
\Gamma$ and ${\cal A}' = C^\infty_c(F^+(N)) \mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft} \Gamma'$ are Morita
equivalent. There is a canonical connection on $N$, the flat
connection given by $\Gamma^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}=0$. This means that
given $M$ we pass to $N$ and the corresponding crossed product ${\cal
A}'$ and derive there the coproduct and Lie algebra structure of
vector fields on $F^+(N)$ for the flat connection.
Thus, the horizontal vector fields take the simple form $X_i = y^\mu_i
\partial_\mu$, and they now commute with each other:
\begin{equation}
[X_i,X_j] (f U^*_\psi) = 0 ~.
\end{equation}
Due to (\ref{Gamma}), (\ref{gamma}) and (\ref{deltaf}), the action of
$\delta^k_{ji}$ on ${\cal A}$ simplifies in the case of a flat
manifold to
\begin{equation}
\delta^k_{ji} (f U^*_\psi) = ((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\nu_\beta\,
\partial_\mu\partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\beta \, y^\mu_j y^\alpha_i
(y^{-1})^k_\nu\, f U^*_\psi~.
\end{equation}
The (repeated) commutator with $X_l$ leads to new operators on ${\cal
A}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^k_{ji,l_1\dots l_n} (f U^*_\psi) &:=&
[X_{l_n},\dots ,[X_{l_1},\delta^k_{ji}]\dots] (f U^*_\psi)
\label{flat}
\\ \nonumber
&=& \partial_{\lambda_n} \dots \partial_{\lambda_1}
\Big(((\partial\psi(x))^{-1})^\nu_\beta\,
\partial_\mu\partial_\alpha \psi(x)^\beta \Big) y^\mu_j y^\alpha_i
(y^{-1})^k_\nu\, y^{\lambda_1}_{l_1} \cdots y^{\lambda_n}_{l_n} \;
f U^*_\psi~.
\end{eqnarray}
It is clear that all these operators $\delta$ commute with each other,
\begin{equation}
[\delta^k_{ji,l_1\dots l_n},\delta^c_{ba,d_1\dots d_n}](f U^*_\psi)
=0~.
\end{equation}
We see that the linear space generated by $X_i,Y^k_j,
\delta^k_{ji,l_1\dots l_n}$ forms a Lie algebra, and we let ${\cal H}$
be the corresponding enveloping algebra. This is the algebra of
polynomials in the generators of the Lie algebra, with the commutation
relations inherited from the Lie algebra. Thus a
(Poincar\'e-Birkhoff-Witt) basis in ${\cal H}$ is given by
\[
X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_\alpha} Y^{k_1}_{j_1} \cdots
Y^{k_\beta}_{j_\beta} \delta^{a_1}_{b_1 c_1} \cdots
\delta^{a_\gamma}_{b_\gamma c_\gamma} \delta^{d_1}_{e_1 f_1,h_1} \cdots
\delta^{d_\delta}_{e_\delta f_\delta,h_\delta} \cdots ~,
\]
with $i_1\leq i_2\leq \dots \leq i_n$ and so on for the other
indices. We extend the coproduct (\ref{Delta}) recursively to ${\cal
H}$ by the definition
\begin{equation}
\Delta (h^1 h^2) = \Delta (h^1) \, \Delta(h^2) := \sum h_1^1 h^1_2 \otimes
h_1^2 h^2_2 ~,\qquad \Delta(h_i) = \sum h^1_i \otimes h^2_i~,
\label{copro}
\end{equation}
for $h_1,h_2 \in {\cal H}$. The coproduct is automatically
coassociative (\ref{coass}) and by construction (\ref{copro})
compatible with the multiplication in ${\cal H}$.
For notational convenience we abbreviate $\delta^A=\delta^k_{ji}$ with
$A=1,\dots, n^2(n+1)/2$, due to symmetry in $i,j$. Moreover, we
introduce a string $a=a_1a_2\dots a_k$ for the repeated commutators
with $X_{a_1},\dots,X_{a_k}$ and denote its length by $|a|=k$. Next,
let ${\cal H}_n$ be the commutative algebra of polynomials in the
variables $1$ and $\delta^A_a$, with $0\leq |a| \leq n$. Let ${\cal
H}^0_n$ be the ideal of polynomials vanishing at $0$. We obtain a more
explicit formula of the coproduct in
\begin{Lemma}
$\Delta \delta^A_a = \delta^A_a \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes \delta^A_a +
R^A_a~, \qquad R^A_a \in {\cal H}^0_{n-1} \otimes {\cal H}^0_{n-1}
\quad \mbox{for} ~~ |a|=n~.$
\label{dex}
\end{Lemma}
{\it Proof.} The Lemma holds for $n=0$ with $R^A=0$. Assuming it holds
for $|a|=n$ we compute for $b:=ai$ (appending the index $i$ to the
string $a$), $|b|=n+1$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(\delta^A_b) &=& \Delta([X_i,\delta^A_a]) =
[ \Delta(X_i),\Delta(\delta^A_a)] \nonumber
\\
&=& [X_i \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes X_i + \delta^k_{ji} \otimes Y^j_k ,
\delta^A_a \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes \delta^A_a + R^A_a] \nonumber
\\
&=& \delta^A_b \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes \delta^A_b + R^A_b~,
\quad\mbox{with} \nonumber
\\[1ex]
R^A_{ai} &:=& [X_i \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes X_i + \delta^k_{ji} \otimes
Y^j_k, R^A_a] + \delta^k_{ji} \otimes [Y^j_k,\delta^A_a]~.
\label{R}
\end{eqnarray}
For $n=1$ we get $R^A_i = \delta^k_{ji} \otimes [Y^j_k,
\delta^A] \in {\cal H}^0_0 \otimes {\cal H}^0_0$. The Lemma follows
from the fact that the commutator with $Y^j_k$ preserves ${\cal
H}^0_m$ whereas the commutator with $X_i$ sends elements of ${\cal
H}^0_m$ to elements of ${\cal H}^0_{m+1}$. \qed
\vskip 2ex
\noindent
For example, we obtain from (\ref{Ydel}) immediately
\begin{equation}
\Delta(\delta^k_{ji,l})=\delta^k_{ji,l} \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes
\delta^k_{ji,l} + \delta^a_{jl} \otimes \delta^k_{ai}
+ \delta^a_{il} \otimes \delta^k_{ja}
- \delta^k_{al} \otimes \delta^a_{ji}~.
\label{d2}
\end{equation}
The counit $\epsilon$ on ${\cal H}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon(1)=1~,\qquad \varepsilon(h)=0\quad
\forall h\neq 1 ~.
\end{equation}
The counit axiom
\[
(\varepsilon \otimes {\rm id}) \circ \Delta(h) =
({\rm id} \otimes \varepsilon) \circ \Delta(h) = h\qquad \forall\,
h\in {\cal H}
\]
is clear for $h=X_i,Y^k_j,\delta^A$. For $\delta^A_a$ it follows from
Lemma \ref{dex}, using $\varepsilon (h^0)=0$ for $h^0 \in {\cal H}_n^0$.
Therefore, ${\cal H}$ is a bialgebra
(algebra+coalgebra+compatibility), and our next task is to show the
existence of an antipode $S$ on ${\cal H}$, making ${\cal H}$ to a
Hopf algebra. The antipode has to satisfy the axioms
\begin{eqnarray}
S(h_1 h_2) = S(h_2) S(h_1)~,
\nonumber \\
m \circ (S \otimes {\rm id}) \circ \Delta(h) = \varepsilon(h)~,
\label{Sax}
\\ \nonumber
m \circ ({\rm id} \otimes S) \circ \Delta(h) = \varepsilon(h)~,
\end{eqnarray}
for $h,h_1,h_2 \in {\cal H}$, and where $m$ denotes the
multiplication. Applying (\ref{Sax}) to $1,Y^j_k,\delta^k_{ji},X_i
\in {\cal H}$, in that order, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
S(1) &=& 1 ~, \nonumber \\
S(Y^j_k) &=& - Y^j_k~, \nonumber \\
S(\delta^k_{ji}) &=& - \delta^k_{ji}~, \\
S(X_i) &=& - X_i + \delta^k_{ji} Y^j_k~, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The antipode on $\delta^A_a$ is obtained from (\ref{Sax}) by recursion
in $|a|$, with the task to prove that the tree possible definitions
coincide. First, employing the Sweedler notation
$\Delta(R_a)=R_{a(1)} \otimes R_{a(2)}$ (and omitting the summation sign),
we have with (\ref{R})
\begin{eqnarray}
S(\delta^A_{ai}) &=& -\delta^A_{ai} - m \circ (S \otimes {\rm
id}) \circ \Delta(R^A_{ai}) \nonumber \\*
&=& -\delta^A_{ai} - S ([X_i,R^A_{a(1)}]) \,R^A_{a(2)}
- S (R^A_{a(1)}) \,[X_i, R^A_{a(2)}]
- S (\delta^k_{ji} R^A_{a(1)}) \,[Y^j_k, R^A_{a(2)}]
\nonumber \\*
&& {}\qquad - S(\delta^k_{ji}) [Y^j_k,\delta^A_a]
\nonumber \\
&=& -\delta^A_{ai} - [X_i-\delta^k_{ji} Y^j_k,S(R^A_{a(1)})] \,
R^A_{a(2)} - S (R^A_{a(1)}) \,[X_i, R^A_{a(2)}]
\nonumber \\
&& {}\qquad
+ \delta^k_{ji} S(R^A_{a(1)}) \,[Y^j_k, R^A_{a(2)}]
+ \delta^k_{ji} [Y^j_k,\delta^A_a]
\nonumber \\
&=& -\delta^A_{ai} + [-X_i + \delta^k_{ji} Y^j_k,
S (R^A_{a(1)}) R^A_{a(2)}] + \delta^k_{ji} [Y^j_k,\delta^A_a]
\nonumber \\
&=& [S(\delta^A_a),-X_i+\delta^k_{ji} Y^j_k]=[S(\delta^A_a),S(X_i)]~.
\end{eqnarray}
In the same way one checks $-\delta^A_{ai} - m \circ ({\rm id} \otimes
S) \circ \Delta (R^A_{ai}) = [S(\delta^A_a),S(X_i)]$. For example, one
easily obtains
\begin{equation}
S(\delta^k_{ji,l}) = - \delta^k_{ji,l}
+ \delta^a_{jl} \delta^k_{ai} + \delta^a_{il} \delta^k_{ja}
- \delta^k_{al} \delta^a_{ji}~.
\label{Sd2}
\end{equation}
This finishes our review of the construction of the Connes--Moscovici
Hopf algebra \cite{cm2}. In their work, the cyclic cohomology of
this Hopf algebra serves as an organizing principle for the
computation of the cocycles in the local index formula \cite{cm1}. We
hope to be more specific on that point in the future.
\section{Explicit solution: rooted trees}
Following an idea by Connes and Kreimer \cite{ck} we will now describe
the commutative Hopf algebra ${\cal H}_n$ of polynomials in
$\delta^A_a$, $|a| \leq n$, by graphical tools, generalized from the
one-dimensional case in \cite{ck} to arbitrary dimension of the
manifold $M$. In this way we obtain a Hopf algebra of rooted trees,
which is intimately related to a Hopf algebra structure in
perturbative quantum field theories as discovered by Kreimer
\cite{k1}. The antipode of Kreimer's Hopf algebra achieves the
renormalization of divergent Feynman graphs, see \cite{k1,k2}.
We label the generator $\delta^k_{ji}$ by an indexed dot,
\begin{equation}
\delta^k_{ji} = ~ \bullet~^k_{ji}~.
\end{equation}
The goal is to derive the symbol for $\delta^k_{ji,l}$. This goes via
the coproduct (\ref{d2}), which tells us after comparison with (\ref{R})
\begin{equation}
\bullet~^a_{bl} \otimes [Y^b_a, ~\bullet~^k_{ji}] =
{} ~\bullet~^a_{jl} \otimes \bullet~^k_{ai} ~
+ ~\bullet~^a_{il} \otimes \bullet~^k_{ja}~
- ~\bullet~^k_{bl} \otimes \bullet~^b_{ji} ~.
\label{b2}
\end{equation}
The commutator with $Y$ picks up one index of $~\bullet~^k_{ji}$ and
moves it to the first upper or lower place in $~\bullet~^a_{bl}~$,
overwriting the index there. The vacant position in $~\bullet~^k_{ji}$
is filled with the remaining summation index of
$~\bullet~^a_{bl}~$. If the index picked up was a lower (upper) one,
we count the resulting tensor product positive (negative). This leads
us to think of the rhs of (\ref{b2}) as being produced by a cut of a
symbol
\[
\delta^k_{ji,l} = \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}}
= \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ai}$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~^a_{jl}$}
\end{picture}}
+ \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ja}$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~^a_{il}$}
\end{picture}}
- \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^a_{ij}$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~^k_{al}$}
\end{picture}} ~.
\]
We call the uppermost index which is different from the lower index
the root. The graph above the cut connected with the root is called
the trunk and goes to the rhs of the tensor product. A graph below the
cut is called a cut branch and goes to the lhs of the tensor
product. We define the action of a cut as the movement of one index of
the vertex above the cut to the first position of the new root of the
cut branch. The remaining position to complete the root of the cut
branch is filled with a summation index and the same summation index
is put into the vacant position of the trunk. In the case of cutting
immediately below the root, we have to sum over the three
possibilities of picking up indices of the root, adding a minus sign
if we pick up the unique upper index. We thus get the following
graphical interpretation of (\ref{d2}):
\begin{equation}
\Delta \left( \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right)
= \left[ \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right]^c
+
\left[ \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right]_c + ~
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} ~.
\label{db2}
\end{equation}
On the rhs, $[\delta]^c$ stands for $\delta \otimes 1$ (cutting above
the entire tree) and $[\delta]_c$ for $1 \otimes \delta$ (cutting
below the entire tree).
The next step is to compute $\Delta(\delta^k_{ji,lm})$ by commuting
$\Delta(X_m)$ with (\ref{db2}). The term $[\delta^k_{ji,l}]^c$ has a
non-vanishing commutator only with $X_m \otimes 1$. It yields
$\delta^k_{ji,lm} \otimes 1$, and this trivial behavior continues to
higher degrees. Next, $X_m \otimes 1$ commutes with $[\delta]_c$, whereas
\begin{equation}
\left[ X_m \otimes 1 , \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right]
= \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(0,11){---}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}}
= \delta^a_{jl,m} \otimes \delta^k_{ai} +
\delta^a_{il,m} \otimes \delta^k_{ja} - \delta^k_{al,m} \otimes
\delta^a_{ji} ~.
\label{lm}
\end{equation}
Our previous definition of a cut extends without modification to that
case. The term $1 \otimes X_m$ commuted with $[\delta^k_{ji,l}]_c$
gives $[\delta^k_{ji,lm}]_c$, whereas
\begin{equation}
\left[ 1 \otimes X_m , \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right]
= \parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1.5,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} = \delta^a_{jl} \otimes \delta^k_{ai,m} +
\delta^a_{il} \otimes \delta^k_{ja,m} - \delta^k_{al} \otimes
\delta^a_{ji,m} ~.
\end{equation}
The cut on the tree in the middle only sees the indices $k,j,i$ -- but
not $m$ -- by the definition of a cut as affecting only the indices of
the unique vertex above the cut. With this rule we get easily the
corresponding expression in terms of $\delta$'s on the rhs. The
commutator of $\delta^c_{bm} \otimes Y^b_c$ with $[\delta^k_{ji,l}]_c$
moves the indices $k,j,i,l$ to their correct position in
$\delta^c_{bm}$, and this is precisely obtained as the sum of two
different cuts:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \delta^c_{bm} \otimes Y^b_c, \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right]
&=& \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}}
+
\parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} ~, \label{lm2}
\\[-2ex] \nonumber
\parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} &=& \delta^a_{jm} \otimes \delta^k_{ai,l} +
\delta^a_{im} \otimes \delta^k_{ja,l}
- \delta^k_{am} \otimes \delta^a_{ji,l}~,\quad
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} = \delta^a_{lm} \otimes \delta^k_{ji,a} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
There remains one final commutator to compute, that of
$\delta^c_{bm} \otimes Y^b_c$ with the graph in
(\ref{db2}) already cut. For each of the tree terms corresponding
to the previous cut, we have to move each of the tree indices of its
root down to $\delta^c_{bm}$. This gives the following symbolic
expression of these nine tensor products:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \delta^c_{bm} \otimes Y^b_c,
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,11)
\put(1,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,9){\line(0,-1){7}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} \right]
= \parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1.5,4){---}
\put(6,3){---}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}}
&=& \delta^a_{jl} \delta^b_{am} \otimes \delta^k_{bi} +
\delta^a_{jl} \delta^b_{im} \otimes \delta^k_{ab} -
\delta^a_{jl} \delta^k_{bm} \otimes \delta^b_{ai} \nonumber
\\[-1ex]
&+& \delta^a_{il} \delta^b_{jm} \otimes \delta^k_{ba}
+ \delta^a_{il} \delta^b_{am} \otimes \delta^k_{jb}
- \delta^a_{il} \delta^k_{bm} \otimes \delta^b_{ja} \nonumber
\\[0.5ex]
&-& \delta^k_{al} \delta^b_{jm} \otimes \delta^a_{bi}
- \delta^k_{al} \delta^b_{im} \otimes \delta^a_{jb}
+ \delta^k_{al} \delta^a_{bm} \otimes \delta^b_{ji} ~.\quad{}
\label{cut2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the order of the cuts in this graph is important, we first
have to cut the vertex $l$ away and then the vertex $m$.
Our construction leads us to define
\begin{equation}
\delta^k_{ji,lm} = \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} +
\parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} ~.
\end{equation}
\begin{Definition}
Let $\delta^A_a = \sum_{k=1}^{|a|!} t^{|a|}_k$ be recursively
represented by a sum of $|a|!$ connected rooted trees, each of
them having $|a|{+}1$ vertices. We define
\begin{equation}
\delta^A_{ai} \equiv [X_i,\delta^A_a] = \sum_{k=1}^{|a|!}
\sum_{j=1}^{|a|+1} t^{|a|}_{k_j} =: \sum_{\ell=1}^{|ai|!}
t^{|ai|}_{\ell}~,
\label{tkj}
\end{equation}
where the rooted tree $t^{|a|}_{k_j}$ is obtained by attaching the new
vertex $i$ to the right of the $j^{\rm th}$ vertex of $t^{|a|}_k$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Proposition}
The coproduct of $\delta^A_a = \sum_{k=1}^{|a|!} t^{|a|}_k$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta (\delta^A_a)= \delta^A_a \otimes 1+1 \otimes \delta^A_a +
\sum_{k=1}^{|a|!} \sum_{{\cal C}} P^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k) \otimes
R^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k)~,
\label{PR}
\end{equation}
where for each $t^{|a|}_k$ the sum is over all admissible cuts ${\cal
C}$ of $t^{|a|}_k$ (i.e.\ those non-empty multiple cuts for which on
each path from the bottom to the root there is at most one individual
cut). In eq.\ (\ref{PR}), $R^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k)$ is the trunk and
$P^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k)$ the product of cut branches obtained by
cutting $t^{|a|}_k$ via the multiple cut ${\cal C}$. If immediately
below a vertex there are several cuts on outgoing edges, the order of
the cuts is from left to right.
\end{Proposition}
{\it Proof.} Commuting $\Delta(X_i)$ with $\Delta(\delta^A_a)$ to get
$\Delta(\delta^A_{ai})$, the term $\delta^A_a \otimes 1$ develops into
$\delta^A_{ai} \otimes 1$. Next, $X_i \otimes 1$ attaches successively
a vertex $i$ to each vertex of the cut branches $P^{\cal
C}(t^{|a|}_k)$, and $1 \otimes X_i$ does the same for the trunk
$R^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k)$ of each tree $t^{|a|}_k$ constituting
$\delta^A_a$. Finally $\delta \otimes Y$ attaches a cut-away vertex
everywhere on the trunk, not on the cut branch. This excludes multiple
cuts on paths from bottom to top. The result clearly reproduces our
prescription of the coproduct of $\delta^A_{ai}$, see (\ref{tkj}). \qed
\vskip 2ex
We make one important observation. Although the operators $\delta$ are
invariant under permutation of the indices after the comma, for
instance $\delta^k_{ji,lm}=\delta^k_{ji,ml}$, see (\ref{flat}), this
symmetry is lost on the level of individual trees, see for instance
(\ref{lm}). However, these terms combined with the `diagonal' terms of
(\ref{lm2}) are symmetric in $l$ and $m$.
We recall that in Kreimer's Hopf algebra of renormalization
\cite{k1,k2} a rooted tree represents the divergence structure of a
Feynman graph. A divergent sector in such a graph is represented
by a vertex. The root represents the overall (superficial)
divergence. The construction rule for the tree is -- in absence of
overlapping subdivergences -- to put subdivergences $\gamma_i$ of a
divergence $\gamma$ into down-going branches of $\gamma$. Disjoint
divergences are only indirectly connected via the divergence which
contains them as subdivergences. Overlapping divergences have to be
resolved in terms of disjoint and nested ones and give a sum of trees,
see \cite{kw,k4}.
The $n$-dimensional case treated here is closer to quantum field
theory than dimension $1$ because we obtain \emph{decorated} trees --
the decoration here being given by spacetime indices (three for the
root) whereas in QFT it is a label for divergent Feynman graphs
without subdivergences. In this sense, a (not super-) renormalizable
QFT has something to do with diffeomorphisms on an infinite
dimensional manifold. Our observation leads us to speculate that {\it
the sum of Feynman graphs according to the collection of rooted trees
to $\delta$'s has more symmetry than the individual Feynman graphs.}
This should be checked in QFT calculations. Another interpretation
would be the observation
\begin{equation}
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} +
\parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} -
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_m$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} -
\parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\end{picture}} =0 ~,
\label{rel}
\end{equation}
which could possibly be regarded as a relation between Feynman
graphs similar to those derived in \cite{k3}\footnote{Dirk Kreimer
confirmed to me that (\ref{rel}) is satisfied in QFT for the leading
divergences, as it can be derived from sec.\ V.C in \cite{kd}. For
non-leading singularities there will be (probably systematic)
modifications.}.
\begin{Proposition}
The antipode $S$ of $\delta^A_a=\sum_{k=1}^{|a|!}
t^{|a|}_k$ is given by
\begin{equation}
S(\delta^A_a) = - \delta^A_a - \sum_{k=1}^{|a|!} \sum_{{\cal C}_a}
(-1)^{|{\cal C}_a|}\; P^{{\cal C}_a}(t^{|a|}_k)\,R^{{\cal C}_a}(t^{|a|}_k)~,
\label{Sprp}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over the set of all non-empty multiple cuts ${\cal
C}_a$ of $t^{|a|}_k$ (multiple cuts on paths from bottom to the root
are allowed) consisting of $|{\cal C}_a|$ individual cuts. The order
of cuts is from top to bottom and from left to right.
\end{Proposition}
{\it Proof.} We apply the antipode axiom $m \circ(S \otimes {\rm id})
\circ \Delta = 0$, see (\ref{Sax}), to (\ref{PR}), giving with
$S(1)=1$ the recursion
\[
S(\delta^A_a) = - \delta^A_a - \sum_{k=1}^{|a|!} \sum_{\cal C}
\Big( \prod_{j=1}^{|{\cal C}|} S( t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j}) \Big)\,
R^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k)~, \qquad
P^{\cal C}(t^{|a|}_k)= \prod_{j=1}^{|{\cal C}|} t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j}~,
\]
where $|{\cal C}|$ is the number of individual cuts in ${\cal
C}$. For each $\{{\cal C},j\}$ we have
\begin{equation}
S( t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j})= - t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j} - \sum_{{\cal
C}_j} S(P^{{\cal C}_j}(t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j}))
R^{{\cal C}_j}(t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j})~,
\label{Cj}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over the set of admissible cuts ${\cal C}_j$ of
$t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j}$. In the first level, the product
$\prod_{j=1}^{|{\cal C}|} (- t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j})$ gives precisely
$(-1)^{|{\cal C}|}\; P^{{\cal C}}(t^{|a|}_k)\,R^{{\cal C}}(t^{|a|}_k)$
in (\ref{Sprp}). In the next level, each ${\cal C}_j$ in (\ref{Cj})
leads to a double cut on a path from some bottom vertex in
$t^{|a|,{\cal C}}_{k,j}$ to the root of $t^{|a|}_k$, and all double
cuts on paths from bottom to root of $t^{|a|}_k$ are obtained
(precisely once) in this way. The second cut is below the first one so
that the order of cuts is from top to bottom (and from left to right
anyway). By recursion one gets all possible cuts ${\cal C}_a$ of
$t^{|a|}_k$ contributing with the sign $(-1)^{|{\cal C}_a|}$ to the
antipode. \qed
\vskip 1ex
For $\delta^k_{ji,lm}$, the prescription (\ref{Sprp}) leads to the
following antipode:
\begin{eqnarray*}
S(\delta^k_{ji,lm}) &=& -
\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} -
\parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} \quad \longrightarrow \quad - \delta^k_{ji,lm}
\\
&+& \parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
+ \delta^a_{lm} \delta^k_{ji,a}
\\
&+&\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(0,11){---}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}}\quad \longrightarrow \quad
+ \delta^a_{jl,m} \delta^k_{ai}
+ \delta^a_{il,m} \delta^k_{ja}
- \delta^k_{al,m} \delta^a_{ji}
\\
&-&\parbox{8mm}{\begin{picture}(6,18)
\put(1,15){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(2,16){\line(0,-1){14}}
\put(0,11){---}
\put(0,4){---}
\put(1,8){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}}\quad \longrightarrow \quad
\begin{array}[t]{l} - \delta^b_{jm} \delta^a_{bl} \delta^k_{ai}
- \delta^b_{lm} \delta^a_{jb} \delta^k_{ai}
+ \delta^a_{bm} \delta^b_{jl} \delta^k_{ai} \\
- \delta^b_{im} \delta^a_{bl} \delta^k_{ja}
- \delta^b_{lm} \delta^a_{ib} \delta^k_{ja}
+ \delta^a_{bm} \delta^b_{il} \delta^k_{ja} \\
+ \delta^b_{am} \delta^k_{bl} \delta^a_{ji}
+ \delta^b_{lm} \delta^k_{ab} \delta^a_{ji}
- \delta^k_{bm} \delta^b_{al} \delta^a_{ji}\end{array}
\\
&+& \parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1.5,4){---}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
+ \delta^a_{jl} \delta^k_{ai,m}
+ \delta^a_{il} \delta^k_{ja,m}
- \delta^k_{al} \delta^a_{ji,m}
\\
&+& \parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(5.5,4){---}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
+ \delta^a_{jm} \delta^k_{ai,l}
+ \delta^a_{im} \delta^k_{ja,l}
- \delta^k_{am} \delta^a_{ji,l}
\\
&-& \parbox{14mm}{\begin{picture}(14,11)
\put(4.5,8){$\bullet~^k_{ji}$}
\put(5.5,9){\line(-1,-2){3.5}}
\put(5.5,9){\line(1,-2){3.5}}
\put(1,1){$\bullet~_l$}
\put(1.5,4){---}
\put(6,3){---}
\put(8,1){$\bullet~_m$}
\end{picture}} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
\begin{array}[t]{l} - \delta^a_{jl} \delta^b_{am} \delta^k_{bi}
- \delta^a_{jl} \delta^b_{im} \delta^k_{ab}
+ \delta^a_{jl} \delta^k_{bm} \delta^b_{ai}
\\
- \delta^a_{il} \delta^b_{jm} \delta^k_{ba}
- \delta^a_{il} \delta^b_{am} \delta^k_{jb}
+ \delta^a_{il} \delta^k_{bm} \delta^b_{ja}
\\[0.5ex]
+ \delta^k_{al} \delta^b_{jm} \delta^a_{bi}
+ \delta^k_{al} \delta^b_{im} \delta^a_{jb}
- \delta^k_{al} \delta^a_{bm} \delta^b_{ji} \end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
One checks, using (\ref{Sd2}) and (\ref{lm})--(\ref{cut2}), the
antipode axioms (\ref{Sax}).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
First of all I would like to thank Alain Connes for his help on a
point were I was stuck. I profited very much from seminar notes by
Daniel Testard especially on the passage to the flat case. I hope to
include this in a future version. It is a pleasure to thank Bruno
Iochum, Thomas Krajewski, Serge Lazzarini, Thomas Sch\"ucker and
Daniel Testard for encouragement and numerous discussions. I am
grateful to Dirk Kreimer for a comment on eq.\ (\ref{rel}).
|
Subsets and Splits